How I Would Change the PDGA

[smyith]

BHFD.

what does this mean....apparently google doesn't know either. i have a feeling the H isnt supposed to be there

 

[DavidSauls]

Though I'm in the "we'll never be a spectator sport" camp, you can't dismiss the benefits of the Finnish broadcast just because you can't quantify increased participation, particularly in the brief time immediately following the broadcast. You can rarely draw a direct correlation between publicity and results, but it doesn't mean publicity has no results.

 

[coupe]

what does this mean....apparently google doesn't know either. i have a feeling the H isnt supposed to be there

H = hairy.

(That's 1970's era South Central PA slang for you young whippersnappers.)

 

[coupe]

Though I'm in the "we'll never be a spectator sport" camp, you can't dismiss the benefits of the Finnish broadcast just because you can't quantify increased participation, particularly in the brief time immediately following the broadcast.

That's exactly the point. You CAN'T quantify increased participation in the brief time following the broadcast.

Yet Turbosteve claims:

The positive results of the live broadcast include recreational players deciding to play more competitively and casual viewers deciding to take the game up as a hobby.

Sure, there's potential for increased participation as a result of the broadcast, but to equate potential benefits with actual results, especially in the absence of data that would even remotely support such a claim, is an exercise in Dueslerian rhetoric.

 

[turbosteve]

That's exactly the point. You CAN'T quantify increased participation in the brief time following the broadcast.

Yet Turbosteve claims:



Sure, there's potential for increased participation as a result of the broadcast, but to equate potential benefits with actual results, especially in the absence of data that would even remotely support such a claim, is an exercise in Dueslerian rhetoric.

I probably should have been more clear with my post. I meant to say that there was potential for that stuff to happen. Sorry about the misunderstanding. In all honesty it will probably take regular broadcasts for the sport to grow from being on national tv.

 

[_MTL_]

http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2013-06-11BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf

Interesting Motions....

 

[jobwilson]

http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2013-06-11BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf

Interesting Motions....

MOTION (Shive/Rothstein)
Starting in September 2013, the PDGA will publicize all Conflict of Interest disclosure statements of Board Members and Officers.
Yes: Duffy, Rothstein, Shive
No: Decker, McCoy, O'Cull
Motion does not pass.

This is moderately concerning.

 

[turbosteve]

MOTION (Shive/Rothstein)
Starting in September 2013, the PDGA will publicize all Conflict of Interest disclosure statements of Board Members and Officers.
Yes: Duffy, Rothstein, Shive
No: Decker, McCoy, O'Cull
Motion does not pass.

This is moderately concerning.

Agreed that is pretty disturbing. I wonder why it took them so long to publish the minutes from June?

 

[jobwilson]

Agreed that is pretty disturbing. I wonder why it took them so long to publish the minutes from June?

When the minutes are written, they have to be approved by the board before they are published.

It does seem to be convenient that they publish them at the end of the election month when everyone has cast their votes.

 

[_MTL_]

I wonder why it took them so long to publish the minutes from June?

They have to be approved at the next meeting (i.e. July). They review the minutes from the previous month at the start of the meeting for accuracy.

This is a standard practice.

 

[grodney]

http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2013-06-11BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf

EDT, not EST.

 

[skottyb]

Not posting conflicts of interests... almost sounds shady.

 

[turbosteve]

Why did Decker, McCoy, and O'Cull vote against publishing the COI?

 

[grodney]

Why did Shive and McCoy abstain from the smoking policy?

 

[shive]

On August 3 I informed Brian Graham and Rebecca Duffy (Board president) that, although elected, I would not take office when the new terms start September 1. I recommended that Shawn Sinclair be appointed to take my place.

The main reason for my action is that Board members have a duty of loyalty that I would not be able to fulfill. After my oh-fer of June and July, documented by several of you who posted snippets of meeting minutes on this thread, I have given up hope of ever being able to accomplish anything significant for the little people from service on the Board. Instead of working optimistically for positive goals, I would likely spend the next term working pessimistically (and unsuccessfully) to obstruct other Board members from enacting programs that they clearly believe in. That is an impossibly negative prospect. It is also dishonest because it is actively disloyal. I need to get out of their way and let them do their thing.

