Everyone,

Another change you haven't heard much about is the abbreviation of the campaign and election period. There is insufficient time this year to thoroughly examine candidates' qualifications and beliefs. I am announcing my candidacy now to make up for this, and also in hopes that like-minded members may be encouraged to run.

My candidacy will be controversial because I am preaching revolution. It is possible that not one current Board member agrees with my position on any of the issues I will introduce today to get the ball rolling. Furthermore, I lack "traditional" tact, and have little difficulty talking about elephants in the living room (even if they may be in my own). I will attack some sacred cows and offend quite a few influential people, so discussion is likely to be contentious and extended.

In the campaign statement that follows this post I make brief introductory statements about some major problems in the PDGA administration -- "at the top" so to speak. In the next few weeks I will expand on each of these, and offer solutions when I can. Tomorrow I will comment in detail on the elephant in my living room, which is my resignation in 2008. Sometime before the voting period I will post a detailed personal conflict of interest disclosure statement. As always, I invite relevant comments and/or questions.

The Bylaws Stunner, and a Disclaimer: If you do not believe that the Board was wrong to appropriate (without your approval) your right to elect all Board members, don't vote for me. I would not represent you well. And if no other at-large candidate shares my attitude on this matter, or if you will not vote for ones who do, don't vote for me. If I have no support at Board level the other members would quickly vote me off for "disloyalty" or "heresy" and appoint my replacement, so you would be wasting your vote.

Priorities: Tournament directors are, BY FAR, the most important resource for almost all PDGA members. TD's are more important, by far, than Open pros. TD's are more important, even, than the PDGA itself. And I'm not just talking about the "big time" TD's. More than six times as many PDGA members enter B and C-Tier events than NT and A-Tier events.

Communication: The Board, to put it mildly, communicates poorly with us. This is clearly deliberate. The Board doesn't want us to know what is going on, and is not interested in our opinion. We don't hear from Board members before important decisions, and that style is so ingrained that they may even forget to tell us afterward (the no-smoking ordinance). For-profit corporations may operate this way, but it is not appropriate for us.

Conflict of Interest: I believe that Board members and officers should not conceal their potential conflicts of interest from us. As the statutes do not compel them to disclose, their behavior is not illegal, and all Board members have at least posted their compliance agreements. But Brian Graham and other key officers have not, and this is noteworthy. The Executive Director, and all other officers, are subject to the same COI requirements as the Board. But they are not even willing to tell us that they are in compliance.

Cronyism: Some PDGA decisions enable a privileged elite to make a great deal of money. When choice is suppressed or removed, decision reverts to appointment, and cronyism may dominate the process. This is how BEI came to be the PDGA's online signup partner, and it is perhaps also how Ciphent came to be our website administrator. It will, ultimately, dominate the "selection" of appointed Board members. Cronyism is not illegal, and a "crony" to one person may be a "trusted friend" to another. Still, it can easily lead to poor decisions. And in combination with nondisclosure of COI, it is deadly.

I resigned from the Board in 2008, a year before my term was up. The Board appointed my replacement.

I had absurdly high ethical standards. I believed that Board members should not be sponsored, made a campaign promise to resign my Innova sponsorship, and did so. Later I saw how silly that was, and wanted to resume it. Since that would mean reneging on the campaign promise, I felt that the proper course was to explain my position to the membership and poll them for agreement. The Board refused to allow me to do this. I had to choose between hypocrisy and resignation. I chose resignation.

I was also naive. I gave about six months notice, giving the Board plenty of time to allow the membership to vote for my replacement during the normal election period. I was shocked when I realized that they would rather appoint Board members, and fought as hard as I could to prevent it. I lost.

I am no longer so high-minded. The membership elected Board members with multiple sponsorships and other potential conflicts of interest, and few members protested when they voted to keep their COI information under wraps. I won't resign my sponsorship to run, or to serve, but I do believe that full disclosure is important, and I will fully disclose my potential COI's.

I am also no longer so naive.

Ciphent (now Accuvant) has been working almost three years on the installation and administration of our website. If I remember the original contract correctly, we have paid them hundreds of thousands of dollars over that period. But the website, as we all know, is a mess. It is often intolerably slow, both on entry and on navigation within the site. It kicks us out for no reason. It is festooned with ads that have spread malware and which are programmed to perform an amazing variety of obnoxious behaviors. The PDGA (not Ciphent) controls website content, so our administration could fix the ad problem. But they do nothing. If anything, it gets worse.

The website contract was not put out for a bid. IT Committee members Theo Pozzy and David Gentry recommended Ciphent in the early summer of 2008, and the Board went along. What has become of these guys? Neither has, to my knowledge, ever had anything to say about what went wrong. Pozzy, in an interview in September 2008 (http://www.1000rated.com/2008/09/new-pdga-web-site/), spoke glowingly about Ciphent and the website's bright future. In 2010 he ran for the Board and lost narrowly. This year, of course, he could get on the Board without even running for it. Gentry's star has actually risen considerably. The administration recently created a new IT staff position, and appointed him to it. There was no open search, of the sort done to find Gentry's replacement as Tour Manager.

This strikes me as absurd. Brian Graham must have recommended Gentry. But why? Surely not a reward for finding Ciphent. Cronyism is a better explanation. What I really don't understand is why the Board would go along with it.

Solution: The first step must be to identify the problems. Neither Pozzy nor Gentry seems likely to admit that there are any, let alone identify them. So we need to hire an independent party to do this. Many of the members who have posted about website problems are obviously knowledgeable in this area, and could suggest capable consultants.

Secondly, we mustn't throw good money after bad. We should put this contract back in the competitive marketplace by issuing an RFP (which is what we should have done in the first place).

In the meantime, if Gentry knows anything about IT he knows exactly what needs to be done to fix the ad problems. If his new position gives him the power to do it on his own, he should do it. If not, he should let the Board know what needs to be done, and they can instruct him accordingly.

Good luck Peter.
I also would like to see more communication from the BOD to the members.
For example, even though the PDGA mission statement talks about transparency I have been unable to find out who the BOD has appointed to the search/nominating committee for appointing the new BOD members.

I resigned from the Board in 2008, a year before my term was up. The Board appointed my replacement.

I had absurdly high ethical standards. I believed that Board members should not be sponsored, made a campaign promise to resign my Innova sponsorship, and did so. Later I saw how silly that was, and wanted to resume it. Since that would mean reneging on the campaign promise, I felt that the proper course was to explain my position to the membership and poll them for agreement. The Board refused to allow me to do this. I had to choose between hypocrisy and resignation. I chose resignation.

I was also naive. I gave about six months notice, giving the Board plenty of time to allow the membership to vote for my replacement during the normal election period. I was shocked when I realized that they would rather appoint Board members, and fought as hard as I could to prevent it. I lost.

I am no longer so high-minded. The membership elected Board members with multiple sponsorships and other potential conflicts of interest, and few members protested when they voted to keep their COI information under wraps. I won't resign my sponsorship to run, or to serve, but I do believe that full disclosure is important, and I will fully disclose my potential COI's.

I am also no longer so naive.

Peter,

I have a great deal of appreciation for what you have done and what you continue to do with the Senior Committee and the Divisional Tour and your efforts to grow the participation of older disc golfers in the sport of disc golf. Also, having also worked closely with you while you were Communications Director, I have also have a tremendous amount of respect for you as a person. I have long wondered the underlying reasons why you resigned your Board of Director position, and I thank you for explaining it.

Now that the "elephant in your living room" is out in the open however, I must admit that the idea of you running for the BoD again seems a little absurd. When you quit before, why should I vote for you now? What guarantee can you give me (and the membership) that your "absurdly high ethical standards" on some other topic aren't going to cause you to resign again? Given your background and experiences, it's honestly difficult for me to imagine Board of Director candidates more qualified than you. However, I think I'd rather vote for someone who I may feel may not be as qualified but at least will finish out his/her term.

Jeff,

Thanks for the kind words. Not all are deserved. I'm not a member of the Senior Committee, and have had nothing to do with its activities except to oppose its proposal to split the Legends into five-year subintervals.

Now as to your concern. Would I finish my term? No one can foresee the future, but we can look at probabilities. As you might sense from the tone of my posts here, I'm not the idealist I was in 2007. So resignation due to outbursts of excessive ethical zeal is not likely. Far more likely are 1) I could get kicked out by the other Board members, and 2) I could die. After all, I'll be 70 this July.

The 2007/2008 Board wanted to choose the PDGA's online signup partner through a competitive bidding process. In May of 2008 we voted to issue an RFP (Request for Proposal) so that interested vendors could compete for the contract. As Executive Director, it was Brian Graham's responsibility to implement this Board action.

He refused to do it. He never did it. And then somehow, much later, without any subsequent official Board action, Breiner Enterprises (BEI) "became" the PDGA's online signup partner.

I was dumbfounded to learn this. I knew that BEI had been chosen, but I thought that the RFP had been issued and that BEI had won fair and square. It wasn't until this winter, when I received complaints about excessive BEI signup fees and began contacting independent vendors (see the "Vendor comparison" thread in this forum) that I learned that the RFP was never issued.

This constitutes improper behavior on Brian's part. He was derelict in his duty. Furthermore, this is another example of how, when choice is eliminated, cronyism becomes the deciding factor. We have no way of knowing whether BEI was really the best choice. In fact, the "Vendor comparison" study strongly suggests that it was not.

The Board's job is to set policy. The Executive Director's job is to implement that policy. If the ED can ignore Board actions he doesn't like, then there's no point in having a Board. The ED becomes a Czar surrounded by cronies, accountability vanishes, and big money schemes are floated without proper oversight. It's even worse with the new Bylaws change, because some of these cronies can actually be on the Board.

Solution:
Near term, issue the RFP, give independent vendors a chance, and bid the online signup contract fairly.
Long term, correct the governance style and keep appointed members off the Board.

while i too have doubts on the same basis as jeff (god forbid)... i like the sound of what i'm hearing...

If you agree with Peter's agenda, a voting strategy would be to cast only one vote, for Peter, unless other candidates arise who also agree with Peter's agenda.

Also, if you are outraged that the PDGA is taking away your opportunity to vote for board members, way back when you voted for the new constitution, I seem to recall someone pointing out that the new constitution would make it possible for the board to eliminate voting for board candidates. In other words, I told you this would happen.

Finally, a joke: Don't vote for anyone named Ron for the board. The last thing we need is more Rons on the board.

Good luck Peter. I too like what you've written here (that which you'd "stand for"). And don't give up your morals / ethics TOO much - by you advocating "I'm not the idealist I was in 2007" - as all it would take is 3 or 4 more similar people and YOU'D have the voting block needed to effect the changes wished!

Karl

Peter,

Sorry for the confusion about the Senior Committee.

I think I have just one more question for you about your candidacy at this time. While I understand that you desire that your platform be based on "preaching revolution" and to "attack some sacred cows" I've interpreted your intent thus far as simple muckraking. While this is just one person's assessment, it seems like you've called out a) the PDGA IT manager for borderline incompetence b) the PDGA Executive Director for "improper behavior" and c) the current Board of Directors for being deliberately noncommunicative.

While mudslinging in election compaigns has become all too commonplace for public government positions, I'm wondering if you actually expect this muckraking platform to sway PDGA members to vote for you. Furthermore, if you were elected to the PDGA Board of Directors, do you think you could be an effective member and be able to work with the very people you just vilified? :confused:

Jeff,

You forgot one. I'd certainly add d) cronyism to your current list. And I have not yet finished fleshing out the issues briefly raised in my introductory statement. Stay tuned. Maybe your list will get even longer.

The core of my campaign is the contention that there are big problems at the top. There is no way I can make that case without specifying those problems. I wish there were a sweet and inoffensive way to do it, but there isn't. If there really is muck, somebody needs to rake it. Right now, that's me.

I've acknowledged your last concern in the first item of my introductory statement (post #2 in this thread). I don't want to be on the Board if the membership approves of the Board's "Bylaws coup". And if I have no support at Board level, the others could easily kick me out.

But why put the onus on me to "get along". If I am elected, that means the membership does not approve of the Board's "Bylaws coup", and probably agrees with many of the other points I am raising here. The other Board members would need to respect that, and have just as much of an obligation to work effectively with me.

If "internal Board happiness" is a high priority for the membership, then clearly they should not vote for me. If the membership desires change, they have to vote for people who are willing to rock the boat, to challenge the status quo. Once again, that's me.

First, thanks for making the choice to offer change. So many members are making a different choice with their displeasure. They are voting with their wallet and not renewing their memberships.

My single question, at this time, is regarding your Divisional Tour newsletter and sponsoring of events.

If elected, do you intend to continue the newsletter and the sponsorships?

many thanks
steve timm

Steve,

What a timely question. I plan to post my Conflict of Interest disclosure statement later today. I'll be discussing the Newsgroup and the sponsorships, among other things. I would continue both as a Board member.

I have, however, already discontinued my follow-up study on the "vendor comparison" issue.

14 minutes to respond, impressive.

The recent "power grab" by the board would have gone unnoticed without your heads-up, thanks
Much like the worlds no-smoking policy that was discovered and brought to light my Jeff LaGrassa, kudos Jeff.

My next question regards the new procedure for selecting and recruiting new board members.
The new policy can be found here: http://www.pdga.com/call-for-candidates (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/../call-for-candidates)

I am confused and concerned with the formation of a nominating committee. I quote a section from the above link:

NOMINATING COMMITTEE
In order to more effectively identify and motivate highly-qualified members to run for these essential leadership positions in the PDGA, the Board has appointed a Nominating Committee to begin work with the 2011 elections. The committee has been tasked with identifying and recruiting qualified candidates to run for the board as well as reviewing all submitted candidate bios and statements. All candidates will be reviewed by the Nominating Committee and recommendations made to the Board on their suitability prior to the elections.

If this nom. com. is solely to identify non-winning candidates "suited" for the 2 appointed positions, I have no problem.
My concern is that this committee will be recruiting and screening candidates for the election. What will they report regarding suitability of candidates to the board? What happens to this nom com report. Does it become part of the minutes? How does the board act on the nom com recommendations?

Peter, does it seem right for the board, and this committee, to be recruiting and screening candidates running in the upcoming election?

steve timm

Brian G, Jeff L and others
Please let Peter respond, I do not care to see your justifications or explanations, on this thread.

Finally, a joke: Don't vote for anyone named Ron for the board. The last thing we need in more Rons on the board.

Very good election humor.

I am involved in four activities that might, in some members' minds, constitute a potential conflict of interest:

1) I'm a pro, so I play disc golf for money. The last two years I made about $3500 in purses, and I might reach that level again this year.
2) I'm sponsored by Innova. I receive free discs and apparel, and compensation for major event entry fees.
3) I coordinate the Divisional Tour Newsgroup. Our purpose is to identify, promote and support exciting PDGA events that offer good value to older (40 and over) touring players. Anyone may join, there are no fees, and we currently have over 450 members. We have no official connection with the PDGA, and there is no way I profit financially from this activity.
4) I administer the Senior Foundation Grant Program, which makes cash awards to certain Divisional Tour events. I've awarded a total of about $10,000 over the last three years. The grants support purses of all pro divisions (including Female and Open) on a per capita basis. The money I allocate is all my own, and comes from my winnings plus the dollar value of everything I receive from Innova. I do not solicit or accept cash donations, but I do encourage Newsgroup members who want to support events to donate in the name of the Senior Foundation. Some do.

For those who believe that I hate Open players, it is worth noting that I've personally donated about $4000 to Open purses over the last three years.

When are the elections?

Peter,

Maybe you should include in your posts some form of "x number of days until the elections".

Steve,

I believe that the Nominating Committee is currently a non-issue, not worth worrying about. It only formalizes what Board members already do. They are always trying to identify candidates they consider suitable, and convince them to run. Nothing wrong with that.

The main reason why the Nominating Committee is being touted now is to give the appearance of legitimacy to the appointment of Board members. The Board can say, "No cronyism here. We are using an independent unbiased committee to identify the best people to appoint". This is farce. The Board and Brian will select Nominating Committee members, so that committee will consist of people who toe the party line and think just like Brian and the rest of the current Board members. They aren't going to recommend people who would rock the boat.

I'm sure the Nominating Committee will review my credentials and statements (especially the statements) and report to the Board, "Totally unsuitable". That doesn't bother me in the slightest, because that's what the Board already believes. And the Nominating Committee can be useful to me, as well. If their report is made public, I'll probably be least likely to vote for the candidates they pronounce "most suitable".

The only real danger will be if the power of the Nominating Committee grows, so that next year the Board says, "No candidates can run unless the Nominating Committee considers them suitable". Would the Board do that without membership approval? Of course they would. That's why we've got to put a stop to this kind of stuff now.

CGPRush,

Candidates must submit their information by June 15, and voting begins "the first week of July". The election period will be much shorter than before because they like to have new Board members on hand by the early August Board meeting. There will be little time to discuss the issues. That's why I announced my candidacy early.

Hello Peter Shive,

Regarding your candidacy. I have a question that, at least to me, speaks to your potential conflict of interest. Would you or would you not support a motion to abolish the pro/am dichotomy that's been afflicting our sport?

I thank you in advance for your consideration of my inquiry,

Kevin Laboski

Kevin:

Your short question is extremely deep. The "Conflict of Interest" part is the easy part, so I'll do that one first.

I would abstain on issues that might personally enrich me. And I feel strongly that the Open Pros on the current Board, and any other Board members who might play in and cash at Pro Worlds, should have abstained rather than voting to dramatically increase PDGA financial support of Pro Worlds.

The answer to the hard part (abolish the pro/am dichotomy?) is a qualified yes, qualified because you didn't specify how you would end it. I have stated before (in my editorial here last Fall) that we should consider splitting the PDGA. The top Open Pros have very different needs from all the rest of us. They want to get rich playing disc golf. So they need their own lavishly supported Tour, and they need a highly expensive promotional and marketing program to obtain it.

These needs are warping the PDGA in many ways. For example, they explain the "appointed Board member" Bylaws coup. Brian Graham says we should have guys like Kelly and Crawford appointed to our Board. Look at their bios. Now look at the bios of the current Advisory Board of Sportsloop (http://sportsloop.com/sportsloop/abo_advisory.asp). All of these guys are marketing/promotion types. Now I'll ask you some questions:

1) Apart from length, do you see much difference between the bios?
2) Would you appoint Sportsloop-type guys to our Board?
3) Do you believe that any of those guys care about B and C-Tier events and the people who play in them?
4) Do you think any of them know the difference between the two-meter rule and the two-minute warning?

All of this comes under the heading of Priorities, which is one of two issues I introduced in post #2 in this thread but have not yet discussed in detail (the other is Communication). So my answer is a bit premature and incomplete, because amateur/pro is just one of many areas in which the Board and ED has their priorities scrambled, and all these areas are interconnected.

I'll try to fit all this together better when I talk about "Priorities" in detail. Stay tuned.

Peter do you think there is a better way to poll the pdga membership than the method on the smoking policy discussion?

Peter do you think there is a better way to poll the pdga membership than the method on the smoking policy discussion?

i would suggest contacting the state coordinators and having them use there association with there state clubs to poll at weekly events then the state coordinators could send there results in to the pdga.

in my opinion the pdga would only get results from the 25-30 of us that actually visit here with a site poll

and individual clubs would have maybe 100-200 people tops to poll (i realize some clubs are bigger but most are smaller)

but im not Peter :)
just my thoughts

Bravo and 16670:

You guys are assuming that if you had the ideal polling method, and you took the poll, the Administration would pay attention. They wouldn't. If they had cared about what members think they could have easily done their own poll. So it's way too late to worry about polling methods. You'd be wasting your time.

I'll be posting more about this kind of problem when I discuss the details of the Communication (vs. Secrecy) issue, probably on Monday.

polls should be i peep hole into the whole.
i'm just irritated at the bods seemingly carelessness of what the general population wants for this sport.
i dont think of the bod as god who can move with impunity.
i completely understand their goal to improve the appearances but believe they dont know how to do that.
maybe they have a plan maybe they are just flying by the seat of their pants.

Kevin:

Your short question is extremely deep. The "Conflict of Interest" part is the easy part, so I'll do that one first.

I would abstain on issues that might personally enrich me. And I feel strongly that the Open Pros on the current Board, and any other Board members who might play in and cash at Pro Worlds, should have abstained rather than voting to dramatically increase PDGA financial support of Pro Worlds.

The answer to the hard part (abolish the pro/am dichotomy?) is a qualified yes, qualified because you didn't specify how you would end it. I have stated before (in my editorial here last Fall) that we should consider splitting the PDGA. The top Open Pros have very different needs from all the rest of us. They want to get rich playing disc golf. So they need their own lavishly supported Tour, and they need a highly expensive promotional and marketing program to obtain it.

These needs are warping the PDGA in many ways. For example, they explain the "appointed Board member" Bylaws coup. Brian Graham says we should have guys like Kelly and Crawford appointed to our Board. Look at their bios. Now look at the bios of the current Advisory Board of Sportsloop (http://sportsloop.com/sportsloop/abo_advisory.asp). All of these guys are marketing/promotion types. Now I'll ask you some questions:

1) Apart from length, do you see much difference between the bios?
2) Would you appoint Sportsloop-type guys to our Board?
3) Do you believe that any of those guys care about B and C-Tier events and the people who play in them?
4) Do you think any of them know the difference between the two-meter rule and the two-minute warning?

All of this comes under the heading of Priorities, which is one of two issues I introduced in post #2 in this thread but have not yet discussed in detail (the other is Communication). So my answer is a bit premature and incomplete, because amateur/pro is just one of many areas in which the Board and ED has their priorities scrambled, and all these areas are interconnected.

