Can I be an effective PDGA Board member?

[petershive]

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

I am a "reform" candidate. You can look at my platform on the "Ask Board Candidate Peter Shive" thread on the PDGA Discussion Board. 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 on that thread).
2) Secrecy would be dispelled. Members would know what is going on before the fact, and would also 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.

[ziggy]

Peter,

Thank you for taking the time to share.
Good luck w/ your quest. I appreciate the honor in sharing your stance.

I absolutely agree with your two requests regarding elections.
Membership should decide, not the name of several good ol' boys.
This is one reason why I have tossed my candidacy in the ring to compete.

Regardless of the voting outcome, I hope those two requests of yours are acknowledged and ring true.

[veganray]

Peter,
Are you suggesting that you will resign if you are elected but your preferred colleagues are not? PDGA certainly doesn't need that again.

[JHern]

Peter, if you don't think you'd be effective, then you shouldn't run. And if you are elected, then you must serve your term. I share many of your views, even at the local club level I often see a need for better practices of open governance. However, I don't know that your approach has always been effective. You need to connect with, and bring people along with you in your quest. And it is exactly your approach that you have the power to change. And only you have that power. So let's turn the question around: will you be an effective PDGA Board member? Its all up to you.

[petershive]

veganray

I would not resign if I am elected but my preferred colleagues are not.

JHern

No one can know before the fact if they can be effective. The purpose of my post was to decrease the likelihood of being elected if I had little chance of producing reform. As to my approach, it is what it is. I turned 70 ten days ago without any feelings that I needed to reinvent myself. I'd love to "connect with, and bring people along with" me in my quest. But I have serious doubts that I (or anyone) could do that if all the people are ones who created and stand behind the policies I oppose. That is part of what my post is saying.

Let me give you an example. When I was on the Board I was strongly criticized for my attempts to communicate with the membership. One Board member was "disgusted" with me; another accused me of "pandering to the membership". At one point we were asked to consider signing a loyalty oath, which basically meant loyalty to the Board above the membership. My attitude was, and is, that the Board didn't elect me, the membership did, and so my loyalty should be to the membership first. I can't compromise on that point. I believe that the Board (and the ED) exist to serve the membership, period. It's not likely that I can "connect with, and bring people along" with me if they believe that posting on a message board constitutes pandering to the membership.

This is, of course, another reason why I believe that there should be no appointed members on the Board. Their first loyalty would be to the Board and the ED, not the membership.

[veganray]

At one point we were asked to consider signing a loyalty oath, which basically meant loyalty to the Board above the membership.

ROFLMFAO!!!! pDGA at its finest.

[JHern]

Hey Peter, now that you're elected...what are you going to do? Did you get the appropriate colleagues to work with?

Anyways, after Worlds I think I understand more about what you've been saying. They were horrible at telling people what was going on, even though the infrastructure (both human and machine) for doing so was well in place. They lacked consistency, which combined with lack of information flow, led to huge communications breakdowns. I think they could really really really use somebody whose job is simply to have access to all information, be well-informed by all staff and board of directors, and disseminate information directly to the players and people, via the website, the magazine, the phone, face-to-face, etc.. Because they don't do it. They hold on to every tidbit of information, like it was "the precious," and don't bother to tell people, and then when things blow up in their faces they're like "what in the world is happening?"

PDGA really need transparency. Not just in the budget, but in every single facet. Board meetings should all be recorded on video and posted online. Everything should be disseminated.