It works both ways. Recent developments suggest to me that there may well be attractive options for the little people outside of the PDGA, and I want to be able to look into them and perhaps even help develop them. The duty of loyalty to the Board prevents me from doing that, and also from being as candid on this message Board as I would like. I now believe that I can be far more effective working outside the Board than from within. Starting September 1, I will be able to do just that. My first project will be to revivify my Divisional Tour Newsgroup, which has suffered from inattention while I tilted at windmills on the Board. I will continue to post here, on a different thread, when I feel like I have something worth saying.

Some people believe that I dislike the PDGA. Not so. The PDGA has done, and will continue to do, many wonderful things. Some of these things have changed my life, big time, in amazing ways. I expect that I will remain a PDGA member because for me the positives still outweigh the negatives. I would even work for the PDGA, so long as the work I was doing was going to improve the lot of the little people. Some Board members claim to have valued my "different perspective" on things. I told Brian and Rebecca that anytime they wanted an antithetical opinion, I would be happy to provide it, but that I don't need to be on the Board to do it.

Some believe that I dislike Open players. Also not so. I have happily contributed thousands of dollars of my own money to their purses, and I wish for them to prosper from their efforts in the game. My only disagreement is where the money for the prospering should come from.

 

[ScottyLove]

^^^ bummer. No nobody I voted for is one the board... unless they take Peter's advice and appoint Shawn. Then I'd be back to 50%.

Thanks for your past service and willingness to not be a sheep. Good luck on your next adventure. We all await what that could be and some of would even gladly assist.

 

[jrawk]

uhh... wtf... shouldn't there be a re vote? i didn't vote for Shive but why on earth would/could the pdga now appoint aboard member instead of the members voting one? thats dirty dirty dirty.

 

[biscoe]

your timing is abominable.

 

[_MTL_]

uhh... wtf... shouldn't there be a re vote? i didn't vote for Shive but why on earth would/could the pdga now appoint aboard member instead of the members voting one? thats dirty dirty dirty.

The PDGA by laws allow for this.

 

[bnbanbury]

On August 3 I informed Brian Graham and Rebecca Duffy (Board president) that, although elected, I would not take office when the new terms start September 1. I recommended that Shawn Sinclair be appointed to take my place.

The main reason for my action is that Board members have a duty of loyalty that I would not be able to fulfill. After my oh-fer of June and July, documented by several of you who posted snippets of meeting minutes on this thread, I have given up hope of ever being able to accomplish anything significant for the little people from service on the Board. Instead of working optimistically for positive goals, I would likely spend the next term working pessimistically (and unsuccessfully) to obstruct other Board members from enacting programs that they clearly believe in. That is an impossibly negative prospect. It is also dishonest because it is actively disloyal. I need to get out of their way and let them do their thing.

It works both ways. Recent developments suggest to me that there may well be attractive options for the little people outside of the PDGA, and I want to be able to look into them and perhaps even help develop them. The duty of loyalty to the Board prevents me from doing that, and also from being as candid on this message Board as I would like. I now believe that I can be far more effective working outside the Board than from within. Starting September 1, I will be able to do just that. My first project will be to revivify my Divisional Tour Newsgroup, which has suffered from inattention while I tilted at windmills on the Board. I will continue to post here, on a different thread, when I feel like I have something worth saying.

Some people believe that I dislike the PDGA. Not so. The PDGA has done, and will continue to do, many wonderful things. Some of these things have changed my life, big time, in amazing ways. I expect that I will remain a PDGA member because for me the positives still outweigh the negatives. I would even work for the PDGA, so long as the work I was doing was going to improve the lot of the little people. Some Board members claim to have valued my "different perspective" on things. I told Brian and Rebecca that anytime they wanted an antithetical opinion, I would be happy to provide it, but that I don't need to be on the Board to do it.

Some believe that I dislike Open players. Also not so. I have happily contributed thousands of dollars of my own money to their purses, and I wish for them to prosper from their efforts in the game. My only disagreement is where the money for the prospering should come from.

I've read your post and the board minutes several times and feel more upset with with every reading. Mostly i don't understand your timing and reasoning at all. You strive to be a voice for the little people of disc golf and yet in resigning right after being elected you have effectively squandered their vote and silenced the voice of those who elected you to the board. Providing a perspective the other board members may be ignoring or dismissing is of value whether your initiatives are passed in session or not. It seems far-fetched to believe that they will ask you to provide antithetical opinions once you are no longer on the board. I appreciate your service and wish you the best in other disc golf endeavors but i strongly disagree with the manner in which you carried out this decision.