I'll try to fit all this together better when I talk about "Priorities" in detail. Stay tuned.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I look forward to your more detailed responses. I think we may be looking at the am/pro problems differently. But unfortunately I don't have the time now to address these differences right now.

With regard to your questions above. I'm perplexed by the move to add marketing "expertise" to the board. (Having recently read Matthew Crawford's thoughtful book, "Shop Class as Soul Craft," it is especially perplexing.) It seems to me that there is very little that can be accomplished marketing a product, that by many accounts, is the weakest it's been in a long time. Doesn't one need a product to market? My mind fills with cliches, "pig in a poke," and "cart before the horse."

Without a significant change to the competition structure offered and fostered by the pdga, the job of marketing the product, as it exists at the moment, is monumental.

The Administration (Board and Executive Director) doesn't want the membership to know what is going on. Board members almost never communicate with us. We don't hear about important developments until after the fact, when they are delivered to us as pronouncements. The Administration doesn't care what we think. We are never consulted, and our rights are arbitrarily removed without our consent. The current Board members voted to conceal both Board and Officer Conflict of Interest information from us. Finally, we have no idea of the costs of major programs, because only the sketchiest of financial reports are released. And while salaries of major corporate CEO's are a matter of public record, God forbid that PDGA members might find out what our own officers make.

I believe:
1) You have a right to know what is going on. The Board is supposed to represent us, and we are bound by their decisions. The culture of secrecy in the Administration is designed to evade accountability, and is improper. Board members should feel comfortable discussing important issues and stating their positions. Membership opinion should be solicited, not ignored. And we should certainly be part of any decision that removes membership rights.
2) Conflict of Interest information should be posted. Anyone who would be embarrassed by the release of that information has no business being on the Board.
2) You pay the bills, so you have a right to know where the money is going. The Administration should release detailed budget information.

Solutions (one job for me, and one for you):
1) As a Board member I would communicate openly with the membership. This thread would be replaced by one called "Ask Board Member Peter Shive", on which I would welcome comments and questions from all members. I have already posted my personal COI information (post #18 on this thread), and would vote to require other Board members to do the same. I would press for the release of detailed budget information to the membership.
2) As a member, you should not vote for any Board candidate who supports secrecy. If they won't support the right of Board members to communicate with the membership, if they would suppress financial reports, or if they won't release their own COI statements, they don't belong on the Board.

amen

And while salaries of major corporate CEO's are a matter of public record, God forbid that PDGA members might find out what our own officers make.

I would counter with the point that while the salaries of major corporate CEO's are indeed often public record, salaries of smaller private CEOs and salaries of other staff besides the CEO are often never disclosed. Peter, surely you held many jobs in your career besides research professor in Geology and Geophysics. Unless you were in Human Resources or the boss of the company, did you always know the salaries of everyone around you? Did you know the salaries of all professors and staff at the University of Wyoming?

Why is it so important to know exactly how much each individual PDGA staffer makes? As detailed in the budget (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/10-11_PDGA_Financial_Summary_Public.pdf), if $348k covered six full time office staff, four consultants, accountants, employer taxes, health insurance, workmen's compensation, & web consultant in 2010, couldn't folks just do a little simple math? As in, subtract (which is a total guess) ~$48k for the consulting, accounting, taxes, health insurance & workmen's comp and then divide $300k by 6 to yield $50k per person. And then assume that maybe the ED makes $20k more per year and the office manager makes $20k less. These are all wild guesses but it all seems completely reasonable and sufficient in my opinion. Is more detailed and precise information really that necessary for anyone else? If so, please do pray tell why this is so critical for you to know. :confused:

I'm no expert, but it seems like there is a pretty large difference between working for someone and demanding to know what kind of profits they're making, and being a current member of a dues paying org who's requesting detailed financial information.

transparency removes inuendos.
why hide salary info in a not for profit org if theres nothing to hide?

This is normal non-profit practice. Pretty much every church that I've been a part of lumps salaries together on financial reports/budgets/etc. Members are not privy to how much each individual makes.

Church goers normally have many options on where to spend their tithes. If their pastor is running around acting improperly, they can find another church family to join. We only have the one org, and when it seems like the top level is disconnected with the membership, problems need to be fixed.

the churches ive attended had open books to those who asked.
the annual meetings were open to all.
if one didn't make the meeting he or she could request minutesof said meeting and the accounting paper work was available.
the club in tulsa has a board that doesn't please all every time.
but the differences in the board members is similar to the make up of the club.
the board members are not payed members, we are all volunteers.
transparency is easier than secretive behavier

Jeff,

You ask why we might want to know individual salaries. Of course, reasons change all the time. Right now, for starters, here are two.

1) I contend (post #4 this thread) that cronyism played an important part in the appointment (with no competitive search) of David Gentry to the new IT position. Information about his salary, compared to other officers, would strenghthen or weaken that contention.
2) Our Board Chairman told us "Appointed board members would not be paid, just as elected board members are not paid." I am more than skeptical. Brian Graham wants to appoint outside Sportsloop-types like Kelly and Downey. These guys are mercenaries, and are not likely to serve the PDGA because they love disc golf. If and when Board members start getting paid, we should know how much.

The Bylaws change has been discussed at some length on the "Picking and Packing the Board" thread in this forum. I want to gather together, in a more concise form, the main reasons why appointing Board members is harmful to us.

1) The Administration's rationale for doing it ("we need access to the expertise") is bogus. If the expertise is needed, these people can be hired as consultants, a practice the Administration has followed successfully for years. There is no need to put them on the Board.
2) The people Brian Graham wants to appoint are just like the people who run Sportsloop. Our "Sportsloop adventure" about a decade ago was a disaster, even though no Sportsloop personnel were on the Board.
3) People like this don't know the difference between the two-minute warning and the two-meter rule, but they would be voting on policies that bind all PDGA members.
4) The precedent virtually insures that the Board will ultimately become totally appointed. To overturn the Bylaws change, you will need the votes of five of the seven at-large Board members. But to increase the number of appointed members, Graham only needs the votes of three of the seven.

FYI, I believe you knew that Gentry had been operating in the dual position of Tour Manager and IT Manager since he was hired. All that happened was these dual jobs got bigger than what one person could handle with IT getting short shrift for quite a while. So the standalone Tour Manager position was the only new position created with Gentry continuing as IT Manager like he had been doing for years.

The two potential candidates for appointed positions both knew what would be involved if they were selected for appointments, i.e., no compensation. And yet they expressed interest in the possibilities to participate knowing that. If they really are mercenary about it, they have the chance to reject the appointments if either are formally asked.

Chuck,

I knew that Gentry had been doing IT work for the PDGA. I believed then that he wasn't very good at it. Since then his recommendation of Ciphent and the dismal state of the website have only reinforced that opinion. My contention is simply that the PDGA should have opened a competitive search for the IT position. If Gentry had won, fine. But now we will never know if we could have found a more effective person for the job.

Your second paragraph is amazing. The two potential candidates "both knew"? Let me get this straight. Are you saying the Board appointees have already been identified? In other words, the "Nominating Committee" has already been created and has done its work, and we don't even know who is on the Nominating Committee? So, pray tell, who is on the Nominating Committee? Are you on it? Since they will be judging my suitability as a Board candidate, don't you think I have a right to know? And pray pray tell, who are these "two potential candidates"?

In closing, I said, "If and when Board members start getting paid, we should know how much". I still say that because I believe that, ultimately, they will be.

The two potential candidates for appointed positions both knew what would be involved if they were selected for appointments, i.e., no compensation. And yet they expressed interest in the possibilities to participate knowing that. If they really are mercenary about it, they have the chance to reject the appointments if either are formally asked.

Just curious, were these candidates identified prior to the committee being formed? Is all this committee talk, etc. just an exercise in CYA? For the umpteenth time, what are the skills these folks bring again? and if they are going to do it for free (bless them), why is their presence on the Board necessary?


Sorry to be somewhat off-topic Peter.

James,

You aren't off-topic. Your questions for Chuck are very much like the ones I asked in the second paragraph of my post. This "Nominating Committee" business is more comical than anything else. Chalk up another one for the strange confusions of secrecy.

Of course Chuck is not the problem. I often disagree with him, but I admire his style. He is not secretive, and he shares his opinions openly. Over the last few years we've learned far more about what is going on at the top from him than from all the Board members plus the Executive Director combined.

Gentry has been operating in the dual position of Tour Manager and IT Manager for more than five years now, and I cannot even begin to imagine how difficult it must have been to address IT issues and the PDGA website while simultaneously processing each month 100+ tour events, 100+ sanctioning agreements, and all the other duties which go into being Tour Manager. He moved into his full time role as IT Manager only less than two months ago since Big Dog was hired. Dave has a Bachelor of Science from Montana State University in Computer Science, and having worked with him on the website both as a scorer / media content provider at past PDGA World Championships, and on the message board software as one of the DISCussion Board moderation team, I have no doubts to his abilities.

Furthermore, the new Tour Manager Andrew "Big Dog" Sweeton worked in the IT field for the past 28 years and his last position was as Vice President of IT Infrastructure for the third largest Market Research firm globally. So he has considerable knowledge and expertise and could chip in if needed and if his Tour Manager schedule allow it.

Peter, I have been a PDGA member for almost 15 years now, and I have never seen a candidate win a spot on the PDGA Board of Directors based on a platform such as yours. But if you believe that this mudslinging platform (which has already delved into borderline personal attacks) is your best chance to win a position, then I wish you good luck. I guess there is always a first time for everything. :confused:

To my knowledge, no action has yet been taken to identify potential candidates for appointment. The special visitors at the Summit meeting are the type of people with the experience that might be considered for appointment. Both seemed interested to consider an invitation to serve as appointees but it was just casual talk at meals. I don't believe the Nominating Committee is any secret (I'm not on it). It's just that the Summit minutes haven't been posted yet.

I presume Gentry has had performance reviews several times over the years that were reviewed by at least some Board members. If there was a problem, the Board would have known about it and perhaps posted the IT position. But since that didn't happen, Gentry was deemed to be performing well and qualified to continue his job as IT Manager.

SportsLoop is a foolish issue to regurgitate. They failed to deliver big sponsorship money due to the lack of sufficient spectatorship in disc golf both then and still today. It's unlikely any other firm would have fared any better. It's certainly a cautionary tale in terms of spending too much money on a similar effort with any marketing firm today where the goal is acquiring sponsorship money versus the more attainable goal to just promote the sport and the PDGA.

I don't believe the Nominating Committee is any secret (I'm not on it). It's just that the Summit minutes haven't been posted yet.



You say the nominating committee isn't a secret. A silly little word game.

Would you agree it is unknown by the members? Do you know who is on the nominating committee?

If so, would you please enlighten us. I don't think that is too much to ask for the members to know who will be nominating appointees to the board.

I don't remember who was on it but why not email Brian Graham and ask directly?

Great idea. If the thousands of PDGA members who might to know they should just email him directly. I'm sure he won't mind.

I have a better idea. Why doesn't the PDGA make an announcement on it's website so Brian can stay focused on driving implementation of the boards policies?

Think that is a better use of his time.

I don't remember who was on it but why not email Brian Graham and ask directly?


One should not have to work that hard to learn of fundamental changes to the PDGA.

I'm not a conspiratorial type, nor do I really care much about the PDGA anymore, but this is so poorly done, it goads me into a response. It is such a simple thing to do right, or at least better.

Post some notice on the front page. Something like:

.....................................

We, the BOD have determined that we need the following skills on the BOD: ____,_____

These members need to on the BOD because ____

Their powers relative to other BOD members are ___, ____

Should it become necessary, they can be removed ___, ___,___

In order to identify individuals with these skills, we have formed a committee consisting of ___,___,___

We hope you understand why we are doing this and appreciate your support.

.................................................. .............

I asked today and it was done. Check the Announcements.

I asked today and it was done. Check the Announcements.

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! When people actually ask someone directly, it gets done! And here I thought that just whining about something on the PDGA DISCussion Board was the only way to accomplish anything. I mean, who woulda thunk that PDGA Office folks don't scan the message board all day long in order to answer questions from the membership. Man, you learn something new every day. I will mark this day 6/1/11 down in history! What a country!

;)

I guess there is always a first time for everything. :confused:


Obama got elected didn't he?:cool:

Sorry Peter not meant at you.

Jeff,

That they finally posted info is nothing to gloat about.

Peter, sorry again.

I have argued that the priorities of the PDGA are poorly matched to the priorities of the membership. I'll talk about membership priorities today, and PDGA priorities tomorrow.

I believe that most of you joined the PDGA because your highest priority is to compete with other disc golfers in a formally structured environment. If your highest priority is to watch others play, or just to play casually, you had no need to join the PDGA. You can easily do those things on your own, for free.

So I tend to see you as a player first, and fairly serious about your play because structured competition at any level requires effort and discipline.

If that is correct than your most important resource BY FAR, as I said earlier, is tournament directors. The other leading contenders these days are the top Open players, and the PDGA itself. To judge for yourself, just ask yourself the question, "How would your life as a disc golfer be affected if one of those three resources disappeared"? If tournament directors are not the most important to you, you should stop reading here and vote for other candidates.

Furthermore, small event TD's are just as important as big-time TD's, if not more so. This is because six times as many members enter B and C-Tier events as NT and A-tier events. So most PDGA members are rubbing shoulders with the small event TD's.

This is worth repeating. I base much of my thinking on the assumptions 1) that you are, first of all, a player, and 2) that TD's at all levels are your top resource. In short, I revere TD's.

Of course this is complicated by the fact that we all have a variety of motivations, and value more than just one resource. Some of these other (and, I assume, lesser) motivations are 1) to be part of a social network, 2) to spread the gospel of disc golf, 3) to work with young (or old) people, 3) to advance the wealth and fame of Open players, 5) to have an enjoyable physical challenge, 6) to help make a living, 7) to be distracted, 8) to be closer or even (sadly) farther from a spouse, etc. Any of you could easily expand this list. The motivations range from the brutally practical to the very subtly emotional, and there is no common denominator to these secondary priorities. You must evaluate them individually and make your own personal decision about the extent to which the PDGA meets those needs, and the extent to which my comments address your concerns.

You might want to check out the Summit Agenda item at 5pm on Thursday:
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/Spring_Summit_2011_Agenda.pdf
Programs for improving the life of TDs with training, improved tools (TD report/signup/web posting) and financial management were on the minds of many at the Summit.

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! When people actually ask someone directly, it gets done! And here I thought that just whining about something on the PDGA DISCussion Board was the only way to accomplish anything. I mean, who woulda thunk that PDGA Office folks don't scan the message board all day long in order to answer questions from the membership. Man, you learn something new every day. I will mark this day 6/1/11 down in history! What a country!

;)


5-10 minutes a few times a day would be plenty. I don't get on here much anymore but I am still able to keep up to date without wasting much time. TDs are the most important part of the sport and if a fair system was implemented by the PDGA to pay TDs my Worlds argument would disappear.

It would take a decade or so to really blossom but creating more competition to run GOOD events among TDs would eventually lead to a higher standard four PDGA events which under the current system is still 30 years away....if at all

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! When people actually ask someone directly, it gets done! And here I thought that just whining about something on the PDGA DISCussion Board was the only way to accomplish anything. I mean, who woulda thunk that PDGA Office folks don't scan the message board all day long in order to answer questions from the membership. Man, you learn something new every day. I will mark this day 6/1/11 down in history! What a country!

;)

Nice rant. Just wondering why it took more than 3 weeks to announce who is on the nominating committee after they announced the committee was formed. I think if you want communication between the PDGA and the members improved electing Peter to the BOD is a good step in that direction.

PDGA priorities are best measured in terms of what its Administration does, rather than what it says. I find the adage "follow the money" most useful here. Let's take a quick look at financial trends over the last five years (2006-2011). In particular, look for major programs for which spending increased a lot faster than PDGA income (67% increase over that period).

Only one stands out, and that is marketing and promotion. During that same five-year period, marketing and promotion expenses increased from $60K to $156K (160% increase). Probably this does not surprise many of you, although you might wonder as I do, "Where is that $156K going, and is it really doing any good?" And if you doubted that marketing and promotion is a PDGA top priority, look again at the bios of the guys that Graham would like to appoint to our Board. These are "Sportsloop types", and marketing and promotion is their middle name.

The Administration strategy over at least the last decade has been to market and promote the top Open players. The general idea is that if they become rich and famous, disc golf will become highly respected and wildly popular, and money will come rolling in for everyone connected to it. They don't express it that way, of course. They use euphemisms like "We need to fix the Tour", but that's what it means.

Does this strategy work? No, it is a miserable failure. Consider its two objectives:
1) Are the top Open players rich? No. Our marketing and promotion has not brought in even a reasonable fraction of what it has cost. The PDGA would get a better return if it just gave the $156K straight to the Open players. Why doesn't it? Because it is illegal for a nonprofit to take money from one class of member and give it directly to another.
2) Are the top Open players famous? No. The PDGA has only succeeded in marketing and promoting them to its own membership, which is a senseless waste of effort and money.

The Administration attitude warps the PDGA. They say, in effect, "We'll just spend more and more every year on this scheme. To make sure no one can interfere, we need marketers and promoters on the Board to ram it through. And just in case the membership might not elect marketers and promoters, we'll change the Bylaws so we can appoint them".

The problem is that the rest of us are paying the bill. In 2008 about 90% of the discretionary budget went to Open players, even though they made up only one eighth of the membership. It is even worse now. We pay in big ways and we pay in small ways. Have you noticed, for example, who does not have to pay to take the official's exam? And when you sign up using the PDGA online service, which players pay the lowest percentage registration fee?

Solution (near term): I don't mind having marketers and promoters on the Board, but only if they are elected by the membership. I don't want outside appointees on the Board (see post #37). I will fight as hard as I can to get them off, and to get the Bylaws restored so that the Board truly represents the membership rather than the Administration.

Solution (long term): Split the PDGA. The top Open pros have very different needs and desires from the rest of us, and would do better with their own autonomous organization. Perhaps it should be for-profit. If so, Brian Graham would be a good ED for them. He is committed to them, and is in my opinion far better suited to head a for-profit. And they can keep the marketing and promotion types, because they will need them. For them the big-time Tour is the Holy Grail, and they can move heaven and earth to get it.

The rest of us need a strictly non-profit organization with a strictly representative Board, our own ED and direct control of our own money. We'd have comparatively little need of big time marketing and promotion, and could put our money and effort more into lower cost grass roots programs and into the care and protection of the smaller event TD's (A through C-tier) we more commonly patronize.

The two organizations would share many resources, for efficiency. We all need membership processing, tour management, ratings etc. Although each group would have its own Tour, it could if desired allow members of the other group to play in its events. Some of us might even want to join both groups.

Personal PS: It amazes me to read my words about splitting, because only about five years ago I wrote an article in DGWN ("For Love and/or Money") saying that it was important to preserve the "PDGA family" intact. But so much has changed since then, and the changes are accelerating. I can't see any other way. Sadly, it would appear that money trumps love.

So, one aspect of your vision is a split of the "top Pros" from the rest of the PDGA. So, what happens after that, other than presumably not spending marketing money? You state:

"We'd have comparatively little need of big time marketing and promotion, and could put our money and effort more into lower cost grass roots programs and into the care and protection of the smaller event TD's (A through C-tier) we more commonly patronize."

What does this really mean? What are some of these lower, grass roots programs, and why should the PDGA take member dues and funnel them to these programs? Why can't members do that themselves? Also, what kind of "care and protection" do smaller event TDs need? Be specific please.

Moreover, in a general sense, what do you see as the primary roles of the PDGA once the top players are in a separate group?

James,

It's not just the marketing money. The biggest category increase over that five year period is "cash on hand". The PDGA now has over $600K in the bank, a 475% increase since 2005!

I see a PDGA whose priority is serving TD's and members, not constantly squeezing them for money. Here are some things we COULD do if we got these financial monkeys off our backs:
1) Decrease player fees
2) Decrease dues
3) Offer free online registration
4) Allow more flexible event scheduling
5) Allow local TD's to offer non-member divisions without the $10 fee
6) Encourage and support more local charity events
7) Encourage and support more local programs for young people

I believe that disc golf spreads most effectively because of grass roots efforts by individuals and small groups (like clubs), not because of expensive hype of Open players. If we want to grow the PDGA population (players who want structured tournament play) we need to make it easier, not harder, for recreational players and novices to experience tournament play.

At the same time I'm happy if the top Open players become rich and famous. I personally donate over $1000 cash per year to augment purses for Open players (post #18). But they have become the tail that wags the dog, and their needs, so different from ours, have come to dominate administrative thinking.

SportsLoop is a foolish issue to regurgitate. They failed to deliver big sponsorship money due to the lack of sufficient spectatorship in disc golf both then and still today. It's unlikely any other firm would have fared any better. It's certainly a cautionary tale in terms of spending too much money on a similar effort with any marketing firm today where the goal is acquiring sponsorship money versus the more attainable goal to just promote the sport and the PDGA.

I don't know if "foolish" is an apt description, but the fact that Sportsloop has been brought up in every other post by Peter in this thread seems to me like emotional pandering and a bush league move, at best.

For those out of the know, fyi the PDGA signed a partnership deal in August of 2002 in which SportsLoop handled the marketing and publicity of the PDGA�s inaugural National Tour in 2003. The Board of Directors were not fully satisfied with the marketing/image building job done by Sportsloop and ended the agreement by early 2004. This was two Executive Directors ago and the Board of Directors at that time were Theo Pozzy, Jon Lyksett, Marty Hapner, S. Wertz, Dave Nesbitt, Terry Calhoun, and Pete May. The objective was noble, but the cost was high and the investment returns were negligible. Unless some marketing firm was willing to do it for next for nothing, I'm not sure that any firm could do an efficient job nowadays, even though it is 8 years later, and especially with the economic conditions of today. I think there's also some things inherent to our sport that make it difficult to market.

