The consensus here is shared by at least one Board member, who said, "I neither understand Peter's reasoning nor respect it. I believe any credibility he has established and his effectiveness to make change (post Board) will be greatly diminished. Congratulations Peter on becoming the first PDGA Board director to quit twice. You've set the bar for the Hall of Shame in the service sector . . . ."
I made my decision shortly after the second Conflict of Interest debacle in July and could have resigned then. Why didn't I? Because I expected (and hoped) to lose the election, and could thus have avoided the resignation flap altogether. It was worth the gamble. The fallout would have been just as bad if I had resigned in mid-July because you can't reboot an election after people have started voting.
Either way we would have been faced with the ambiguity between appointing Shawn Sinclair or Dave West. I recommended Shawn because he finished third, and I believed that the Board only wanted to consider my position at this time. There are other unfilled positions, and the Board could also appoint Dave in the future. I hope they do.
I don't have any problem with appointments of people who do well in elections, as Shawn and Dave did. My problem is with appointments of nonelected positions. I opposed the reappointment of Bob Decker before the election for that reason. Do you realize that if I had not resigned the Board would have precisely recreated itself by reappointment (Decker) and election (McCoy and myself)? I feel that the Board needs new blood. To put it another way, if only one of us could serve, better Shawn than I. That was in fact a minor factor in my decision.