The PDGA has done its own internal marketing since that time, and for surely far less cost. But because of the failed Sportsloop experiment and its associated expenditures, its name alone brings up a sour taste for many PDGA members. Again, I think that it's somewhat nefarious to continue to bring up Sportsloop and use it against our completely new Board of Directors and Executive Director. But that's just like, my opinion, man.

Chuck and Jeff,

You don't believe that a Sportsloop reference is appropriate. I believe that it most definitely is.

I wondered what had become of Sportsloop, so I checked their website. I noticed that the bios of their Advisory Board members were just as convincing as the bios of the guys Brian Graham is touting as prospective PDGA Board appointees. In other words, you might just as well appoint Sportsloop advisors as anyone else.

You both admit that marketing and promotion in today's environment is just as problematic as it was ten years ago. Now the PDGA administration wants to appoint marketing/promotion types to the Board, and that is fine with you.

You bet I want people to remember Sportsloop, and remember it well. It looks to me like we're gearing up to do it all over again. Only this time the outside promo guys will be on the Board. Amazing.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

We would all do well to remember the lessons we have learned. There should be no shame in reminding even the most learned of our members about the pitfalls of the past.
And no embarrassment in having fallen.

Peter, it's a very poor assumption on your part that it's "fine with me" that the BoD wants to appoint marketing/promotion types to the Board. I too wonder why they can't be just hired consultants. Why must they be actual Board members?

I just find fault with your continued reference to these folks as "Sportsloop types." We get that they are not disc golfers; your point is well taken. But they are not from Sportsloop, even if their bios "were just as convincing," and the fact that you keep referring to them as "Sportsloop-types" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again just seems disingenuous. But judging by your campaign platform thus far, I guess it's simply par for the course. :confused:

Peter,
What is your stance on cigarettes/alcohol/illegal drugs? I'd like to hear more about where you see the PDGA going and how these issues relate to potential forward progress and how they can be overcome. I posted this on the cigarette thread but will repost it here:
Sat in on a wonderful HOA meeting yesterday with the CMPD (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Dept.) and a representative from the drug task force to address some issues we are having at the park across the street from me (Kilborne). An interesting piece of information came out of the bag from the CMPD drug task force rep, when he said that they are already preparing for the 2012 Worlds and will be "actively searching for drugs." The officer also cited a recent arrest where 78 pounds of marijuana was found hidden in a disc golfers car, and showed a picture of the SUV in the Winthrop pond and identified that it was because the people driving the car were "high" and that marijuana was found floating in it when the car was recovered. I wonder how many people will bail on Charlotte 2012 when they see drug dogs at the courses.

Cigarettes are absolutely the biggest issue with disc golf cleaning its reputation, lol!


I guess I wonder if a large contingency of the pdga members take advantage of the slack approach to enforcement of rules around drugs, especially in lieu of recent board members being voted in that appear marijuana friendly and have a history behind them of being in with the "cool kids". I don't feel that I should directly name people I believe to be pot friendly, but I think I make my point. How would you address this issue and ensure that the best professional athletes that are representing the PDGA are not consistently using illegal drugs or are being part of the trafficking of such illegal drugs?

Jeff,
It appears to me that everytime you post something against Peter, you actually stir up more support for him, which I don't believe to be your intent. Just saying.

Jeff (and Chuck),

I say that Bob (in post #61 above) has it right. But we need more substance. You object to the manner in which I present one of my arguments, but you don't touch the arguments themselves. I claim, for a variety of reasons, that the Board's decision to appoint some of its own members was wrong. I invite you to rebut me. Destroy my position by completing the following sentences:

1) The Board acted wisely to remove membership voting rights without consultation or membership consent because . . .
2) There is no danger in appointing Board members who may know nothing about disc golf because . . .
3) The Board must appoint needed expertise rather than hiring it on a consultant basis because . . .
4) Graham heroes Kelley and Downey can offer more to the PDGA than Sportsloop advisors Miller, Simkowski, Rosen, Brown or Greenberg because . . .

You are welcome to work together as a team which includes Brian Graham and any or all current Board members. Against a lineup like that I should be toast.

Peter, I cannot offer any rebuttal whatsoever to points 1,2 & 3 because I agree with you 100% on them! I am struggling myself understanding these Board actions. Identifying future Board members with business acumen is one thing, but appointing non-disc golfers to the Board makes far less sense to me.

4) Graham heroes Kelley and Downey can offer more to the PDGA than Sportsloop advisors Miller, Simkowski, Rosen, Brown or Greenberg because . . .

Now here is where I think you again take it too far. Why the sarcastic "Graham heroes" quip? Why again the Sportsloop reference? This is little more than internet trolling at this point.

It appears to me that everytime you post something against Peter, you actually stir up more support for him, which I don't believe to be your intent.

My intent is neither to stir up support for, or against, Peter...I actually agree with him on many points, but I do find his campaign approach very odd. It's almost like we're living in the world of World Wrestling Federation...where Peter once was the "face" or protagonist hero character, it seems like he has deliberately tried to become the "heel" or antagonist villian character. Because it's cool to root for the "antihero" nowadays, right? However, as with most everything in professional wrestling, it's all very obvious and can seem disingenuous. But if Peter thinks that this approach is his best chance at winning a board position, then more power to him.

cwphish:

I'd much prefer easier questions. My prepared platform does not include a section on substances. But since I'm pretty much finished presenting the prepared part, I'd better be ready to branch out.

There are two issues here. The first is policy. The second is enforcement of policy. I approve of the current PDGA policy banning alcohol and drug use. Cigarettes is different. I'm not a smoker, and I wish people wouldn't smoke at tournaments, but I don't believe that I would vote to ban smoking. I'm close, and maybe I could be convinced. I'd want to consult the membership before I voted. The recent cigarette thing bothered me because it seemed hypocritical -- a draconian policy toward tobacco when everyone still just looks the other way about the bigger issue, which is drug use.

So much for policy. Now for enforcement. The PDGA has a Disciplinary Committee. Shawn Sinclair is its Chairman, and I have enormous regard for his dedication and abilities. But that Committee has an almost impossible job with regard to enforcement. If a PDGA member is convicted of (let's say) a drug use offense in civil court, then it's easy. The Disciplinary Committee can follow up with appropriate sanctions. Case closed. But if the case is entirely internal to the PDGA, and especially if it's a case that could result in a felony charge if it went outside, then there are huge risks in procedure. The Committee does not consist of trained legal professionals, and could easily incur lawsuits that might bankrupt the PDGA. Even if we replaced them with trained legal professionals, there would still be risks. That Committee will always have to proceed with excessive care, and probably also always on the side of leniency.

Your key question is, "How would you . . . ensure that the best professional athletes representing the PDGA are not consistently using illegal drugs or are being part of the trafficking of such illegal drugs?" Catching traffickers is out of our league; we must depend on the police to stop the traffickers. The only way to identify consistent users is to implement regular drug testing.

And that's where the pragmatist in me kicks in. We aren't ready to take a step like that, because it's too expensive. Of course I'm making an assumption about the membership when I say this. I believe that the membership would (as a group) like to sanction drug users. But if they had to pay higher dues or lose programs in order to pay for the testing, they'd vote for the status quo. In the meantime we look the other way and depend on the police dogs. And get real real tough on tobacco.

Sorry about that last cynical sentence. But I'm sure Jeff will get after me for it.

Thank you for answering the questions Peter, and thank you for your honesty in identfying what the bigger problem is for our sport.

I'll bite:
1) The Board acted wisely to remove membership voting rights without consultation or membership consent because . . . the Board (elected by members) followed procedures (as observed by several non-Board members at the Summit) as proscibed in the PDGA bylaws (approved by members) who were charged (by members) to act in the best interest of the org. Voicing your discontent here among a few others does not mean their actions were not in the best interest of the org. You should not expect to always agree with their actions because just like any other elected representative body, their actions will rarely be lockstep in line with the diversity of members and their opinions even if their actions may be in the best overall interest of the org.

2) There is no danger in appointing Board members who may know nothing about disc golf because . . . you don't know what you don't know. Everyone knows what they know and also what they don't know about disc golf. What no one knows in any sport is what they don't know about many other sports. Granted, we have many things we know haven't been done yet to propel our sport forward. But that doesn't mean there aren't things we don't know from other arenas that may have more impact on our growth if they become known and implemented.

3) The Board must appoint needed expertise rather than hiring it on a consultant basis because . . . Again, you can't hire someone to advise you on what you don't know because you don't know all the questions to ask and how to direct them. Many times the light bulb ideas can only occur by being immersed in the talk at Board meetings. Having been to more Summits than most, I'm in a good position to have seen that. I would rather have those outside participants legally operating under the restrictions imposed by the fiduciary and mission responsibilities of a Board member. Plus, we don't have to pay them if you want to be purely financially driven regarding the choice for having them on the Board versus hired outsiders you aren't sure about what to hire them for.

4) Graham heroes Kelley and Downey can offer more to the PDGA than Sportsloop advisors Miller, Simkowski, Rosen, Brown or Greenberg because . . . who's to say any one of these people wouldn't be better as Board members versus hired hands. Hired hands are charged with pleasing the client for their pay. Volunteer Board members are charged with doing the best job for the org and membership at large.

Chuck I appreciate your sticking your neck out to address these questions.

To paraphrase your answers though it seems like you are saying they MIGHT be good additions because they MIGHT ask questions the BOD MIGHT not think to ask and these folks MIGHT be better than the elected people.

That doesn't seem to me to be a good enough reason to ram this through in 5 days.

Do you think the positive they MIGHT add outweighs the negatives of not knowing the sport enough to have a nuanced opinion on issues the BOD votes on like the recent change for 2012 requiring tour manager approval for things like stroke and distance penalties or traditional local rules for island holes for example? How can someone from outside the sport cast an informed vote on that?

Understand that the "ramming thru in 5 days" was necessary to not waste another year for a concept the Board believed in. The Board recognized that it would look like a "ram job" and was concerned about how it would look. But if they didn't vote for the change in May, it was seen as too late to do it for this election cycle when candidates would already be lining up by June for the next election under the old 2-year cycle.

If the Summit was a month or two earlier, then it wouldn't have appeared to be rammed thru so quickly. If nothing else, the Board is finally moving on things that have been tabled in the past without action for a few years now. Again, I'm ambivalent about the appointed members (but don't see a problem) but was one of the people involved in support of the 9 Board member/3-year term concept proposed several years ago. I'm pretty sure Peter was around on the Board then.

I also think we're confusing whether the Board or the PDGA Staff should be responsible for certain actions that affect members. I'm concerned that the current Board at the moment might be a little more involved in things that would typically be more the purview of the PDGA office and staff. For example, the throw and distance issue you mention would normally be more staff than Board issue although Board support was important because the initiative came from Board members. The operational details of the tour is not really a topic where a Board for an org that's becoming this size usually should be dabbling. But with the tumoil of staff changes and great cash flow, a more proactive Board has been helpful to keep things moving forward and authorize budgetary increases to help Brian get things executed.

Chuck,

With regard to your answers (post #68) to my four questions of post #64: Nice try, but . . . .

1) This answer says that the Board did it because it can, and that it was wise because the Board did it. You could give the same answer no matter what the Board does. You could give the same answer, for example, if the Board had voted to appoint all the members.
2) This answer is gibberish. You make it sound as though ignorance of disc golf is a prime requisite for PDGA Board members.
3) This answer says that you would appoint them to the Board because a) you don't know why we might want to hire them, and b) you lack confidence in their legal and fiscal integrity.
4) This answer doesn't address the question -- it is a rehash of your answer to question #3.

To paraphrase John McEnroe, "You can't be serious". Members must judge, of course, but in my opinion you are making the Bylaws stunt look even worse than I originally thought.

As a new member, I was wondering if there is a similar bylaw in the PGA. I know discgolf is not ball golf, but it would interest me to know if this setup mirrors that in the PGA or other sports organizations, or if it is highly unusual.

Jennifer,

I'm not sure which Bylaw you are asking about, the new one that allows the Board to appoint some of its own members, or the older one that allows the Board to change the Bylaws without membership consent. Clearly I am opposed to both, to the older one because it allowed the new one.

I do not know the details of the Bylaws of other organizations, but it is not uncommon for Boards to have appointed members. Ultimate, for example, recently appointed one.

My position is that we should not blindly copy what other organizations do, but act according to the special needs of our own organization. So I object to the new Bylaw (inclusion of appointed members on our Board) for the reasons given in my post #37 and #71 in this thread.

Chuck,

Yesterday you told Pete Kenney (post #70) that ignorance of appointed Board Members would not be a problem because the Staff should be making "unimportant" policy decisions like the one Pete referred to. Once again I wonder if you may be joking with us.

First, I disagree that the issue Pete raised is unimportant. In my opinion, the Staff have no business making it. But we can leave that debate for another time. It is a small matter compared with what you left unsaid.

Let's suppose that the Staff did protect us from the ignorance of appointed Board Members on the unimportant policy decisions. Who is going to protect us from their ignorance on the truly important policy decisions? God?

Fundamentally, our sport is in the enviable position where the PDGA Staff and Board has the power to do positive things to advance the sport or nothing at all. But they are not really powerful enough to do things that can negatively impact the sport. The PDGA members current and non-current are less than 1% of all current players by most estimates. PDGA members comprise less than 1% of all disc golf purchases. PDGA members have done, continue and will continue to do good things locally for the sport regardless whether the PDGA is doing anything positive, negative or nothing.

The primary disagreement being discussed here is what is the best way to get the best people in place on the PDGA Staff and Board to do more good things for the sport. Elections, posting and hiring, appointing and drafting are the ways to fill positions, each with their positives and negatives. Hiring and appointing would seem to be the best way to get people that are more qualified to fill the positions that need to be filled. Elections and drafting might be perceived to be more "fair" from a members' perspective but doesn't guarantee that people with the right skills are brought into positions of authority. That has been obvious thru the years with some who have been elected to the Board, and yet the PDGA has survived.

What it boils down to is getting the best qualified people on the PDGA Staff and Board to do positive things. One would think that using a mix of ways to get qualified people in positions of authority would balance the various trade-offs in the ways people are selected and, for that matter, relieved of their positions if they don't deliver.

But there's very little downside if mistakes are made. You pay $75 all the time for playing events. If you don't like how the event was handled, you can choose not to enter it next time. There are 100s more events where you can pay $75 to enter. Yes, there's only one PDGA. But even if it falters, very few of the options you have to play the sport competitively or recreationally that we all love might be negatively impacted. As an aside, the manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping an independent PDGA strong and moving forward so I expect their help would be there if needed.

On balance, I would prefer the Board make its best effort to get the type of qualified people it believes it needs to make positive steps forward. If some choices don't pan out, you regroup and keep trying. I'll still do what I do for the sport and keep on playing. I would think you and everyone else would be able to do the same thing.

drug test are not expensive compared to the public view of our sport.

Chuck,

Your most recent post (75) seems different from the last two (68 and 70). I'll take this one seriously. I don't believe you are joking. There is a consistent philosophy there, well-reasoned and clear.

But it is a defeatist philosophy, and here is where our differences lie. You are saying that it's OK if the PDGA makes mistakes (or even "falters") because what the PDGA does is, ultimately, not very important to us. Therefore the damage that ignorant appointed Board members might do (for example) is not significant. I can see that you would not share any of the other concerns I raise on this thread. With that philosophy it's easy to say, "Who cares? It's not important."

I believe that what the PDGA does is important to us, that there is a significant downside to mistakes, and that it is important to try to correct them.

I think you missed the main idea. It boils down to getting the best people. It's worth it to use the best methods to get the best people in power possible for a potentially great upside, because if you misfire, the downside isn't fatal. It's not like the PDGA is managing your retirement fund where a misstep can be ruinous. Let's use Pete May as an example. And there are several other Board members over the years who were really more appointees than electees because many previous Board elections were not contested.

Pete May was much like the type of people to be sought for future Board appointments. He came late to disc golf after extensive participation and administration in other sports. He quickly became an important player in the sport not just a player of the game. He was courted (appointed) to run for the Board and got elected. He knew how to work with others much more knowledgeable about disc golf and bring his perspective to enhance our disc golf scene. He continues to do that having launched the highly successful collegiate effort while carving a path different from what had been our successful disc golf competition model. We could only be so lucky to continue to appoint such people to future Boards or encourage them to run with the blessing of the Nominating Committee.

Bravo

You say "drug tests are not expensive compared to the public view of our sport." I'm sure that many members feel as you do, but probably not enough.

To be effective, a drug testing program would have to test many PDGA members for an array of drugs at regular intervals over long periods of time (their whole careers). We're probably talking at least $100K per year just for that. And that's just the beginning. You have to add on the expense of the prosecution of positive results, the imposition and enforcement of sanctions, the appeals system ("it was in my allergy medicine", "the test is flawed", "it's medical marujuana", " I'm innocent" etc), and the insurance against and the defense of lawsuits. I think we're looking at several hundred thousand dollars a year total.

Maybe you have a different type of program in mind. If you can describe a reliable, fair and effective drug testing program that would, IN TOTAL (that is, including all the add-ons), cost less than $100K a year, I'd start thinking about it more seriously. If we cut no current programs, and we drove out only a few thousand current using members, we'd then be asking each remaining member to pay an extra $10 per year for your program.

So we'd be down to two questions:
1) Does such a program exist? I don't think so, but I hope I'm wrong. That ball is in your court.
2) If so, would it be worth $10 a year to the members? I don't think so, but I'd certainly be willing to ask.

Chuck,

There's a huge difference between the Pete May case and the current case. Pete May was electable, and in fact he was elected. Now you are talking about appointing people who are not electable. The Bylaws stunt was pulled precisely because they are not electable.

If they are not electable then they don't belong on our Board. If you still want their expertise then you can hire them as consultants. Stork is a much better example. His expertise has been available to the Board for years as a consultant, an arrangement that has been eminently suitable to both to Stork and the Board.

Peter, you keep making these assertions that it's not good to have appointed members when in fact, there's a long line of positive examples not only in our sport but in many other sports and company administrations much bigger than disc golf. Disc golf admin is not rocket science that requires specialized skills.

If a longtime Board member like Rothstein took enough time, I suspect he would find that those who were enouraged (in essence appointed when unopposed) to run for the Board have a much better track record than those who decided to run for the Board without any encouragement or support. I know from my more limited time than Rothstein the do-littles were elected on their own initiative and I can't think of a Board member who I know was sought out who did little or failed, with most being positive forces on the Board.

Chuck,

Not only do I assert it, I give the specific reasons why I assert it (post #37). Your attempts to counter my arguments resulted in a post so full of holes that I thought that you were joking (post #71). I'm not swayed by arguments that say, "We should blindly follow other organizations", or "Board members who were encouraged to run turned out great". I'm all for encouraging good people to run, but I want them elected, not appointed (see again #37).

We are starting to go in circles here. I stand by my reasons, and you stand by yours, but nothing useful is added so there's no progress. I'm even getting bored, so any readers must be totally turned off. There are seven major issues I have raised in my campaign and this is only one of them. Can we move on to something new?

I have no other useful information to post. You stand by your "chicken little, sky might fall" approach and I stand by "historically demonstrated competence, accepted business practice, bluer sky" approach. Those who read the posts can decide for themselves. There really is no other issue than the one we're discussing because your others are essentially offshoots of this main topic where the Board and Staff were not necessarily acting in the best interest of the org in your view even though elected/hired and/or staff not let go. Those are simply differences of opinion with no independent judge of what's right or wrong other than they acted within their assigned powers whether Board or Staff. I saw no indication that you felt something was done illegally, just not to your satisfaction.

I went back and looked at your topics and had a comment on the marketing and promotion issue. Marketing and promotion goes way beyond focus on top pros and is not a negative by default. In fact, the Board has been addressing what the marketing priorities should be since it emerged as a key topic at the last Fall Summit meeting. Notice that Duesler is not Marketing Director this year where his primary task was to raise sponsorship and promote the National Tour. The redirection in marketing and promotion efforts has been underway with one of those elements being the invitation of the two experts who participated at the Spring Summit meeting on new directions for the PDGA to consider.

I'll bite:


2) There is no danger in appointing Board members who may know nothing about disc golf because . . . you don't know what you don't know. Everyone knows what they know and also what they don't know about disc golf. What no one knows in any sport is what they don't know about many other sports. Granted, we have many things we know haven't been done yet to propel our sport forward. But that doesn't mean there aren't things we don't know from other arenas that may have more impact on our growth if they become known and implemented.



http://www.omgfunnypictures.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/20110406/b660b_73e72307-6117-4dea-ad9f-ce02452bf337.jpg


Some of your best work ever there, Chief pDGA Apologist Kennedy...as authentic a channeling of Rumsfeld as there ever was!


"As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know."
—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Actually, it comes from the Forum seminars I took in the 80s (offshoot of EST for old timers). Perhaps Rumsfeld attended...

Mikey

Interesting that you picked up on that too. My comment was, "This answer is gibberish. You make it sound as though ignorance of disc golf is a prime requisite for PDGA Board members" (post #68), but I like your reaction even better. I'd love to know how you come up with stuff like that.

PDGA Administration

So far my experience on this thread seems surreal. I'm being treated too well. I have severely criticized the PDGA Administration and some of its associates and proposed very strong corrective measures. But none of you have responded, and I don't know why. It may be that you feel that your case is effectively presented by proxy through folks like Chuck Kennedy and Jeff LaGrange. But it may also be that you refrain from courtesy, feeling that it is not appropriate for Administration figures to respond to a Board candidate during a campaign.

If so, I release you from any restraint that sort of feeling might impose. For one thing, it isn't fair. I'm not being courteous to you. I'm outspoken and aggressive in my comments. You deserve every opportunity to present your case. Secondly, your voice is conspicuous by its absence. We all lose if we never hear your side of the story, and we'll never know if we're hearing it if we only hear it through proxies.

So, Brian Graham, David Gentry, any or all Board Members, Todd Breiner, Ciphent people, etc, you are all welcome on this thread. Fire away.

So we'd be down to two questions:
1) Does such a program exist? I don't think so, but I hope I'm wrong. That ball is in your court.
2) If so, would it be worth $10 a year to the members? I don't think so, but I'd certainly be willing to ask.

Peter,

My thoughts on drug testing would be start simple and go from there.

We all know that pot is the most widely used drugs aside from alcohol.

There are mouth swab test that will only identify only hours back. My thoughts on this would be:

1. All pro players must submit a test before a tournament ( all divisions )

2. Any player can be tested at any time during the tournament if the TD feels the player has used drugs. Refusal to submit test is a immediate disqualification from the tournament and reported to PDGA.

3. All other players have the right to submit a formal complaint to the TD if they observe other player using illegal drugs. Testing will be subject at TD discretion.

4. If you fail the test of illegal drugs ( first offense ) You are banned from that tournament ( No refund ). It is reported to PDGA. Nothing more

5. If you fail a second test within the year, based on first offense date. You are banned for 6 months from playing any PDGA events.

6. 3rd failure in a year from 1st offense - Banned completely from all PDGA tournaments.



I look forward to your comments on this..

Jademan

Interesting idea. I'm glad that people are starting to seriously consider various sorts of solutions for the drug problem we face.

However, saliva testing has these problems:
1) Saliva drug testing is reliable for the detection of Methamphetamine and Opiates, but comparatively less sensitive to THC and Cannabinoids.
2) It is comparatively more expensive than urine test.
3) Some medicines such as Ibuprofen, Motrin, Advil can give false positive drug tests.

Problem #3 alone would rule it out for me. Any test that can give false positives is not a good fit for us, especially for a "quick shot" program like the one you propose.

You didn't give any information about the cost of your program. A single saliva test can cost as much as $75. How much do you believe your program would cost the PDGA per year? I still believe that even your simpler program would be prohibitively expensive.

PDGA Administration

So far my experience on this thread seems surreal. I'm being treated too well. I have severely criticized the PDGA Administration and some of its associates and proposed very strong corrective measures. But none of you have responded, and I don't know why. It may be that you feel that your case is effectively presented by proxy through folks like Chuck Kennedy and Jeff LaGrange. But it may also be that you refrain from courtesy, feeling that it is not appropriate for Administration figures to respond to a Board candidate during a campaign.

If so, I release you from any restraint that sort of feeling might impose. For one thing, it isn't fair. I'm not being courteous to you. I'm outspoken and aggressive in my comments. You deserve every opportunity to present your case. Secondly, your voice is conspicuous by its absence. We all lose if we never hear your side of the story, and we'll never know if we're hearing it if we only hear it through proxies.



Peter,

I can assure you that I speak for no one but myself - I have never thought myself as a proxy in any fashion. I have never been told that any case I have ever presented on any subject was in line with anyone in PDGA Administration or on the Board of Directors. The only clarification that was ever made was when I once suggested that a certain disgruntled individual not renew with the PDGA if he was so unhappy with it. This "gentleman" then falsely assumed and questioned whether this was the "official stance" of the PDGA, and the Memberships Manager at the time explicitly indicated that this was indeed not their stance.

I am simply someone who, like many others, have met a few of the Administration and BoD folks and they are good people. I can tell that they are doing the best job they can at growing the sport of disc golf. When we've had four different commissioners / executive directors in the last ten years and the Board of Directors has turned over several times in that timespan, I find all these conspiracy theories about a 'good ole boy network' and administration impropriety and disc manufacturers being 'puppeteers' quite laughable. Some of these folks making these accusations are probably sitting at home with tin foil hats on.

Peter, I certainly don't always agree with your approach, but my mind is still open about voting for you for the Board because of your background. I haven't seen the qualifications of the other candidates, and they may very much pale in comparison to yours. But in the meantime, one thing you might want to consider (and again, this is pure conjecture on my part) is that the silence on the part of the BoD and Administration might just possibly be because they recognize trolling when they see it.

If they could recognize trolling they would have eliminated your posts years ago.

Jeff,

I never said that you work deliberately with the Administration to present their case. I see you as proxy by accident, not by design. I only wondered if they might be so content with your independent defense of them that they had no need to speak for themselves.

As for trolling. Probably my post #8 (Breiner Enterprises and Cronyism) is the most outspoken example of the kind of attack you find objectionable. I begin that post by stating a very clear series of actions and inactions. If I accurately described the manner in which Breiner obtained the online signup contract, and you are content with that process, then you support improper behavior in the Administration. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying that Administration members are not good people, or that there is an evil empire out to get us. I am saying that, over the years, the Administration has gotten a bit "full of itself", has gotten too used to acting in secret and autocratically, and is more than a bit out of touch with the membership. Some of their practices are too high-handed. And I am calling them on it.

But you can't sweep all this away by telling us what good people they are, and what a wicked troll I am. Let's take just this one case as an example. You don't know the facts. I say that I do, because I was there. I also know that Brian does, because he was there too. He deserves the opportunity to tell his story on this thread. I invited him to do just that.

I counsel no prejudice against him if he chooses not to. There are good reasons why he might not want to -- for starters, he's a very busy man. But for me, it was essential to offer the invitation.

If they could recognize trolling they would have eliminated your posts years ago.

http://www.moccasin.com.au/messandnoise/pot-kettle.jpg

does that say the pot calling the kettle , black?

Peter
I agree with you on most of these issues.
Thanks for raising awareness to the members
of this board.

The PDGA has and is becoming a cash cow. We need
more details and more communication from the board.

The website is mediocre at best at very best. David Gentry
needs to do a better job. I have never once heard anyone
say this website is satisfactory.

Sorry to be so blunt PDGA admin but most of Peter's points
strike a chord with the members I have spoken with.

does that say the pot calling the kettle , black?

I think it is actually the kettle calling the pot black but I'm not entirely certain

Chuck,

You have posted about the importance of marketing/promotion and the need to have proactive Board members to suggest good ideas and expedite the cash flow.

Over the last five years the marketing and promotion budget increased by 160%, about 2.5 times faster than PDGA income. Over the last year alone it increased by 88%, 29 times faster than income!

This is just nuts. It's a runaway train. We're spending $!56K on marketing and promotion this year. Just what are we getting for it? I don't think that even the Open players are getting their money's worth for this cash cow.

You want to appoint marketing/promotion types to the Board and to consult experts to find new marketing/promotion projects. I want to keep them off the Board and to rearrange our priorities to do more for the PDGA members who are paying through the nose to keep these pie in the sky ventures afloat.

For all your criticism, the facts are that the PDGA is in a better cash position and cash flow than ever before. You don't get there with incompetent people and decisions. Less money is being spent on elite player programs and more has been spent on activities called marketing and promotion that you might not consider purely marketing and promotion. I believe the following items such as producing content for the website, especially event coverage (including travel), PDGA tent and traveling trailer, video projects and some sponsorship of Discgolfplanet.tv may have been charged to marketing and promotion. Despite criticism of the website performance, it should be clear there's been a significant increase in the amount of stories and other content produced for the website over the past few years, much which may have been coded as marketing and promotion in the budget.

PDGA Membership is still less than 1% of all players even with the growth in the sport. The recent redirection of: (1) PDGA Mission to now encompass all players, (2) marketing focus, (3) member services, (4) staffing and (5) funding have started and will be targeted toward underserved player groups to not only increase that percentage but increase renewals long run. Much of the results from these redirected efforts can't be seen yet because they are just getting started and more importantly, half the PDGA staff has turned over in the past six months with new people still being trained and getting up to speed. But some of the items you have noted that should be addressed for TDs and members are being addressed or scheduled to be addressed.

You could argue that the increase in PDGA fortunes is happening simply due the increase in the number of players in the sport and also on the backs of current members thru the fees they pay and some feel they're not getting their money's worth. But I believe renewal percentages have been at historical norms. So at this point it's not chasing current members away. No reason to be complacent though and watch the money roll in. So the Board and Staff have been working on the best ways to use those financial resources to both improve benefits for existing TDs and members and attract more members. Isn't that what the mission of the org should be?

does that say the pot calling the kettle , black?

I think it is actually the kettle calling the pot black but I'm not entirely certain

Actually, I think it says "this." (http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/potkettle.jpg)

Jeff,

As for trolling. Probably my post #8 (Breiner Enterprises and Cronyism) is the most outspoken example of the kind of attack you find objectionable. I begin that post by stating a very clear series of actions and inactions. If I accurately described the manner in which Breiner obtained the online signup contract, and you are content with that process, then you support improper behavior in the Administration. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying that Administration members are not good people, or that there is an evil empire out to get us. I am saying that, over the years, the Administration has gotten a bit "full of itself", has gotten too used to acting in secret and autocratically, and is more than a bit out of touch with the membership. Some of their practices are too high-handed. And I am calling them on it.

But you can't sweep all this away by telling us what good people they are, and what a wicked troll I am. Let's take just this one case as an example. You don't know the facts. I say that I do, because I was there. I also know that Brian does, because he was there too. He deserves the opportunity to tell his story on this thread. I invited him to do just that.

I counsel no prejudice against him if he chooses not to. There are good reasons why he might not want to -- for starters, he's a very busy man. But for me, it was essential to offer the invitation.

Peter,

I feel that my time is best spent working on behalf of all of our members and the association rather than debating just one on the message board. I also do not feel it is appropriate for the Executive Director to debate board candidates on the message board regarding their platform, however since I am now here and you have invited me to comment, I will address only the accusations you have made against me.

I am admittedly a bit stymied by your charges of cronyism and non-action on my part regarding the online registration system because I clearly answered all of your questions on the topic in two different e-mail replies to you on February 18, 2011, explaining that the decision to not release an RFP but to instead create our own online registration system was not solely mine but came about as a result of a number of discussions between myself, the Board of Directors, and the IT Steering Committee. I also furnished you with board minutes at that time that documented some of these discussions and invited you to contact board members if you had any additional questions.

You say you were there when the original decision to publish an RFP was made and you indeed were. The problem is that you resigned from the board soon after that point so you were not privvy to subsequent conversations on the topic or instructions given to me by the Board following your departure.

You made the decision to disregard my explanation and to publicly level these accusations against me despite the fact that you knew the reasons why an RFP was not published and that saddens and disappoints me.

That is all I have to say on the matter.

Brian says, "You made the decision to disregard my explanation and to publicly level these accusations against me despite the fact that you knew the reasons why an RFP was not published and that saddens and disappoints me."

The explanation Brian gives doesn't wash. He makes it sound like I left the Board right after we voted to issue the RFP, and that the Board then voted to nullify its earlier action.

The Board voted to issue the RFP on May 1, 2008. I didn't leave the Board until September 1. Not only did Brian refuse to issue the RFP during that four month period, he did not even inform us that he hadn't done it. I had no idea he hadn't done it. It was his job to do so.

We do know that Breiner somehow got the contract after I left the Board, but there is no clear indication in the minutes explaining how this happened -- no "instructions" given to Brian by the Board. The last Board vote regarding online signup was the May 2008 vote to issue the RFP. So we still don't know why Brian didn't issue it.

Thanks for bringing this to light, Peter. As a member, I am not saddened, but I am disappointed and slightly angry to hear that big money contracts are being given out to individuals seemingly only because those individuals are friends with the ED and/or members of the BoD. Yes, I am angry. When Brian says "Create our own online registration system", it makes it seem like that work was not contracted out. What a spin.

Peter, is it accurate to say that Breiner was awarded that contract, and that Breiner is a good friend of Brian? I'm just trying to clarify.

As long as we are on the topic of the PDGA wasting our money- One thing that struck a chord with me when I looked at the financial report for 2010/2011 was the $90,000 budgeted this year for course maintenance at the IDGC. Is there another course going in? That's alot of money. Peter, I'm not asking you because I know you don't represent the PDGA right now. I was surprised that it was not brought up yet and I'm just wondering if you had similar thoughts when you saw the report.

DSproAVIAR

At least you have some idea of how that $90K is being spent. My first concern has been for the big items that mystify me. Two stand out.

There's $156K budgeted for marketing/promotion this year, 87% more than last year. I wonder who is receiving that money and just what we're getting for it. Then there's over $600K in cash reserves. I wonder where that money is supposed to go.

sounds like the pdga can afford drug testing their pro players at least!

Jademan

Interesting idea. I'm glad that people are starting to seriously consider various sorts of solutions for the drug problem we face.

However, saliva testing has these problems:
1) Saliva drug testing is reliable for the detection of Methamphetamine and Opiates, but comparatively less sensitive to THC and Cannabinoids.
2) It is comparatively more expensive than urine test.
3) Some medicines such as Ibuprofen, Motrin, Advil can give false positive drug tests.

Problem #3 alone would rule it out for me. Any test that can give false positives is not a good fit for us, especially for a "quick shot" program like the one you propose.

You didn't give any information about the cost of your program. A single saliva test can cost as much as $75. How much do you believe your program would cost the PDGA per year? I still believe that even your simpler program would be prohibitively expensive.

Peter,

1. As I agree it is less sensitive to THC, The sensitivity lowers the amount of time detection of positive results can be found. usually between 2 - 4 hours after use. This actually works to our favor since the concern would not be if the player had smoked pot the day before. And some False Negatives will happen. There is no 100% full proof method.

2. Pricing on oral testing usually ranges from $12 to 20 per use, pending the brand you use. Since I believe you narrow the testing to Pro's only this should help lower cost. It is suggested that in the case of a "Positive" result that another form of test be used to verify results. Urine test, less than $1 per test would confirm this but also stretches back farther in time. 2 to 4 days. The reason for this is based on the fact that oral false positives (FP) do happen with all testing and oral testing shows to be about 3% FP. Using a combination of test lowers this results down to less than 1%.

3. Advances in testing has lowered these "FP"'s to a very narrow margin and the double test in case of a "Positive" result would result in a near 99~100% accuracy.

I would think that based on the size of PDGA that these cost could be brought way down if purchasing in larger quantities directly from the manufactures.

Of course these are only suggestions and by no means the perfect answer. I would hope that the BOD would discuss and review all options available on how to best implement this type of testing policy if they truly wanted to clean the sport up.

Having $600,000 in cash reserves is a good thing.
No need to spend every penny. Saving for the future
or future needs is important. You never know - there
may come a day when we retreat from these record gains
and level back to less tournament, less members and less cash flow.

Just sayin'

Peter,

Was Breiner awarded the online registration system contract?

Thanks for bringing this to light, Peter. As a member, I am not saddened, but I am disappointed and slightly angry to hear that big money contracts are being given out to individuals seemingly only because those individuals are friends with the ED and/or members of the BoD. Yes, I am angry. When Brian says "Create our own online registration system", it makes it seem like that work was not contracted out. What a spin.

Peter, is it accurate to say that Breiner was awarded that contract, and that Breiner is a good friend of Brian? I'm just trying to clarify.

As long as we are on the topic of the PDGA wasting our money- One thing that struck a chord with me when I looked at the financial report for 2010/2011 was the $90,000 budgeted this year for course maintenance at the IDGC. Is there another course going in? That's alot of money. Peter, I'm not asking you because I know you don't represent the PDGA right now. I was surprised that it was not brought up yet and I'm just wondering if you had similar thoughts when you saw the report.


Daemon,

Against my better judgement, I am responding to your post above only so that our members are not misinformed about the real costs of the International Disc Golf Center. You mistakenly posted that $90,000 was budgeted this year for course maintenance at the IDGC when the financial report clearly states that line item as covering course design, installation, equipment and signage, insurance and permits, pro shop product, sales tax, and revenue sharing with the county.

Additionally you conveniently failed to mention the $72,500 that the IDGC is projected to bring in on the income side, which would bring our total expenditures to only $17,500 for the year. Considering that $15,000 of that $17,500 is a capital expense budgeted to purchase a much needed tractor this year to replace the 40+ year old tractor that the county loaned to us which no longer works, and our shortfall is a mere $2,500 for the year.

Take also into account that our rent at the IDGC is a mere $600 per month for a 2,700 square foot building, tournament pavilion, infrastructure, and 100+ acres of prime lakefront real estate and I would say that the PDGA and it's members are getting the deal of the century. The IDGC was built with sponsorship, donations, and endowment fund money, not PDGA member money. The IDGC generates money for the PDGA. It does not cost the members money.

The PDGA's fulfillment contract with Breiner, under which the online registration is now covered, goes back to long before I was hired. Yes I consider Breiner a friend of mine. I consider all disc golfers as friends. Yes ... even you! ;)

if the true will was to clean our image the weed must go.
im not saying prosecute all those that fail just dont pay to those that do.
move the payouts down the list of players until you start getting clean test .
and continue bypassing those that fail for those that dont.
in the long run a drug free professional disc golf association would be a far easier sale to the public.

Peter, I keep asking myself this and might as well ask you: Why should a membership that is so stupid as to vote to approve a Constitution that abolishes their right to vote have an opportunity to vote? By voting for such a Constitution, did not the membership clearly signal that we are incapable of intelligently exercising any privilege of self-governance?

Peter

As a former BOD candidate, I appreciate your honorable intentions and willingness to take on the daunting task of changing the course of our organization.

Bruce B. brings up a valid concern. Is Peter just advocating "closing the barn door after the cows have already left"? It seems the membership already gave up all rights with the constitutional changes.

The PDGA's fulfillment contract with Breiner, under which the online registration is now covered, goes back to long before I was hired. Yes I consider Breiner a friend of mine. I consider all disc golfers as friends. Yes ... even you! ;)

Breiner's exclusive online registration contract has the same familiar rotten smell as many of our local government contracts. Change orders on an existing contract are not subject to bid laws.

Here is a question Peter:
When elected, what will you do, if anything, to make the finances of the organization more transparent? Are you satisfied with the present, single page report that summarizes together income and expense items?

steve timm

Daemon,

Against my better judgement, I am responding to your post above only so that our members are not misinformed about the real costs of the International Disc Golf Center. You mistakenly posted that $90,000 was budgeted this year for course maintenance at the IDGC when the financial report clearly states that line item as covering course design, installation, equipment and signage, insurance and permits, pro shop product, sales tax, and revenue sharing with the county.

Additionally you conveniently failed to mention the $72,500 that the IDGC is projected to bring in on the income side, which would bring our total expenditures to only $17,500 for the year. Considering that $15,000 of that $17,500 is a capital expense budgeted to purchase a much needed tractor this year to replace the 40+ year old tractor that the county loaned to us which no longer works, and our shortfall is a mere $2,500 for the year.

Take also into account that our rent at the IDGC is a mere $600 per month for a 2,700 square foot building, tournament pavilion, infrastructure, and 100+ acres of prime lakefront real estate and I would say that the PDGA and it's members are getting the deal of the century. The IDGC was built with sponsorship, donations, and endowment fund money, not PDGA member money. The IDGC generates money for the PDGA. It does not cost the members money.

The PDGA's fulfillment contract with Breiner, under which the online registration is now covered, goes back to long before I was hired. Yes I consider Breiner a friend of mine. I consider all disc golfers as friends. Yes ... even you! ;)

Too bad only one of the three courses lives up to the expectations for the property. Then again if I ever make it out that way I may love them all but from what I have heard only the Houck course is "good-great".

You mistakenly posted that $90,000 was budgeted this year for course maintenance at the IDGC when the financial report clearly states that line item as covering course design, installation, equipment and signage, insurance and permits, pro shop product, sales tax, and revenue sharing with the county.


Brian (Or anyone with an answer),

Will there be a new course installed at the IDGC this year? I missed that.

I'm curious about the online registration contract as well. I seem to remember "baldguy" (sorry, I can't remember his name - Josh maybe?) was trying hard to get the pDGA to use his service (titledisc.com). Seems like he also asked several questions that made people mad, causing hard feelings with HQ.

Peter, do you know if "titledisc" ever got a fair opportunity to bid for the online registration contract? Brian G.'s answer makes it sound like the contract was added to Briener's pDGA cash flow without looking at other businesses.

Daemon,

Against my better judgement, I am responding to your post above only so that our members are not misinformed about the real costs of the International Disc Golf Center. You mistakenly posted that $90,000 was budgeted this year for course maintenance at the IDGC when the financial report clearly states that line item as covering course design, installation, equipment and signage, insurance and permits, pro shop product, sales tax, and revenue sharing with the county.

Additionally you conveniently failed to mention the $72,500 that the IDGC is projected to bring in on the income side, which would bring our total expenditures to only $17,500 for the year. Considering that $15,000 of that $17,500 is a capital expense budgeted to purchase a much needed tractor this year to replace the 40+ year old tractor that the county loaned to us which no longer works, and our shortfall is a mere $2,500 for the year.

Take also into account that our rent at the IDGC is a mere $600 per month for a 2,700 square foot building, tournament pavilion, infrastructure, and 100+ acres of prime lakefront real estate and I would say that the PDGA and it's members are getting the deal of the century. The IDGC was built with sponsorship, donations, and endowment fund money, not PDGA member money. The IDGC generates money for the PDGA. It does not cost the members money.

! ;)


I am no expert but to me this sounds way too political for me. even if it is a line item for "course design, installation, equipment and signage, insurance and permits, pro shop product, sales tax, and revenue sharing with the county." explain the design portion as well as the installation equipment and signage. to me those are all fluff to explain the extremely large amount of money dedicated to the IDGC. unless there is a plan in the works to "design" "install" a new course and put in new signs and baskets or something like that why are those listed. as far as pro shop product, sales tax and revenue sharing, I find it completely incomprehensible that that would cost 90K. especially since your rent is only $600 per month. I do enjoy the courses and think they are a landmark for DG but to try and explain away 90K by throwing a bunch of nonexistent expenses sounds too much like our current govt to me.


.02

Bruce

You wrote, "Peter, I keep asking myself this and might as well ask you: Why should a membership that is so stupid as to vote to approve a Constitution that abolishes their right to vote have an opportunity to vote? By voting for such a Constitution, did not the membership clearly signal that we are incapable of intelligently exercising any privilege of self-governance?"

Bruce, I probably voted for that Constitution myself. I believe that members trusted the Board. I can imagine situations where rapid and autocratic Board action might be desirable. But I never imagined they would use it to take away member rights without consultation. I don't believe that the membership is stupid, or I wouldn't have run. They have a hard time understanding what's going on because of the Administration cult of secrecy. I want to put a stop to that.

In any case, the proper course is not to disenfranchise the membership, as the Board has done. It is, rather, to inform and educate the electorate.

johnrock and NOHalfFastPull

Yes, Breiner was awarded the contract without competition, even though the Board voted in May 2008 to put the contract out for competitive bids.

Neither Titledisc, nor any other independent vendor, ever had a chance to bid for the online signup contract.

Steve, I believe in fiscal transparency. I'm certainly not happy with the one-page summaries we usually get. The only detailed budget that was ever released was the one for 2008. I made the motion to release it and it carried. Pat Brenner, however, did ALL the heavy lifting on getting it done, and he deserves our thanks.

I would certainly support such measures in the future. Whether it would actually happen, of course, depends on the rest of the Board.

I found the thread, it's on page 10 of this section under "titleDisc.com" (sorry, I'm no linker).
Interesting read, I suggest everyone read and ingest what happened. (EDIT: Pay attention to the dates of the posts.) Seems like there was supposed to be some bidding. (EDIT #2: Promised to be RFP's - or something like that).
Now I'm saddened and VERY disappointed.

Peter,
If elected, would you support offering an olive branch of peace to get Pat B.'s presence back on the board? I miss sandalman's lack of capitalization. The nominating committee could approve his appointment if the rest of the Board is OK with it.

Another question I just thought of (kind of related to your platform):

How long do these "appointed" positions last?

Peter

As a former BOD candidate, I appreciate your honorable intentions and willingness to take on the daunting task of changing the course of our organization.

Bruce B. brings up a valid concern. Is Peter just advocating "closing the barn door after the cows have already left"? It seems the membership already gave up all rights with the constitutional changes.



Breiner's exclusive online registration contract has the same familiar rotten smell as many of our local government contracts. Change orders on an existing contract are not subject to bid laws.

Here is a question Peter:
When elected, what will you do, if anything, to make the finances of the organization more transparent? Are you satisfied with the present, single page report that summarizes together income and expense items?

steve timm

All aromas aside, Brian G.'s reply indicates that Briener's contract with our org. goes back quite some time. Spend some time thinking about Steve's second highlighted sentence.

Peter, Are you aware (since you've sat in on some Board meetings) of said contract, and are you aware of what all is involved with the contract with Briener Enterprises? Can the membership feel comfortable that our HQ has chosen the best entity for this position?

johnrock

Breiner had the "fullfillment" contract for years before he somehow was awarded the online signup contract. Without competitive bidding, we'll never know if we have the right entity.

I don't want anybody appointed to the Board. I don't want anybody on the Board who is not elected by the membership. and that includes Pat Brenner and myself. On the other hand, I'd be very happy if Pat ran for the Board, and I would support his candidacy.

Well, this has all been really interesting. I recently picked up on there being some kind of history regarding Titledisc, but I didn't know what it was, and still doubt I know the whole story. That's too bad since Titledisc is the main local tournament host in my area, as far as I know.

Meanwhile, I've tried to educate myself a bit, since I don't even know who is on the current Board of Directors, and I've discovered I had a hard time finding that information. I finally, found the members listed in the contact us section, but I don't know who is on the committees listed. I'm just unclear generally on the structure of the organization and generally what's going on. Is there a document that can quickly bring me up to speed?

Jennifer I will take a shot at helping you. I'll tell you what I believe is how things are organized but admit I could be a bit mistaken and welcome corrections if I am wrong.

We, the PDGA, have lots of members. We currently elect 7 board members to represent us and run things. The BOD members set policy and the Executive Director Brian Graham has the responsibility to implement the directives of the BOD. A recent action of the board was to expand the BOD from 7 to 9. These additional board members will be appointed and the terms of the board members will be extended to 3 years so each year the BOD will retain 6 members and potentially get 3 new members. This new structure get is intended to retain the instutional knowledge of 2/3 of the BOD every year to improve the continuity of things. The BOD obviously can't be responsible for everything so they have some committees to help them but the BOD ultimately has the responsibility. The committees include a rules committee, a competition committee, a technical standards committee, and a disciplinary committee. There is a Tour manager, a membership manager, a marketing manager. The PDGA coordinates a National Tour of large events, owns and makes significant contributions towards running pro and am worlds championships, and runs an educational program called EDGE. They manage the PDGA.com website and have some interest in the PDGA magazine Discgolfer. In addition to the big events the PDGA sanctions the a,b, and c tier events that populate the vast majority of the PdgA calendar. They also maintain a ratings system to give members a consistent way to evaluate the level of members against each other based on tournament results.

I most likely left some things out. I hope I didn't mess up anything but I'm sure someone will correct me. Hope this helps.

... The PDGA ... runs an educational program called EDGE. .


EDGE The Educational Disc Golf Experience was not organized by the PDGA. EDGE is not operated nor funded by the PDGA.

http://www.edgediscgolf.org/


EDGE is a independent charitable organization developed to bring disc golf to our youth through school and community programs. EDGE is run by Jon Lyksett, Jay Reading and Des Reading. EDGE was founded under the direction of Harold Duvall with assistance from Innova Champion Discs.

EDGE offers the Tournament Charity Program. While many PDGA events and TD's participate in this program, it is not administered nor funded by the PDGA. http://www.edgediscgolf.org/files/EDGE_Tournament_Charity_Info.pdf

Thanks. How are the committee members selected, and how can we see who's on each committee and what they've done?

Peter - sorry to hijack your thread.

Discette - thank you for the correction.

Jennifer - I don't know how you would see who is on each committee. Maybe ask the chairman from the contact page? How are they selected? Sometimes posts are made on the website asking for volunteers. Interested parties reply, conversations follow, if it's a good fit you get asked to join. At least that's how it worked for me and BOOM I found myself the head of a committee for awhile several years ago.

Daemon,
....
You mistakenly posted that $90,000 was budgeted this year for course maintenance at the IDGC when the financial report clearly states that line item as covering course design, installation, equipment and signage, insurance and permits, pro shop product, sales tax, and revenue sharing with the county.


OK So is there a new course being designed and installed at the IDGC this year? Anyone? I searched around and couldn't find any announcements of plans for a new course this year.

Thanks.

No new course at IDGC for a few years at least. The existing courses still need improvements before considering another course.

OK So is there a new course being designed and installed at the IDGC this year? Anyone? I searched around and couldn't find any announcements of plans for a new course this year.

Thanks.

This is exactly what i was curious about. i cannot fathom that this money is not being used unscrupulously. too much "gray" area. and the fact that there isnt a new course going in. can we possibly get a rebuttle of this? let us know why that much $$$ is needed for maintenence and signage? i know insurance isnt 90k a year.

Read Graham's post #109. Besides the much needed $15K tractor, you'll see that a significant chunk of the remaining $75,000 must be product for the IDGC Pro Shop which produces a significant portion of the $72,500 in projected income for the IDGC. The financial statement doesn't match Income and Cost of Goods for related items in the same area so it's easier to see that. But that may be normal accounting procedures for a non-profit.

If you have an issue with the way the PDGA spends it's money, simply don't rejoin and or don't sanction your event.

i cannot fathom that this money is not being used unscrupulously. too much "gray" area. and the fact that there isnt a new course going in. can we possibly get a rebuttle of this? let us know why that much $$$ is needed for maintenence and signage? i know insurance isnt 90k a year.

And a good example why post #109 starts out with "Against my better judgement". Given the tone, accusations, and so on, it borders on foolishness that would bring a Board Member or Director here to discuss an issue.

Board members and director should be posting
more than anyone on this board. This board should
certainly be updated and information should be posted
in a clear, well defined area.

Transparency is necessary.

It looks like each row of the "Notes" section goes from biggest expense (or income) to smallest expense. It's just weird to see "Course design" and "Installation" at the front end of the list of IDGC expenses when there is no new course going in. Even if it wasn't at the front end, it's just weird to see on the IDGC expense list period.

If you have an issue with the way the PDGA spends it's money, simply don't rejoin and or don't sanction your event.

My post was not an attack. i am happy with the way things are run. i just dont like budgeting 90k and using "course design and installation, signs etc" in the line item when that is clearly not what its used for. just say " we are buying a tractor. paying insurance and buying 50k worth of plastic and merch to sell." if there is no plan to install a course why is money specifically budgeted for that expense. :confused:

I find it unusual also but not uncommon for numbers to end up in one account category versus another that seems more obvious. Many times, it's easier and more consistent to keep numbers in the accounts where the staff members who budget and use them know where they are and what they mean. When the IDGC store opened, it was a small part of the IDGC operations. Now it's a major activity center so maybe they'll break it out at some point.

Board members and director should be posting more than anyone on this board. This board should certainly be updated and information should be posted in a clear, well defined area.

Hogwash.

Like the Executive Director and the Board of Directors have time to surf an internet message board. Aren't they busy growing the sport of disc golf? And in the case of the BoD, they also have their own 9-5 jobs and careers to attend to.

Should Board matters be transparent and posted to the PDGA website in a timely manner? Absolutely. Should these folks be expected to scan an internet message board every day and respond to questions? Puh-lease. If they did, they'd no doubt never hear the end of it from the membership about it.

you could argue that the increase in pdga fortunes is happening simply due the increase in the number of players in the sport and also on the backs of current members thru the fees they pay and some feel they're not getting their money's worth.

^^^qft!

Removed by poster

buying invitory for retails sales is not growing the sport.

Read Graham's post #109. Besides the much needed $15K tractor, you'll see that a significant chunk of the remaining $75,000 must be product for the IDGC Pro Shop which produces a significant portion of the $72,500 in projected income for the IDGC. The financial statement doesn't match Income and Cost of Goods for related items in the same area so it's easier to see that. But that may be normal accounting procedures for a non-profit.

Maybe you could humor me on this one. what is the typical profit on say a $15 retail priced disc. especially if you are buying 60K worth of it. i am thinking that the margin has to be close to 75%.

Margin on disc retail prices ranges from roughly a high of 50% down to 33%. The IDGC also sells a variety of other items and margins on them typically runs at or lower than for discs. Note that some percentage of sales at the IDGC are payout conversions for Am prizes awarded in the several events run at the IDGC.

Surely the IDGC is getting a MUCH better deal on wholesale discs than your average ordinary Joe TD. You're not trying to indicate that the IDGC'c profit margins are on the low side of your scale, are you? I've never been to the IDGC so I have no idea what kind of pricing they're doing. Can you give us an idea of what they charge for discs?

I've posted only what I generally know about DG merch and am not involved in the IDGC operations. You would have to get info on this from the PDGA office.

Right, you've never seen the invoices personally. I suspect you've been to the IDGC (maybe even recently) so you have an idea about the retail price. You've been involved in this sport for quite a while now, and involved in the upper levels of the org., so I'm betting you have a pretty good idea that our leaders aren't paying the same for discs as Average Joe TD. You don't want to say it openly, and I understand why.

Now, a question for Peter:

Peter, You've made it clear that you believe the BOD members should be more transparent, and possibly communicate better with the general membership. Everytime there is a member who complains about something on this board related to the top level of the org., we seem to always hear one, two, or even several other members counter the complaint that the BOD (or ED in some cases) doesn't have the time to devote to reading OUR "official" internet message board. My question to you is more like 2 questions: 1) In your experience on this site, how long does it really take to peruse this board (there is really only one or two threads where the majority of complaints surface)? And 2) Would you be in favor of having a member of the BOD (or office staff) dedicate a certain amount of time each day/week/month to address these complaints?

I mean really, how much actual time does it take, or is there a deeper reason why the discussion board is nearly void of responses from the top levels?

johnrock

In answer to your two questions:

1) It doesn't take much time. When I was on the Board both Pat Brenner and I did this, because we felt that it was important. But the Administration discouraged it, and I'm sure they still do.
2) I wouldn't make it an assignment, because any Board member who doesn't feel comfortable in this forum should not be forced to enter it. If elected I would post regularly here, as I used to, on the "Ask Board member Peter Shive" thread, and I would encourage other Board members to communicate with the membership. I would recommend that members refuse to vote for Board candidates who favor maintaining the culture of secrecy in the Administration.

Communication works both ways. I learn from it as well. For example, I know a lot more about drug testing than I did before starting this thread, because of comments and questions from concerned and knowledgable members.

Thanks for the replies, Peter.

I remember your thread, I think I even asked a question or 2 that made some of the upper level upset:D.

I'm certainly no computer pro, but it seems to me that a person (especially someone who has achieved a higher education level than I have) could set up their preferences to jump to 1 or 2 threads where they know the brunt of activity occurs, and scan those threads for questions or complaints, contemplate the query, and make a short response in just a few minutes. Even if activity was especially high once or twice a month, it just doesn't seem that difficult to me. But then again, I'm no office-life expert - my life revolves around construction sites. I suppose it could be that I just don't understand what kind of time crunch the office staff is in, and responding to members concerns is not a high priority (unless that member takes time away from their real work to call HQ for a phone conversation).

Board members should really not be putting anything in writing that has not been officially approved/voted on as the PDGA position on matters. If you have a question on approved policies, then simply send it to the PDGA office since they should be able to answer it. It's not really good form for sitting Board members to discuss or comment on ideas in writing even if these discussions are unofficial. It's still the PDGA D-Board and text on here may carry a level of authority from posting Board members even if it's not warranted.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with discussing ideas and concerns on the D-Baord so the PDGA Staff and Board can read them. It's just not good form for them to respond other than asking for more clarification if needed or clearing up any inaccuracies as Graham has done. Several Staff and Board members do read this and other threads that provide member feedback so members posting here are being heard.

They are being heard by you Chuck, and we thank you, but we heard from no one else.

You are the Face of the PDGA on the message board Chuck.

I enjoy your insight, knowledge, and appriceate your responses!

An opinion on the message board is an opinion, and I think a Board Member should be able to post their opinions! Even thou they might change when it is time to vote on issues, but its sad that it seems like they dont want to respond, or simply just care less about the MESSAGE board and it s members. Or is it that board members wont respond because of the back lash that they will recieve at the next board meeting.

I dont know, but it would be nice too hear from someone other than just Chuck. Nothing agianst you Chuck.

Chuck you certainly are entitled to your opinion on that.

What about posting on issues that have already been voted on?
For example why hasn't any of the BOD explained why they voted to ban smoking at worlds?
Why haven't any of them discussed why they think it is so important to appoint potentially non disc golfers to a voting position on the BOD vs hiring them for their expertise?

I can see you point about not discussing it prior to a vote but why not explain their position after the vote? Getting info and explanations second and third hand, if at all, isn't working for me.

Other than the slip up where the staff didn't indicate the Board had passed the smoking ban for Worlds before sending out invites, the Staff has mostly been on top of publicizing the Board actions that directly affected members, especially prior to the staff upheavals that started around the beginning of this year.

I agree the communication has been slower in some cases than desired in the past six months while the new staff transitions into their new roles. Regardless, those communications have been directed to the Home page via announcements, stories and posting approved Board minutes rather than announcing things on the D-Board which has a narrower audience. Take a search thru the stories and you'll see a lot information on positive things that don't get discussed here such as the grant program.

The Staff, Board and Committee members like me get lots of emails from members on topics of concern that are sometimes posted here. Members who don't frequent the D-Board or even the PDGA site get their answers and explanations that way. And in the case of suggestions, complaints, ideas, the staff incorporates them in their agenda when the topic comes up for discussion either in house or with the Board.

I think the PDGA appreciates my unique position as an inside outsider without official communication status but hopefully providing decent answers. But I still try not to discuss or explain things that have not been officially approved. If you only saw the posts I've written that hit the trash before posting...

If Peter gets elected, he'll need to be careful again with how he handles the Ask Board Member Shive due to the responsibilities he will have pledged to uphold as a PDGA Board member. Doesn't mean he can't explain actions that were approved or voted down. But he might have to listen more than respond on topics the Board may be deliberating for a period of time.

Thanks for the explanation Peter but unfortunately I just don't believe that the lack of interaction on the part of the BoD and ED is deliberately and explicitly due to "maintaining the culture of secrecy" which is the picture you are trying so desperately to paint.

Rather, in somewhat the manner that Chuck alluded to, I agree that it's 1) not exactly a valuable use of volunteer and membership-supported paid staff time & effort to engage in internet message board debate and 2) because of the nature of internet message boards, and this one in particular with its small but vocal number of muckrakers who often delight in presenting "gotcha" type questions and scenarios, it's inappropriate for the BoD and the ED to get involved. In fact, I often cringe whenever I see a simple post from a Board member or the ED because I know that something as staightforward as a clarification or clearing up an inaccuracy often just gets wildly mutated and turned into fodder for the haters to spew more venom. For these reasons, I think that the ED & BoD simply and wisely choose to stay out of the fray, and not because they intentionally want to maintain an aura of secrecy.

Should the publicizing of Board actions (and the rationale behind them) somewhere on the PDGA website become more of a priority? I can agree with that. Is communication and transparency an important issue? Absolutely. But I think expecting that to happen on the PDGA DISCussion Board is quite another thing entirely and I believe that very little good can come from it. And lastly, fyi anyone can use the PDGA Contact form (http://www.pdga.com/contact) to contact a BoD member or the ED...the avenues of communication have always been there for PDGA members, so why not use them?

Once again, my position is as an outsider outsider and I speak for no one but myself.

Everyone,

Chuck says, "Board members should really not be putting anything in writing that has not been officially approved/voted on as the PDGA position on matters". That is quite likely a nice summary of the Administration position. And if you believe it, you accept the secrecy that I abhor. With that idea in place, you will never know what is going on until after the fact. And maybe not even then.

I consider that statement to be absolute nonsense. If the membership elects a Board member, that person is their representative on the Board, and owes the members some regular commentary about what is going on. In addition, that Board member has a responsibility to explain to the membership his or her position on the important issues at hand. That is where accountability starts.

Whatever others might believe, if I am elected that is exactly what the membership will get from me. On this website.

Chuck and Jeff
You both have made impressive contributions.
Chuck, without your rating system, the pDGA would offer even less for the participants.
For that, I thank you.
Jeff, your ability to review courses and assist the TDs in the events you attend makes a huge difference.
Thank you, thank you.
In my humble opinion, you both are a bit too quick to jump into topics that should be addressed
by the leadership of the pDGA. No fault of yours, you are just filling a void.

Back to Peter's run for office.
In the past you have reacted to policies and presented your opinion on numerous policies of the pDGA. To name just a few:
Your resignation from the BOD, Your desire to run again (to replace yourself), the naming of Your replacement,
Your chairmanship of this message bored committee (with draconian rules that lead to its demise)
Your stand against bottled water, Your opposition to the online registration contract, Your position on drug testing, .....

With the record you have complied, do you think you have the skills
to be an effective member of the Board of Directors?
Will you be able to build the trust of your fellow board members and get anything accomplished?

steve timm

Other than the slip up where the staff didn't indicate the Board had passed the smoking ban for Worlds before sending out invites, the Staff has mostly been on top of publicizing the Board actions that directly affected members, especially prior to the staff upheavals that started around the beginning of this year.

I agree the communication has been slower in some cases than desired in the past six months while the new staff transitions into their new roles. Regardless, those communications have been directed to the Home page via announcements, stories and posting approved Board minutes rather than announcing things on the D-Board which has a narrower audience. Take a search thru the stories and you'll see a lot information on positive things that don't get discussed here such as the grant program.

The Staff, Board and Committee members like me get lots of emails from members on topics of concern that are sometimes posted here. Members who don't frequent the D-Board or even the PDGA site get their answers and explanations that way. And in the case of suggestions, complaints, ideas, the staff incorporates them in their agenda when the topic comes up for discussion either in house or with the Board.

I think the PDGA appreciates my unique position as an inside outsider without official communication status but hopefully providing decent answers. But I still try not to discuss or explain things that have not been officially approved. If you only saw the posts I've written that hit the trash before posting...

If Peter gets elected, he'll need to be careful again with how he handles the Ask Board Member Shive due to the responsibilities he will have pledged to uphold as a PDGA Board member. Doesn't mean he can't explain actions that were approved or voted down. But he might have to listen more than respond on topics the Board may be deliberating for a period of time.

I don't disagree Chuck that the issues the BOD votes on get communicated to the members. I don't vote for the BOD though. I vote for the individual members who makeup the BOD. I want to know why each BOD member thought it was important to to appoint potentially non disc golfers to voting positions onthe BOD instead of hiring them. All I know is as a group they thought it was good. I think that is a bad idea. Next time each incumbent is up for re-election I am inclined to vote against them all for that poor decision ( in my opinion) Did one of them share my opinion? I don't know. Can any of them share their wisdom with me and perhaps point out something I hadn't considered? Not in this current environment.

In a recent vote Todd abstained from voting. I sure don't understand why. I don't always want to just here the outcome of the vote announced from the office staff 2nd or 3rd hand. You suggest I can get my answers and explanations via emails to the BOD. I tried that route in the 5 day window before the vote to change te bylaws. I emailed all 7 BOD members. 3 responded with a one or two sentence reply saying they were in favor of it, 1 replied with a much more in depth response, and 3 completely ignored my email.

That just isn't good enough communication in my opinion. I would like to see the BOD do better in communicating with the members. With Peter on the BOD I feel I will get the better communication I seek from at least one member.

Thanks for the explanation Peter but unfortunately I just don't believe that the lack of interaction on the part of the BoD and ED is deliberately and explicitly due to "maintaining the culture of secrecy" which is the picture you are trying so desperately to paint.

Rather, in somewhat the manner that Chuck alluded to, I agree that it's 1) not exactly a valuable use of volunteer and membership-supported paid staff time & effort to engage in internet message board debate and 2) because of the nature of internet message boards, and this one in particular with its small but vocal number of muckrakers who often delight in presenting "gotcha" type questions and scenarios, it's inappropriate for the BoD and the ED to get involved.

Huh?

:)

He means the members should elect the leaders then sit back and shut up while they guide us into the promised land.

Dear Mr. Kenny,

I have never abstained from any BoD vote.

Dear Mr. Shive,

No one has ever tried to dissuade me from posting here. I choose not to.

Regards,

My apologies Todd.

I meant to say Decker abstained.(as documented in the January 2011 teleconference minutes) It was late and I was thinking ahead to what I wanted to include. You were in my mind due to your more in depth, and appreciated, response to my email on the appointment issue.

Again, my apologies

Todd A

I never said that anyone tried to dissuade you from posting on the PDGA website. But now that you have, I have two questions for you.

You are a member of the new "Nominating Committee". One of the duties of the Nominating Committee, as I recall, is to judge the fitness of Board candidates. In order for that task to serve any useful purpose, those fitness evaluations should be made available to the voting membership before they vote. The last date for candidates to announce has recently been moved back to July 1, so the actual election period is much shorter this year than before.

When does the voting period begin?
When will the Nominating Committe release the fitness evaluations for the candidates?

Your first question is answered in the beginning of the story announcing current candidates: http://www.pdga.com/call-for-candidates I think you can narrow down the answer to your second question as sometime between the deadline for candidates July 1 and the start of the election July 18. I pick July 6th.

Peter,
I have continued to read each and every one of your extremely wordy and overall negative post.

Your entire platform appears to be based on what you perceive as wrongs and injustices. I can't say that I have read more than 2-3 positive comments in this entire thread. I am sure there are many more members who see that you do not shine a positive light on the organization.

You have not come across as a consensus builder. Actually you come across as a warrior with an ax to grind no matter what the cost. I cannot imagine how you could possibly expect to work with the other board members when you have attacked virtually every one of them either individually or as a group?

Based on the overall negative attitude you exude in your post, I have already made up my mind to not vote for you. I expect that your penchant for tearing down vs. building up of individuals and the organization will dissuade others from supporting you.

Best of luck with your campaign however I will certainly advise as many people as I can to place their support and votes elsewhere.

steve timm

The preamble to your most recent questions is far more provocative than the questions themselves. We should go there first, because there's no point in my touting my qualifications as a Board member to someone who believes that I am responsible for "the demise of the message board".

I agree that the website is in a sorry state, and the message board will be negatively affected because it has to live on the website. But you are clearly referring to my service as Communications Director, and the "draconian rules" that I upheld.

Given the goals of the PDGA message board, I'm quite satisfied with my service as CD. I'm happy to defend that service, if you could be more specific about what I did that you object to, and what you believe I should have done instead.

i2rt

That is just as it should be. My posts are negative because I am angry, not only about what is happening to the PDGA, but also about how it is happening. No one should vote for me unless they share that anger.

Thanks for giving me a fair hearing. No candidate could ask for more than that.

steve timm

The preamble to your most recent questions is far more provocative than the questions themselves. We should go there first, because there's no point in my touting my qualifications as a Board member to someone who believes that I am responsible for "the demise of the message board".

I agree that the website is in a sorry state, and the message board will be negatively affected because it has to live on the website. But you are clearly referring to my service as Communications Director, and the "draconian rules" that I upheld.

Given the goals of the PDGA message board, I'm quite satisfied with my service as CD. I'm happy to defend that service, if you could be more specific about what I did that you object to, and what you believe I should have done instead.

OK, defending preamble in hopes that you will answer the question regarding your ability,
if elected, "to build the trust of your fellow board members and get anything accomplished".

The rules of this board have led to a decline in thoughtful exchange among the many members. We should hold a Jazz funeral for the pDGA DISCussion bored. Even Jeff "love it or leave it" LaGrassa has commented that the activity and buildup for our big events is lacking:
Quoting Jeff LaGrassa's entire post:
"Other than from the TDs, the Brent Hambrick and KC Wide Open threads had practically no one posting in them...in two weeks, the Fling is the next National Tour event...let's hear from some folks besides the co-TDs, the two Jeffs...C'mon people, create some buzz!"

Peter, you alone did not squeeze the life out of this bored. It was a group effort. You did serve on the board when the present rules were put in place. Are you going to "DODGE" this one also and blame it on your predecessor? Surely, the decline in posts and exchange of ideas was considered when the rules were formulated. Was the intention to further limit an already limited (pDGA members only) group that would use the forum feature of the site?

Let's remind you of your article that you presented for pDGA publication. Upon rejection, you made it an editorial and then went looking for proper places to present your ideas. You knew the rules of the pDGA bored and feared your editorial would be deleted.

Here are the Board Rules
http://www.pdga.com/discussion/faq.php#board_policy
The rules of this bored state that:
"Anyone who posts on the board becomes a representative of the PDGA and indirectly of disc golf as a whole."

This attitude restricts and reduces the exchange of ideas. It also kills any discussion of areas that need to be improved inside our organization.

The real clincher can be found in a list of things that will not be allowed. Number 8 is ironic.

8. Causing harm to the message board. For a further explanation, please click here (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/faq.php#causing_harm):
Examples of causing harm to the message board include: (but are not limited to) inserting malicious code, posting of large files which affect screen resolution or download times, spamming, (defined as multiple posting of an identical or similar post on one or more of our forums in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it......

The pDGA violates #8. The advertisements, videos, pop-ups and other speed killers may pay a few bills but they drastically affect site performance. The site hosting the discussion bored force(s) the (advertising) message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it. The site also produces large files which affect screen resolution or download times.

May have the wrong impression of the rules and the desires of the BOD and this discussion bored. Thought this bored was a place to check the latest tournaments, follow the rules changes, keep up with equipment and share ideas about our hobby. With the explosion of other sites that encourage the frank (think delicious) exchange, this bored has become a failure.

If the intention was to:
Have a site that generates $$$, SUCCESS
Have a site that stifles discussion, SUCCESS
Have a site that is glacially slow to load, SUCCESS
Have a site that has little to offer the members, SUCCESS

Peter, you ask what you did wrong as CD and then ask what else you could have done.
As CD, you enforced the guidelines approved by the BOD. You did nothing wrong.
What else could you have done?
You could have considered the effect of the guidelines,
you could have considered the membership you represented,
you could have used your vast experience to improve the organization and
you could have completed your term.

You will not answer my "fit to serve" question so here is an easy one.
Do you still maintain your position against bottled water?

steve timm

steve timm

Your tarbrush is too broad. Some of the items on your list of my sins do not belong there.

I do not condone the ads, or any of the other website problems that Ciphent has brought us (see my post #2). I agree with you that the PDGA violates message board rule #8.

The policy "Anyone who posts on this board becomes a representative of the PDGA . . ." is not mine.

That leaves the "tone" of the board, which I did support and implement, and to which you object. I will speak to that.

Consider this multiple choice quiz. "The purpose of the PDGA message board should be to:
a) encourage the most "delicious" posts."
b) provide the most entertaining opportunities for message board jockies."
c) rack up the greatest possible number of posts."
d) avoid being boring."
e) all of the above.
f) none of the above.

As Communications Director, my answer was f) none of the above. I felt that the purpose of the board was to provide a forum on which the maximum possible number of PDGA members would feel comfortable posting comments and questions. I still feel that way.

This has nothing to do with personal preference. I personally prefer a more permissive environment because I don't mind being attacked and because I'm familiar with the spectrum of strategems that pass for "informed discussion" on message boards these days. I too find our board somewhat boring. But many PDGA members do not feel comfortable posting on permissive boards (or even for that matter on this less permissive one). These members have much of substance to offer, and I want to encourage them as much as possible.

i have always thought the members only discussion board is a waste of a good tool.people that find disc golf and get hooked or just have some questions about local clubs or courses,new products,or just trying to connect with other golfers in there area should, in my opinion,want to come here to do these things.

we want to grow this sport but we keep the front door to our organization locked.i understand that the pdga wants to build value into the membership and the discussion board was lumped into the value portion.the problem is theres not much value in this board because it gives you nothing that the numerous other message boards for discgolf provide"many of these with no ads,or loading issues".
many of these other board have topics that the bash the pdga and without an outlet for guest to post here they go there and maybe join the haters,some based on false or incomplete information.i realize there is nothing to stop a guest from bashing on the pdga but they have that chance anyways at other uncontrolled sites.we act like we are afraid of what people will say...why?
if a guest is truely posting "crap" then they can be i.p. banned and blocked from the site without blocking everyone that isnt a member.i remember this board being the go to place to discuss DG to talk about upcoming events, boast on aces or great shots,find and talk to local club members,and numerous other reasons.i would like to see a return to this!!!

Peter what are your thoughts on the decline of this message board?
Do you think any member views this board as it is now as a "value" of membership?
Should we fear what a guest will say on this board if allowed?

The bump in advertising money is interesting. I, personally, believe that a good portion of that should be allocated to local advertising within the cities/towns where National Tour events are being held. Signage and paper advertisements to promote the event locally and attract attention. On a quiet news day a local station is going to pick up on something like that.

With regards to getting more attention within our own base of players, and increase buzz - we need to really focus more on not only the stars of the present, but the history of the events. I feel like we really aren't making these events feel "prestigious." They're just really big tournaments with big cash payouts. Who here knows who won the Hambrick in 2004? I'm sure there's a handful that can name the winner, and anybody can look it up - but I'd bet that more people could name the winner of the US Open of stick golf winner in 2000. (Okay, admittedly - that's something that has been mentioned fairly frequently in the last week over the airwaves, but my point stands) We need to truly build the history of the NT Series, promote the history of the NT Events.

If we don't do something to make an event feel like something more, it isn't going to. I think that the best example of this is the USDGC - I can name almost all of the USDGC Champs from Shoestring on back. (off the top of my head... Will, Nikko, Nate, Kenny, Barry, Dave, and then Ken and Barry alternating for a while). Promoting the history of these big events could really work nicely.

Sorry if thats off topic. Just some thoughts on all the comments on advertising and promotion.


As to the topic at hand - keep it rolling. I've got my own thoughts, and my own feelings involve siding with both halves of the debate at various points - but overall the exchange of information here has really helped me form my own opinions on things as I listen to both sides of the equation. I appreciate the free flowing discourse, and although at times it gets heated - as an outside observer I don't see much in the way of "trolling" despite how heated some of the comments are. It has been as civil as I expect the internet to be.

(although one of Peter's posts is about the most gentle and civil examples of "baiting" that I have ever seen, impressive)

My $.029 on a variety of topics:

Unlike others, I cannot say that I have made up my mind not to vote for Peter, because I simply have not seen yet who the other Board candidates are. I do however have great reservations and share in the trepidation about Peter being able to work with the other Board members after this campaign platform. I also fear that once he starts finding resistance, he will again resign, claiming again a violation of his morals.

I do think that the lynching of Peter over this PDGA DISCussion Board is highly unwarranted. Peter was put in a very difficult situation where the DISCussion Board had gone to member-only posting before his his role as Communications Director began. Furthermore, after his tenure ended, the rules were amended to make derogatory posts about the PDGA and/or its members prohibited. If you have a problem with these things, how can Peter be blamed for them? As for the job he did during his time in charge, he had to strike a balance between making for a message board which was more restrictive to inappropriate behavior, and one that was a "Wild West" where almost anything went. I happen to think that Peter struck a very appropriate balance, which really leaned more on the permissive side. Additionally, he publicly announced that anyone who had an ax to grind would be permitted to say anything they wanted about Peter himself without fear of retribution, taking the heat off other Directors, PDGA Office staff, and the moderation staff. I really thought that this was a stroke of genius, and a very classy move, and I'll always be 100% grateful to Peter for this.

I look at other disc golf message boards these days and laugh. Most allow people to spout off at will and make personal attacks and type out highly offensive things that folks would never say face-to-face to each other, and there is absolutely no accountability. And better yet, when the moderation staff of those message boards remove something, it just silently vanishes and folks never know how or why, and there are no checks or balances on moderator power. At least here, everything that is removed gets a message from the moderation staff exactly why, and PDGA members have the ability to appeal these decisions. FYI, The New England Flying Disc Assocation recently removed all user nicknames from their message board for their 1500+ registered users - you cannot have a catchy handle like "dischucker" or "birdieman" etc. Your username now has to be your complete first and last name, and it is displayed next to your every post. So any inference that this message board is "draconian," when in comparison to that board, is laughable.

Bottom line is that this message board gets used less these days simply because of Facebook. Peter can hardly be blamed for that.

Jeff- i dont know if you were speaking about my post but i was really not trying to attack Peter as i didnt really look into how the policy was instituted i was more stating my opinion and asking his thoughts.

i just re-read my post and i could see how it could seem like i was addressing Peter in my start to the post....Sorry for that

Bottom line is that this message board gets used less these days simply because of Facebook. Bingo!

I didn't subscribe to facebook until last year. Since then, for me and other friends it has become the mecca of instant online communication. Where else can you post video, articles, personal comments and have online discussions in realtime? PDGA discussion boards are in the dinosaur era and unless PDGA somehow incorporates a discussion board that is integrated with the features facebook provides, then it will rest at the bottom of a tarpit all to be forgotten. That's just the reality of our evergrowing technology.

It's like comparing dialup on a 56K modem vs high speed cable internet at 20MB speed. There is no comparision.

As far as the website itself, besides that it is tremendously slow (I don't know any other site that is slower), I do enjoy the articles, the frontpage reports, the weekly videos, and I do find some of the ads to be interesting (can't believe I just said that).

Here is my suggestion for website improvement (Sorry Peter for hijacking your thread, this seems to be the only place where everyone is talking):

Frontpage should provide instant articles of around the country/world events with video, commentary, and highlights reel. Very similiar to other professional sport websites, such as nfl.com, nba.com, and nhl.com.

Next there should be an interactive page that displays ongoing and upcoming events. Players can interact with say this map that highlights these events, and then allows users to pull up videos, player schedule, registration list, signup form, historical data on previous events, weather conditions, etc.

Another page should be a player stat page with bio, pics, history, current stats, maybe even future events report, background, comments. I really like nfl.com player stats page.

Have another page that somehow is integrated with facebook that allows instant communication. You can have a discussion board section that links to facebook groups allowing instant posting and discussion, sharing of video, pics.

These are just a few ideas from a user and not a web designer. Only then will the PDGA website be reborn into a full fledged #1 communication site for disc golf.

Okay, back to the discussion about running for a board position.

16670

You did not attack me -- you only asked me to comment on the idea of allowing nonmembers to post on our message board. It's a very interesting question for me because I joined the Board just after the PDGA had banned nonmember posting, and felt responsible for making the new policy go, so I didn't question it at the time.

You point out a number of good reasons why we should allow nonmembers to post. The upside is appealing, and I'd be all for it on that basis. But I'm also concerned about the downside. You believe that we could easily get rid of the outside troublemakers by using an "IP ban". I'm not so sure. Determined troublemakers can easily post from different IP addresses. We would have no way to identify these people, and they would have no stake to risk when posting trash.

I don't have a firm opinion on this issue. I would want to talk with people who were closely associated with the discussion board when they allowed outside posts, and ask about their experience with it.

Dear Peter,

In post #147 you reply to JohnRock with this quote:

johnrock

In answer to your two questions:

1) It doesn't take much time. When I was on the Board both Pat Brenner and I did this, because we felt that it was important. But the Administration discouraged it, and I'm sure they still do.

That was what I was referring to.

Todd,

I stand by that comment. The Administration may not have discouraged you from communicating directly with the membership, but it certainly discouraged me from doing so.

The difference is probably that the Administration had no need to discourage you, because you didn't post.

Bottom line is that this message board gets used less these days simply because of Facebook. Peter can hardly be blamed for that.

I would disagree with that. I think a lot of the potential reasons have been hit on in the last several posts before yours.

This message board is a ghost town with the exception of a few threads. Despite Facebooks message board destroying power, a site like DGcoursereview.com has a forum that gets busier and busier. It continues to reach new milestones and between that site and discgolfreview.com there is very little reason to ever come to these boards with exception of the couple unique active threads. I cant even come here to use a thread about an NT event. Im guaranteed quicker responses, more responses, and will likely find more people playing in the event through dgcoursereview. This site is dead for many reasons. Some the PDGA are responsible for and some may be slightly out of their control. I dont blame Facebook. That is a dodge.

Bottom line is that this message board gets used less these days simply because of Facebook. Peter can hardly be blamed for that.

Maybe it was just the oil speculating "illegitimate children" who caused the demise of the message board while Peter was at the head of the controls - because I know personally that "illegitimate children" is a bad word and will get you 3 months probation.

Maybe if more "illegitimate children" posted on the message board it would still be worth coming here to get info - whereas just like others, I have broken down after 16 years of playing and coming to the PDGA message board FIRST for information about Disc Golf - to now coming here last knowing that it will only take 15 minutes to read EVERY post made in the last 24 hours (which ironically is shorter than the time it takes to load up the pages the 15 minutes of reading are written on).


Rhett - You were SOOOOO close to 7000 posts which is of course the only reason to post here anymore - now you'll probably be "Mikey'd" and have to wait aonther year to get there :)

Bottom line is that this message board gets used less these days simply because of Facebook. Peter can hardly be blamed for that.

Facebook really has nothing to do with the decline of usage of the PDGA DISCussion board. The real culprit, IMNSHO, is the heavy-handed and inconsistent censorship of dissenting opinions that is passed off as "moderation". I find it amazing that Peter Shive can make accusations of collusion and criminal conspiracy against the current BoD without repercussion, yet I'm about to get banned for a year... *AGAIN*... for pointing out these censorship inconsistencies.

Rhett,

A recent post of yours was reported by a message board user for PDGA DISCussion Board rules violations and has since been removed. We are offering the courtesy of a warning that future posts of this nature could result in probation to your account. If you would like to appeal this decision, please contact Brian Graham, the PDGA Executive Director. He can be reached at: [email protected]

Regards,
PDGA DISCussion Board Moderating Team

It's funny to think that I kind of started the problem when I was moderator and would dole out insta-bans for use of the eff and ess words in an attempt to clean up the MB. I never did ban anyone for anything else except excessive threats against me, and then only after consulting with other PDGA muckety-mucks. Now it seems that Jeff LaGrasse *still* has it in for me because I didn't kow-tow to his wishes when he took over moderator duties.

The internet moves fast, and it's too late to ever recapture the scene that was DISCussion, but let's be sure to remember what happened to kill this thing off, Jeff. And keep reporting me if you're still feeling hurt. Just please try to throw in some moderation once in a while where it's really deserved when people continue to attack our elected volunteers. They have the hard job because they are the ones who continue to spend their time serving this messed up group of people we call the PDGA.

Wow, I sure have been missing out, dgcoursereview.com forum blows PDGA forum out of the water. In the past I only used that site to check out courses, not knowing they have a forum. I take it back, facebook is not the culprit for the demise of these forums, something else is. Maybe cause this website is so darn slow or what others are pointing out.

Wow, I have a verb named after me!

What Jeff is doing to Rhett is the perfect example of the heavy, unfair hand that crushes this pathetic excuse for a forum. Removing Jeff as a moderator is the #1 solution to fixing this forum. He's run posters away by the hundreds and now he cries that this place is dead! But we shouldn't expect anything less from the pDGA whose complete disdain for its members is demonstrated by its totalitarian demolition of the proper structure of the BOD. Without cowardly puppets keeping dissent here to a bare minimum, the BOD wouldn't be able to get away with its heinous actions.

I'm truly embarrassed that I am forced to be a member of the pDGA in order to play big disc golf tournaments. I would never ever ever voluntarily associate myself with an organization that supports totalitarian censorship as practiced here, nor would I ever associate with an organization so intensely uncommitted to transparency and so intensely disdainful of its dues-paying membership.

Yawn. You're like a broken record, Mikey.

Of the few posts reported, a grand total of four posts have been edited/removed by the moderation team from this message board in all of 2011. And as per usual, the Executive Director was CC'ed on the notice for every one of them.

Boy, that sure is some "heinous, totalitarian censorship" right there alright! http://asylum.zensoaps.com/style_emoticons/default/Rolling%20Eyes.gif

Of the few posts reported, a grand total of four posts have been edited/removed by the moderation team from this message board in all of 2011. And as per usual, the Executive Director was CC'ed on the notice for every one of them.

Jeff, imagine you are a emergency room nurse at a big city hospital.
(not a power drunk moderator on a members only message board)
A patient arrives with a temp of 104, convulsing and sweating profusely.
The ER doctor tells you to stabilize the patient while he treats a multiple gunshot victim.

The Dr. returns an hour later and asks, "Nurse LaGrange, how is our 104 temp patient doing?"

You proudly reply, "Good news doc, temp is dropping, convulsions and sweating have ceased."

"Nurse LaGrange, you have killed this patient!"

"But doc, I only followed orders."


Peter

Will you return to answering questions?

If inexpensive tests were available, would you vote for mandatory drug testing of our event participants?

steve timm

Yawn. You're like a broken record, Mikey.


Like this broken record maybe?

http://c2sopublic.reverbnation.com/Photo/1747334/image/855679.jpg




Or this one?


http://www.avizoband.com/AvizoPowerTrip.jpg



Maybe this one?



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_D2gocaxWXUg/TJfWM_Bl6pI/AAAAAAAABAM/hQMuMsKTSvY/s320/front.jpg

http://www.boomerangshop.com/dvdcover/ImageWeb2/QuietRiotMetalHealth20040648_f.jpg

Wow, I have a verb named after me!

What Jeff is doing to Rhett is the perfect example of the heavy, unfair hand that crushes this pathetic excuse for a forum. Removing Jeff as a moderator is the #1 solution to fixing this forum. He's run posters away by the hundreds and now he cries that this place is dead!

Hey Mike - it's at least better than having been "LaGrassa'd" like Rhett is now. :)

In person - Jeff is a pretty nice guy with a decent sense of humor, but give him a message board, and all hell breaks loose it seems.

In all seriousness, you do sometimes get out of line with posters Jeff, and things would probably not be half as bad if you didn't let people push your buttons and get you all riled up. Just treat them like you did me when you claimed not to remember something painful about your beloved team and things would be a lot less rancorous on here.

In the last 3 days - you have gone off on 3 different people for things that the majority of people who read the board have no idea why you would even respond to, let alone go apecrap over.

Not everyone hates you, not everyone is out to get into tiffs with you, not everyone cares that somebody posted something YOU think is an issue - just relax, take a deep breath and hit the Review Post button first, look at what you typed and then hit DELETE.
The message board posters that are left (all 40 of us) would love to see you do that for 1 week - and only report things that are heinous and harmful, not things YOU perceive to be tragic because of the posters name.

Hoping you take this post to heart and to not get put on ignore by you,
Keith Johnson
PDGA member#10444

hey mike - it's at least better than having been "lagrassa'd" like rhett is now. :)

in person - jeff is a pretty nice guy with a decent sense of humor, but give him a message board, and all hell breaks loose it seems.

In all seriousness, you do sometimes get out of line with posters jeff, and things would probably not be half as bad if you didn't let people push your buttons and get you all riled up. Just treat them like you did me when you claimed not to remember something painful about your beloved team and things would be a lot less rancorous on here.

In the last 3 days - you have gone off on 3 different people for things that the majority of people who read the board have no idea why you would even respond to, let alone go apecrap over.

Not everyone hates you, not everyone is out to get into tiffs with you, not everyone cares that somebody posted something you think is an issue - just relax, take a deep breath and hit the review post button first, look at what you typed and then hit delete.
The message board posters that are left (all 40 of us) would love to see you do that for 1 week - and only report things that are heinous and harmful, not things you perceive to be tragic because of the posters name.

Hoping you take this post to heart and to not get put on ignore by you,
keith johnson
pdga member#10444

this.

There are two ways to get everyone to hate you. Either do something really wrong, or do something really right.

There are two ways to get everyone to hate you. Either do something really wrong, or do something really right.

And since several people who don't know you from Adam on several DIFFERENT threads, as well as people who like you now are all asking the same questions, it can't be that we are ALL wrong can it?

So maybe it is the something really WRONG part that is getting noticed.

Just think over what I said and see if it helps out - no one can question the work you put into scoring help locally and all over the country, as well as the other assistance you provide locally, but that alone doesn't allow you to then just go off on people because they don't agree with you, the PDGA, this message board, or anything else that players get upset about.

Have a nice and patriotic 4th of July and I'll see you at Worlds.


And now to try and get this thread back on track...

Mr. Shive,

If elected - will you look at attempting to take the best parts of the message board draconian measures (like requiring PDGA #) that were instituted or worsened during your time on the board - and then take out the parts that squelch true discussion of issues to make the rules on the discussion board more palatable to the players that spend their hard earned money on memberships to this PLAYER driven organization?

.....and now back to our regularly programmed schedule.......
Peter, how does your involvement with promoting and supporting age protected groups affect your objectivity towards issues that may be detrimental to those divisions? in other words will you be biased towards age protected divisions as a board member thus affecting your decisions?

Hi Peter. You have mentioned earlier the undervalue we place in Tournament Directors. (amen to that)

I have a few questions for you concerning the role of State Coordinators. Feel free to pick the question(s) you would like to address.

How would you value the PDGA state coordinators?

1. In your eyes, what is their value?
2. Are they meeting the role and mission they were designed for?
3. Is there a need for increased communication between bordering state coordinators?
4. Do you see any need for change how state reps are used?

These questions are directed to Peter....but anyone who wants to comment please join in.

steve timm

The current PDGA policy bans possession of illegal substances during competition. It doesn't ban drug use outside of tournaments, any more than it bans tobacco use or alcohol use outside of tournaments. I wouldn't vote for drug testing unless that policy were changed. I wouldn't change the policy without extensive consultation with the membership. Even with that consultation I wouldn't vote for drug testing unless performance-enhancing drugs were included.

keithjohnson

Post #167 discusses my attitude towards moderation of our message board. It's pretty clear that I would not be in favor of the changes you would like to see.

Martin Bohn

My Conflict of Interest statement is in post #18. I've also discussed at some length (eg #52, 56, 58) my take on the PDGA's mistaken priorities and the programs I would prefer. You should look at those posts to see if they reveal the kind of bias you are worried about.

Bottom line is that this message board gets used less these days simply because of Facebook.



Bottom line is this website is slow. There is something wrong with the entire PDGA website and until it is fixed, the message board will get even less use.

keithjohnson

Post #167 discusses my attitude towards moderation of our message board. It's pretty clear that I would not be in favor of the changes you would like to see.


Peter is post 167 shown in bold below - you say 2 DIFFERENT THINGS -

That leaves the "tone" of the board, which I did support and implement, and to which you object. I will speak to that.

Consider this multiple choice quiz. "The purpose of the PDGA message board should be to:
a) encourage the most "delicious" posts."
b) provide the most entertaining opportunities for message board jockies."
c) rack up the greatest possible number of posts."
d) avoid being boring."
e) all of the above.
f) none of the above.

As Communications Director, my answer was f) none of the above. I felt that the purpose of the board was to provide a forum on which the maximum possible number of PDGA members would feel comfortable posting comments and questions. I still feel that way.

This has nothing to do with personal preference. I personally prefer a more permissive environment because I don't mind being attacked and because I'm familiar with the spectrum of strategems that pass for "informed discussion" on message boards these days. I too find our board somewhat boring. But many PDGA members do not feel comfortable posting on permissive boards (or even for that matter on this less permissive one). These members have much of substance to offer, and I want to encourage them as much as possible.

My question was not asked as you being Communications Director - which hopefully you would NOT be if elected, but towards the second half of your comment, which dealt with your personal preference, and would be where if you are elected I would hope you would open a dialogue that would incorporate the best of both parts, as I stated in my question.
You saying you would not be in favor of changes goes AGAINST what you said below - I am not or ever have asked for a free for all message board as it was in the past, but a message board where people CAN express views without fear that use of "illegimate children" or "female dog" is not considered probationary offenses, and where personal issues with moderators and posters do not get posters suspended or removed. Certainly there can be a line between the 2 that could be agreed upon and tried that MIGHT encourage people to come back for a look, as well as add thier expertise to subjects being discussed.

I look forward to hearing how you would bridge this conflict in your answer and if a workable solution if you are elected would be approached with other board members.

Keith

but a message board where people CAN express views without fear that use of "illegimate children" or "female dog" is not considered probationary offenses, and where personal issues with moderators and posters do not get posters suspended or removed.

Keith,

No matter how many times you try to paint the picture of moderators with "personal issues," the truth is that a post first gets reported by a message board user, a member of the moderation team then looks at it, the decision gets reviewed by Executive Director Brian Graham, and appeals are often heard by Board of Directors member Juliana Korver. If someone's account gets suspended for a rules violation, 3 or 4 different people must agree on that.

This is the way Steve Dodge and Peter Shive set up the system in 2006, and it's been that way ever since...before that, 1 person and one person alone was the judge, jury and executioner.

You tell me which system is more fair, and which one is more ripe for abuse. Wait, don't. Because despite all common sense, I think I know what the answer is going to be. :(

Keith,

No matter how many times you try to paint the picture of moderators with "personal issues," the truth is that a post first gets reported by a message board user, a member of the moderation team then looks at it, the decision gets reviewed by Executive Director Brian Graham, and appeals are often heard by Board of Directors member Juliana Korver. If someone's account gets suspended for a rules violation, 3 or 4 different people must agree on that.

This is the way Steve Dodge and Peter Shive set up the system in 2006, and it's been that way ever since...before that, 1 person and one person alone was the judge, jury and executioner.

You tell me which system is more fair, and which one is more ripe for abuse. Wait, don't. Because despite all common sense, I think I know what the answer is going to be. :(

That may be the case, but I have seen you make threats against posts. If members are not wholly aware of the moderation system, then they will stifle themselves based on your hints at disciplinary action. So, agree with it or not, as an individual you do engage in censorship.

Further, what is with your new avatar and location description? Grow up.

That may be the case, but I have seen you make threats against posts. If members are not wholly aware of the moderation system, then they will stifle themselves based on your hints at disciplinary action. So, agree with it or not, as an individual you do engage in censorship.

Further, what is with your new avatar and location description? Grow up.

That and I have reported former PDGA employees for violations for them to be given a warning for something I surely would have been put on probation or suspended for. I am no longer posting on DGCR but that site was far better than this one and that was 6-8 months ago.

I love hearing Mike's opinion and wish he could keep it within the rules but from what I have seen he pretty much does and it comes down to someone's opinion on that matter. Nearly all his posts can be reported but I don't ever read any that would cross the line in my mind.

Peter,

First, do you feel the payout for the World Championships should be increased? IMO your division does decent along with a few others but I am speaking more about the MPO division.

Second, Would you be in support of making Worlds a "Final" with smaller events having a hand in subsidizing these payouts with $1 per player going to the event.

My personal feeling is that players like myself who play 25-30 events a year would give more money than the avg player with 3-4 (at most according to the PDGA). Those players who pay in >$20 are likely to try and attend worlds and they would have an added benefit for doing so. I have played in three Pro Worlds 07'-09' and finished between 30th and 34th which beat between 75-80% of the field. Despite finishing in the top 25% I received my entry back in 2009 with the best being my 1st year with $295.

$295 would be fine if the entry was $100 but not at $235 especially when most TDs try to pay last cash close to the original entry. Basically there are plenty of people out there who would love to see worlds reach a $100,000+ payout and according to my calcs this could bring in over 100k alone.

Brian see's this as a player tax only benefiting the few at the expense of many(those guys paying $3-$4 a year). I see it as saying thanks to all the loyal players who put in 15-25-35+ events when they decide to attend what should be the best event in the world.

This policy would increase the excitement for the event and it may actually fill without having to open to AMs for once since players like me would see the event in a positive cost-benefit perspective instead of a loss for anyone outside of the top 8-10.

It would not be disc golf with out this debate from the Kid
from Texas. Not saying I don't agree with this point in theory.
It's just kind of funny none the less.

Peter,

First, do you feel the payout for the World Championships should be increased? IMO your division does decent along with a few others but I am speaking more about the MPO division.

Second, Would you be in support of making Worlds a "Final" with smaller events having a hand in subsidizing these payouts with $1 per player going to the event.

My personal feeling is that players like myself who play 25-30 events a year would give more money than the avg player with 3-4 (at most according to the PDGA). Those players who pay in >$20 are likely to try and attend worlds and they would have an added benefit for doing so. I have played in three Pro Worlds 07'-09' and finished between 30th and 34th which beat between 75-80% of the field. Despite finishing in the top 25% I received my entry back in 2009 with the best being my 1st year with $295.

$295 would be fine if the entry was $100 but not at $235 especially when most TDs try to pay last cash close to the original entry. Basically there are plenty of people out there who would love to see worlds reach a $100,000+ payout and according to my calcs this could bring in over 100k alone.

Brian see's this as a player tax only benefiting the few at the expense of many(those guys paying $3-$4 a year). I see it as saying thanks to all the loyal players who put in 15-25-35+ events when they decide to attend what should be the best event in the world.

This policy would increase the excitement for the event and it may actually fill without having to open to AMs for once since players like me would see the event in a positive cost-benefit perspective instead of a loss for anyone outside of the top 8-10.

Why don't you contact the current BOD or at least Avery, Dave, and Cale to see if they will bring it up. I also agree that Worlds is and has been tough to attend because of that. Especially now that there are 15-20 people who do nothing but play everyday so finishing in that top 20 would be quite a feat. Obviously when you look at the payout for 20th you have to realize you are not doing it for the money, but for the bragging rights.

Can the members vote a policy in currently? Can a petition be written and/or formed and let the membership decide if they would be up for the extra dollar fee?

the kid, schick

The current board voted to more than triple the amount of PDGA support of Pro Worlds. I expect this year's purse to be considerably greater than it has been. I had an exchange with the Administration about this earlier this year, but I realize that the important questions (how much more, how allocated, and what source) cannot be answered until after Pro Worlds results are posted.

You can see from my comments on PDGA priorities (posts #52, 56 and 58) that I believe that the many are already being asked to pay too much for the few.

keithjohnson

My personal preference would be to have a message board that is more "rough and tumble" than ours. But I believe that a more highly moderated message board is best for the PDGA membership, and I explained why. I vote for what I believe is best for the PDGA membership.

Board members are often faced with this kind of choice -- what is best for them, as individuals, vs. what is best for the PDGA, as a whole. If I voted instead for what is best for me, as an individual, that would constitute a kind of conflict of interest.

Peter,

Thanks for your answer - but I thought the elected (have to add that now that not all of the board will be elected) Board of Directors was also involved in representing the issues that members who voted them into office wanted to see discussed.

Anyways it seems that this Discussion board will just end up dying a slow death over the next few years as it has been doing already for the last few. :(

Jeff,

I know how the Review and message board board "officially works" having personally gone through the entire process from start to finish. That doesn't change what you know to be true - some posters will have EVERY post reported, while others will skirt by by just not saying the "wrong word".

There is NO reason in any sane persons mind to think that saying oil speculators are "illegimate children" should get anyone reported let alone have it go all the way through the entire process without someone saying "REALLY - this is what you are bringing up as a reportable post?"
No matter your political leanings, anyone who thinks oil or any other commodity is only priced by supply and demand anymore as it used to be 20 years ago has failed high school or never leaves their house.

Reporting a post for that word (which by the way is NOT one of Carlin's seven words or a bleeped FCC word on radio or TV) is as silly as someone getting suspended for a year for calling someone names that are also not outrageous, slanderous, or even the least bit vicious.

Just my opinion as a person tired of having lost all their personal freedoms to make the world a much WORSE place to live then it was 20 years ago.

Good luck Peter, and I wish you well in the upcoming election.

Keith

Keith, I think I misunderstood you and I apologize.

It sounds like you just have issues with what the auto-censor installed into this message board software chooses to filter out. I can totally sympathize with that.

For the record, this was installed before my time (and I came aboard the moderation team in 2006!) by a previous Communications Director or a PDGA admin or whoever was in charge of the message board way back when. The choosing of what words get censored is not under any control of the moderation team and have never been part of the moderation process. I vaguely remember someone asking about this a long time ago, and I think there is a master list of words somewhere and it might be just as simple as editing that list. But this is something that the PDGA IT Manager would have to be consulted on, because it's part of the message board software and it's not anything that moderators can access.

I agree with you 100%, and if there are some words that it's just silly in this day and age to censor, then we should get it changed. I have always thought that a synonym for someone who is happy (***) getting censored was ludicrous.

Edit: Yup, still censored. What a joke.

I agree with Jeff on this one. As I recall, there was a list but the censoring wasn't automatic. A word on the list triggered a message to a moderator, who would then decide whether the usage constituted a violation. Maybe it works differently now. And maybe there are a lot more words etc on the list now.

I agree with Jeff on this one. As I recall, there was a list but the censoring wasn't automatic. A word on the list triggered a message to a moderator, who would then decide whether the usage constituted a violation. Maybe it works differently now. And maybe there are a lot more words etc on the list now.

There was a list of words that were automagically substituted for something like "%$*!". "*****" was also on that list so that if you wanted to appear censored for effect you could type "*****" and get those characters to appear and not risk misspelling a bad word and getting a 1-day insta-ban for evading the dirtry-word filter.

A manual search for intentional misspellings of the eff and ess words had to be undertaken often as people simply didn't want to stop using those here.

Nice! b-l-e-e-p is still auto-sensored!

I suppose I should now be banned for a year for intentionally circumventing the dirty-word filter...

...the truth is that a post first gets reported by a message board user, a member of the moderation team then looks at it, the decision gets reviewed by Executive Director Brian Graham, and appeals are often heard by Board of Directors member Juliana Korver.

Jeff, you continually point to this review system as justification that all moderator actions are fair and balanced and beyond reproach, yet Brian Graham is a hard working PDGA staffer who doesn't have time for the drivel and says he doesn't have time to deal with the drama when an appeal is made.

And don't forget that moderators are also users so when the process is spelled out above it doesn't mean that some non-moderator user has to report a post first.


You tell me which system is more fair, and which one is more ripe for abuse. Wait, don't. Because despite all common sense, I think I know what the answer is going to be. :(

That's a logical fallacy right there, using the ideal case to justify things instead of actual history. The current state of affairs is much more oppressive and random than any dictatorial setup we've had here, including the regime of Nick!

Jeff, you continually point to this review system as justification that all moderator actions are fair and balanced and beyond reproach, yet Brian Graham is a hard working PDGA staffer who doesn't have time for the drivel and says he doesn't have time to deal with the drama when an appeal is made.

And don't forget that moderators are also users so when the process is spelled out above it doesn't mean that some non-moderator user has to report a post first.




That's a logical fallacy right there, using the ideal case to justify things instead of actual history. The current state of affairs is much more oppressive and random than any dictatorial setup we've had here, including the regime of Nick!

Are you saying that you've been told that BG was too busy to perform part of his job?

Peter, I'm sorry to derail your campaign thread but this seems to be a consistent issue. Whenever the DISCussion board is brought up, pDGA appologists keep typing words that indicate the ED is just way too busy with actual disc golf duties to respond to a member's concerns (or seemingly too busy to be the final say in message board disputes). I'm having a very difficult time imagining what kind of duties the ED is involved in that eat up so much time. Do you have an idea how BG's day progresses? Can you shed some light on what is involved with those day-to-day duties so that members may have a better understanding why BG is so overworked?

I agree with Jeff on this one. As I recall, there was a list but the censoring wasn't automatic. A word on the list triggered a message to a moderator, who would then decide whether the usage constituted a violation. Maybe it works differently now. And maybe there are a lot more words etc on the list now.

Close but not quite.

The auto-censor is built into the message board software. There is a list of words in a file somewhere, and when one of which is attempted to be used in a message board post, (or even a private message!) it is then bleeped out. This is a completely automatic process and the moderators are never notified when this happens.

The only time the moderators would ever get involved are when folks use an intentional misspelling or creative characters to bypass the profanity filter, and another message board user notifies the moderator team about it. This happens about once a year nowadays if that. If folks are still using intentional misspellings to bypass the profanity filter, then they aren't being reported to the moderators. Even when such incidents were being reported, it had to be pretty egregious profanity (like an f-bomb) to get a user placed on probation.

Again, whatever comprises this list of words was entered before I started on the moderation team, and that was five years ago! We would have to ask Gentry or maybe even Theo how someone even accesses this file and list. From what I understand, it's not even part of the normal vBulletin software which the admin can access, and is some sort of plugin. I'm fairly positive that no one has ever added or removed words to the list, because I vaguely remember that the last time this topic came up, no one even knew how.

I'm fairly positive that no one has ever added or removed words to the list, because I vaguely remember that the last time this topic came up, no one even knew how.

I added and removed words from the list.

I find it funny that *** (you-dee-gee) is still on the banned list, but it doesn't surprise me as that was a contributing factor to the discussion board going members only.

Again, to my knowledge, the list has not been modified in any way in the last five years. Whatever is in there is from an admin or a Communications Director a long long time ago, possibly Terry.

to wilbkr

Sorry for the delay -- I've been on the road. Here are some answers to your questions about State Coordinators.

1) What is their value? State coordinators (SC's), like TD's, are unpaid and largely unsung heroes whose most important function is to act as liaison between TD's and the PDGA Tour Manager. Most of the work load involves scheduling and coordinating tournaments, but another important function is to bring problems within their state to the attention of the PDGA.
2) Are they meeting the role they were designed for? Given the magnitude of the job and the amount of compensation, most SC's perform a lot better than we or the PDGA have any right to expect.
3) Should they communicate more with bordering state SC's? Of course that would be great. But again, I would not make that an expectation.
4) Should we change how SC's are used? Maybe.

I'm waffling, especially on #4, because SC issues are not part of my core platform. I need more information. My overall feeling is that the SC system is working fairly well. To put it another way, there are far greater probelms within the PDGA that should be addressed first. To better answer #4 I would need to talk with several SC's and also with the Tour Manager. I will do this, but it will take some time.

Everyone,

Some of you have wondered if I could be an effective Board member. I wonder too, probably even more than you. It is now time to face this key question head-on, because its answer depends on the results of the upcoming election.

I am a "reform" candidate, and being effective means being able to accomplish a significant number of the following reforms:
1) The Board would consist entirely of elected members. No appointed members (see post #37).
2) Secrecy would be dispelled. Members would know what is going on before the fact, and would know a lot more about how their money is being spent (28, 36).
3) Board members and PDGA officers would disclose potential conflicts of interest (18, 22, 28).
4) Independent vendors would be offered the opportunity to bid for the PDGA online service contract (8).
5) The website would function efficiently (4).
6) Priorities would be revised (52, 56, 58).

Two things are clear. I cannot be effective unless you agree that these reforms are desirable. Nor can I be effective if you elect "establishment-type" Board members who support or condone the status quo. This means that, when you vote, there are two simple considerations that would rule me out as an effective candidate.

1) One ballot item will ask for your approval of the recent Bylaws change that allows the Board to appoint part of its own membership. If you vote to approve the appointment of Board members, you should not vote for me.
2) If you vote for Feldberg, or Pozzy, or Decker, you should not vote for me.

Who would be your other three or more preferred Board candidates to potentially get elected with you?

Chuck,

Hard to say, because many of the candidates statements are disappointingly short on specifics. Looking at those statements, and the comments of those who have posted here, it looks as though McCoy, Solt, Feidt, Duffy, Embree and Jurkovich have some ideas that do not mirror the status quo. I hope more candidates enter this forum with candid comments.

When is the election anyway? How do we vote? Maybe I will vote this time.

I have not voted since the membership decided to abolish membership rights by adopting the Pozzy constitution. I decided then that if the vote was going to be totally dominated by more Rons, I should just accept the fact that the organization would be run by more Rons. Voting just seems to be a name recognition contest. I think more Rons would vote for Lady Gaga than for any qualified candidate.

Reading recent past minutes, I noticed that the PDGA remains aware that its payout format is illegal in some states. If you are elected to the board will you care about this issue?

I resigned from the board because the PDGA and its board members are committing felonies in a couple of states every time they sanction a PDGA tournament. I didn't have the math skills to weigh the penalty of getting caught committing a felony against the probability of getting caught. I just stay away from robbing banks, importing cocaine and conspiring to violate state gaming laws. I quit running tournaments in my own state because after speaking to six or seven judges, prosecutors, judicial staff attorneys and criminal defense attorneys, I could not find one who thought our format was clearly legal in Michigan. It is a minor misdemeanor here, but I don't routinely commit minor misdemeanors unless maybe my disc leaves the park and lands on private property. Then a little trespassing seems harmless enough.

I have been thinking that if Theo the Usurper gets re-re-elected, I might undertake an educational campaign to teach selected state prosecutors and law enforcement officials about what we do and what their laws say about it. I have been always happy to answer inquiries from tournament directors in various states about their state laws, and have answered many. Educating our own has not changed anything.

Bruce Brakel

I always enjoy your posts because they are never boring and I often learn something. Sometimes I feel like we arrived at the same place by very different paths. And then sometimes part of a post confuses me -- I feel that I ought to know what you are talking about but I don't.

For example, who are the "Rons" you are talking about in your second paragraph?

I care about the illegality issue whether I get elected or not. I've heard dismissive second-hand conversations about it, but never anything directly from you. I didn't even know that you were the source of the information. I have these questions:

1) Which recent past minutes shows that the PDGA is aware of the problem?
2) In which states is the payout format felonious?
3) In which states does it constitute a misdemeanor?
4) What is illegal about it?
5) How would we have to change in order to make it legal?

If you don't want to post the answers here, please e-mail me directly ([email protected]).

PS: Voting occurs from July 18-August 7. You'll receive a ballot from www.vote-now.com.

For example, who are the "Rons" you are talking about in your second paragraph?
It's not a specific Ron he's worried about but getting "more Rons"...

I drafted a long response and then decided it would be a distraction from your candidacy. I'll send you an e-mail. See Chuck's post about the Rons. It is no reference to any actual Ron who is serving or has served on the Board. Just a bad pun about the members' enthusiastic voting to eliminate their voting right from the PDGA constitution.

I have been thinking that if Theo the Usurper gets re-re-elected, I might undertake an educational campaign to teach selected state prosecutors and law enforcement officials about what we do and what their laws say about it. I have been always happy to answer inquiries from tournament directors in various states about their state laws, and have answered many. Educating our own has not changed anything.

Wow. Let me get this straight.... You are saying if Theo Pozzy, a person you obviously don't like, gets legitimately elected by your fellow members, you're threatening to call out the police dogs on the entire organization? Did I read that correctly? Please say no.

If so, I have a problem with it. This threat itself could be easily viewed as attempted voter manipulation. Like, for instance, when a boss tells his employees if "that dude" gets elected president, no one will get a raise this year and I'll probably have to lay a few people off, so you better vote for "this dude".

As much as I feel "popularity contest" voting has the potential to wreck this organization, people still have every right to vote however they choose... even if I do not agree with them. In any case, certainly no one should be threatening them for doing so.

Jeff Hagerty

1. In response to Matt - Hasn't someone in this very thread already stated that there are serious legal issues with regard to taking money from one portion of the membership and handing it directly to another portion, which gets in the way of your idea of taking $1.00 from every tournament entry and throwing it into Pro Worlds. Although as a player - I am all for that. :)

2. In respons to what Schick said - I agree completely. Pro Worlds hasn't been feasible for me because it is truly difficult to afford that when you need to break into that top 15-20 level just to afford the trip. I am planning an entire vacation and saving massive loot for Charlotte Worlds next year, because I do not anticipate being anywhere near breaking even on the 10 days I'd be there, even if I play to the level I anticipate being at next year.

3. I agree completely that the board members should not be required to post here. Not everyone has a temperament to express themselves in the give-and-take nature of the forum. Especially older folks (no offense to any board members). Some picked up on the internet trend, and do very well with it - but many people that are otherwise fantastically capable are not right for the online forum setting.

With that in mind...

Peter: What are your thoughts on the idea that the PDGA should appoint an ombudsman? Or an ombudsman should be voted upon by the members? Someone that can write a weekly column for the PDGA.com website concerning all of the issues presented at the board meetings - and have a space here for answering any questions. We could also appoint one board member to write a weekly column, nothing too long - 1000 words or so is relatively short - and having an ombudsman would give the opportunity for a followup column elaborating or answering questions asked about certain points.

Just .03 cents, because I had an extra penny.

Chris

The ombudsman idea is fine, as long as any other Board member who wanted to post to the membership is freely allowed to do so. My only worry is that the ombudsman's posts might be too rigidly controlled by the Board, so that important items might still be kept secret.

Let me give you an example. The "Summit meeting on Twitter" was hailed as a demonstration of the Administration's commitment to transparency. Now take a look at the log. There are breathless posts of how so and so is entering the meeting, and so and so is speaking. But the absolute bombshell item of that meeting, that the Board planned to unilaterally revise the Bylaws so it could appoint part of its own membership, was kept tightly under wraps.

Would that information have been released to the membership if the Board had had an official ombudsman? I doubt it. Even worse, the initiative to change the Bylaws and appoint Board members certainly did not materialize out of thin air at the Summit meeting. It must have been in the works for months, and we should have been informed at the get go.

Very good points - the purpose of an ombudsman would be to prevent that from happening. An ombudsman would need to be given the freedom to release what happens at these meetings. As they're attempting to be transparent - he/she should be given the directive to speak on all issues that come up. The position and the ways it could serve the membership seems valuable, but like ALL positions - it needs to be done right.

For the record Peter, I think I was the only one doing the "hailing." :D

But I do agree that if the process was truly transparent, then the Bylaws discussion would have been tweeted as well. :(

Voting begins in four days, and I have to make a tough call.

You will vote to fill four positions. There are three "establishment-type" candidates, all of whom are well known. There are fourteen other candidates. Apart from me, none are well known. So the establishment has an overwhelming advantage because of name recognition and because their vote is only split three (rather than fourteen) ways. If we do nothing the establishment candidates will easily win, and meaningful reform will be impossible even if I am elected.

If you want reform, your best chance is to vote for me and then unite behind three other non-establishment candidates.

Which ones? Our Amateurs are our most overexploited and underrepresented group. I'm not the best person to represent Amateur concerns because I've been a Pro for fifteen years. I feel that we should elect Amateurs. In my opinion, the Amateur candidates with the best combination of qualifications and electability are Solt, Duffy and Lowe. Please vote for them.

Wow. Let me get this straight.... You are saying if Theo Pozzy, a person you obviously don't like, gets legitimately elected by your fellow members, you're threatening to call out the police dogs on the entire organization? Did I read that correctly? Please say no.

Sorry, but yes. The org has known for several years that it is doing some seriously wrong things in a few states and some mildly wrong things in an uncertain number of states. Theo was commissioner when the issue first came to light. I offered the kind of legal help the org needed to identify the scope of the problem at that time, but Theo was too busy abolishing member rights to bother addressing the issue.

I would rather not be a member of a criminal organization, but I would rather be involved in organized disc golf. I don't see why I should have to choose between the two. If the members cast name recognition popularity votes for someone who is comfortable with sweeping our crimes and misdemeanors under the rug, I'll peel the rug back.

theo has also been the head of the IT committee for years which should be enough to turn off anyone who attempts to use this website on a regular basis...

theo has also been the head of the IT committee for years which should be enough to turn off anyone who attempts to use this website on a regular basis...

I won't go that far; I think the fault lies mostly with Ciphent. But surely like many others I have reached the end of my rope with the slowness of the website. I was complaining about it on the PDGA iPhone app thread, and the following response was posted:

Jeff,

We're in the final stages of developing a new website that is intended to address the performance issues on the current site. We will be coordinating that effort closely with the launch of the app, which depends on the real-time data (course info) available from pdga.com.

-Theo

So with a totally new website in the works, I at least have a little hope towards the future.

Everyone:

You should receive your e-ballot today for the Board election. Here are some simple guidelines.

Do not vote for me unless you agree with my platform of reform (for abbreviated version see post #214 on this thread). If the membership does not want reform then I have no business being on the Board. This means:

1) If you vote for the Bylaws change allowing the Board to appoint some of its own members, do not vote for me (#37).
2) If you vote for establishment candidates Feldberg, or Decker, or Pozzy, do not vote for me.
3) Unite behind nonestablishment candidates Solt, Duffy and Lowe (#226).

Peter,

In a previous post (#226) you recommended voting for BoD candidates Solt, Duffy and Lowe because they are "Amateur candidates with the best combination of qualifications and electability." That's a very fair opinion, and one I happen to support fully 100%.

Now however, you label them as: "nonestablishment candidates" (#230)

I charge you thusly:

1) What exactly makes them "nonestablishment candidates?"
2) Have you previously consulted with them on whether they wish to be publicly known as "nonestablishment candidates?"
3) Have you previously consulted with them on whether they wish to be publicly endorsed by you?

Jeff,

I consider Feldberg, Decker and Pozzy to be the establishment candidates. None of the other fourteen (to my knowledge) have such strong ties to the current Administration. They are thus, in my eyes, not from the establishment, (ie, "nonestablishment").

To my knowledge, I have had no prior consultation with any candidate. It is possible that one or more may have asked questions on my thread which I answered without knowing that they were candidates, but that is all.

First, I'd like to thank you for the can youve openned. i wouldve liked to see you do this on the other major forums as well. many people have given up on this disgusting and disppionting site and moved to the other major DG forums. i may not completely agree with you but i do appreciate transparency to a club i pay to be apart of. for this alone i will cast a vote for you.


Solution (long term): Split the PDGA. The top Open pros have very different needs and desires from the rest of us, and would do better with their own autonomous organization. Perhaps it should be for-profit. If so, Brian Graham would be a good ED for them. He is committed to them, and is in my opinion far better suited to head a for-profit. And they can keep the marketing and promotion types, because they will need them. For them the big-time Tour is the Holy Grail, and they can move heaven and earth to get it.

The rest of us need a strictly non-profit organization with a strictly representative Board, our own ED and direct control of our own money. We'd have comparatively little need of big time marketing and promotion, and could put our money and effort more into lower cost grass roots programs and into the care and protection of the smaller event TD's (A through C-tier) we more commonly patronize.

............

Personal PS: It amazes me to read my words about splitting, because only about five years ago I wrote an article in DGWN ("For Love and/or Money") saying that it was important to preserve the "PDGA family" intact. But so much has changed since then, and the changes are accelerating. I can't see any other way. Sadly, it would appear that money trumps love.

That had never occured to me but sadly is a good option to look at. and may solve several 'minor' issues. an example, many people say sandbagging is an issue. Really its not and is caused by deeper lying issues...mainly poor TDs and poor resource availability for TDs. areas with the least amount of "bagging" seem to have the best quality TDs. (there are those people who will forever bag as much as possible, nothing you can do but play better than them).
splitting would also solve the Pro "problem" and generate the money need to make this a "legitimate" sport in the mainstreams eyes. and to be honest i would like this since i enjoy watching the online coverage and would like to see more of it. i dont care if its ever on TV. this type of focus would also help in building higher caliber courses with local PDs.
i know youve lightly touched on it but id like to know more about your plans for TD advancement and what you feel needs to be addressed?

What it boils down to is getting the best qualified people on the PDGA Staff and Board to do positive things. One would think that using a mix of ways to get qualified people in positions of authority would balance the various trade-offs in the ways people are selected and, for that matter, relieved of their positions if they don't deliver.


can you define positive things? the Staff might have a different opinion of positive things over the members.


You say "drug tests are not expensive compared to the public view of our sport." I'm sure that many members feel as you do, but probably not enough.

many many many members would no longer be dues paying members. enforcement should be heavier at events and the only action taken should be a DQ. TD doesnt need to report anything and the DQ'd player needs to deal with it. your shooting yourself in the foot if you implement drug tests.

Less money is being spent on elite player programs and more has been spent on activities called marketing and promotion that you might not consider purely marketing and promotion. I believe the following items such as producing content for the website, especially event coverage (including travel), PDGA tent and traveling trailer, video projects and some sponsorship of Discgolfplanet.tv may have been charged to marketing and promotion.

LMFAO!!! the PDGA tent as a promotional tool? how does that work. the only promotion you get of it is when the PDGA makes a big deal about it. no one else gives a rats behind. money poorly spent imo.

Smyith:

I don't have the time to post everything on multiple discussion boards. However, I have posted regularly on Discgolfersrus and Disc Golf reviews, pointing out the most important issues and directing readers here for a more complete discussion.

On your second post, two of your three questions are directed toward Chuck Kennedy. I disagree with Chuck, and wouldn't want to speak for him even if I agreed with him.

You argue that we would be shooting ourselves in the foot to institute drug testing. I agree, although we may have somewhat different reasons for reaching that conclusion (see my post #68). You worry about loss of membership. I worry about cost, unreliability, and the difficulties of evenhanded enforcement.

There is another consideration worth mentioning here. People who advocate drug testing often see it as a way of cleaning up the image of our sport. But only a few percent of disc golfers are PDGA members. Drug testing would not reach the vast majority of recreational players, so the image of the sport would be largely unaffected.

peter, could you direct me to the conversation location on DGR? section and thread name? thank you.

AWSmith:

On DGR, in the "General Discussion" forum, these threads:

Election Guidelines -- July 19
Please Vote for Solt, Lowe and Duffy -- July 14
Can I be an Effective PDGA Board Member? -- July 11
Please Work With Me -- May 14

My comments after casting 1 vote only for Peter Shive, and, NO to the bylaws change
************************************************** ***
The Good-Ole-Boy system is killing the growth of the PDGA.
The PDGA should be focused on the membership as a whole and growing the sport, not 90% of its efforts focused on 1% of the touring pros.
Whether you realize it or not...the rest of the membership feels belittled and slighted by the above actions.
>>>>>>>>>It's time for a changing of the guard at the PDGA

JenniferB asked some very good questions about appointed Board members on another candidate thread. Since her questions were not answered there, I will answer them here.

"I am not clear on how the appointments work. One question I have is whether a board made up of elected members who no longer wish to have the appointees of former elected board members on the board could find themselves unable to appoint different members of their choosing. Can the elected board members unappoint the appointees?" No.

"Do appointees get a vote in appointing (or unappointing) appointees?" Yes.

"I also am puzzled by how difficult it would be to change the appointment rule down the line. If the board is voting on whether to change its rules to no longer allow appointed board members, do appointees get a vote on that?" Yes.

"If so, wouldn't the membership have to flood the board with electees who want to get rid of appointments in order for it to happen?" Yes.

"Would it take three years for that to happen with the three year terms?" Yes.

To the Membership:

I serve the membership, and none else. That means, among other things, that I solicit comments and questions from members and answer when I can. It also means that I inform the membership, even if the message may be unwelcome. My first such message concerns the results of the recent election.

You screwed up.

First, you should not have elected me. I ran as a reform candidate with a very detailed platform, and asked that you not vote for me unless you were in favor of reform. By overwhelmingly approving the Bylaws change and reelecting Feldberg, you repudiated the only reform elements the voting tested.

Second, by reelecting Feldberg and electing McCoy, you indicated that you would likely be fine with a Board that consisted of seven Open Pros plus two outside members who know nothing about disc golf.

It is clear that I got elected on name recognition, in spite of my platform rather than because of it. I do want to thank that minority of you who did listen to the reasons why you should not vote for me, because I may well be the best known disc golfer in history to almost lose an election.

OK, that's the message. Now here's the question.

Given the above considerations vs. the nature of my platform, how do you believe I can best serve as a Board member? Please be specific. I welcome answers here and privately ([email protected]).

My thoughts only.

Propose changes you believe will benefit disc golf and the membership. Argue passionately but civilly on their behalf. But if they don't win the day, support the decisions made by the board of which you're a member.

I suspect you're wrong about the election. You may have been elected because it was a large field for a few spots. You probably got all of the disgruntled vote, while the satisfied vote was split among a large number of establishment candidates. But a contrarian on the board can be useful and even productive, if he chooses.

The appointed-board-members change was supported overwhelmingly, so I suggest letting that issue go. Either the membership actually approves, or doesn't care. Move on to other issues.

Well, that's about two cents worth. Thanks for serving, and best of luck.

I suspect you may be surprised to find support for some of your issues and not surprised regarding some issues. I also suspect that will be true for every other elected member including Feldberg who is returning. Regarding appointments, the membership trusts that the Board will be able to make good appointments and you now have a say in that process.

David and Chuck:

Quick note before rushing off to DeLaveaga for this morning's round:

Good comments. Thanks.

Peter, lots of surprises from the election in my opinion. I agree with your analysis. Very surprising you won yet the establishment candidates did as well. Very surprising to me the appointment issue won overwhelmingly. I will drop my opposition to the issue since the results speak for themselves.

The biggest shock to me however is the fact only 18.5% of the members even bothered to vote. Pathetic in my opinion. Embarassing. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that the members just don't care about how the PDGA runs things. I believe the members want to play in tournaments and want to have a rating. That's it. Seeing how few members even care enough to vote, coupled with how few players even bother to learn the rules, is very disappointing to me.

The few members that bother to step up and run the PDGA, especially the players with name recognition, are going to be able to do things however they want. I just hope they are right in the methods they believe are best for the future growth of the game.

I voted for you. What I would like to see from you is to complete your 2 year term. I would like to see you continue to vote for reform. I would like for you to continue your 'Ask PDGA Board member Peter Shive" thread. I would like to see you represent membership in exactly the way you ran your campaign.

I fully recognize you will be unable to implement any change and your efforts will be entirely futile. Nevertheless, I would like to see you respectfully try to implement the changes you so passionately lobby for.

Best of luck at World's and I'll see you at the JRM.

I suspect what we experience here in Kansas City is not uncommon in that most players join the PDGA primarily to play in events and/or to get a rating. Whenever the Wide Open has been an NT or A-Tier, players join because they have to rather than any real regard for the PDGA. I'm sure that many of these first-time members are rather surprised when they get a ballot. While I find it good that so many people ran for the Board this year, I tend to agree with those who have opined that our elections aremore of popularity contest than an issue-based election. As a result. I don't think we're getting the best Board members.

Here's an idea that flies in the face of our democratic principles and would not work for governmental elections. (Poll taxes were thrown out many years ago!) Consider making all membership dues�be it for am or pro�$50. Except for voting and serving on the Board, the current perks and benefits would remain unchanged. However, for $25 more, a member would buy voting privileges and the right to run for the Board. Not sure if the number of would-be electors would be lesser and greater than the number of pro members we now have, so the impact on revenue would be speculative. Hopefully, it could be determined what the percentage of pro and am voters were in this election so we'd know how many amateurs would be impacted. Regardless, I think it's fair to say that by paying to vote that we'd have a much more motivated and knowledgeable electorate. And a concurrent benefit would be eliminating the inherently unfair differential between pros and ams.

One Common Stock share allowed at $25 after buying one share of Preferred Stock at $50.

Rick,

I'd certainly like us to have a more informed electorate. Members now have to pass a rules exam to play in a major, so I'd require them to pass a simple "PDGA exam" before they could vote. Questions would come from the Bylaws, Board meeting minutes and recent financial statements -- all easily available on the website. Rather than make them pay extra to vote, I'd give them a $10 reduction in membership fee, or some other perks to acknowledge their special value to the organization.

But, Peter, how does the PDGA need informed members who vote? How would that help the PDGA protect disc golf from disc golfers?

Peter,
All I ask is that you keep your composure at the time when things challenge you and you just want to quit.

You can help bring changes to the pdga and I hate for you to just quit again.

The more you can show the Board that the members don't want to be left in the dark and can bring more communication to it's members the better. Just don't fly off the handle when things don't go your way. And keep on with your goals. You will probably loose kore fights than you will win. And that's ok!

Pick your battles. Some progress is better than what we have now. It's gonna be a long process but you can get it done.

having an uninformed group of people vote for the board seems counterproductive..my opinion is that the membership should not vote but each state coordinator should vote instead and the vote should be public so you know who your coordinator voted for.i think state coordinators would be more likely to research qualifications and vote for who serves there states best interest not for whose name is the most recognizable.