To whom exactly are you referring to as "little people"?
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
How I Would Change the PDGA
- Thread starter shive
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,039
I agree with this whole statement. And reminds me of something that happened in the past. I had hoped you had "matured" since then.
But I am curious what other dg related ventures you have going that would prompt you to slight those who voted for you.
....as they should. Who wants to hold a Special Election everytime there's a vacancy?
I concur.
Mr. Shive, while I agree with many, if not most, of your proposals and positions, particularly your stance on conflicts of interest, I have to say that both the timing of your announcement and your recommendation that Mr. Sinclair be appointed to fill your seat raise serious questions, at least in my mind, about your respect for integrity of the election process, and, by implication, your professed love for the PDGA.
If you had serious qualms about your possible effectiveness going forward, the time to stand down was before, or during, the election, not after it. While standing down during the election would have been awkward for both you and the PDGA, it would have allowed the election to be rebooted.
By allowing the election run its course and now refusing to abide by the result, you're giving a big middle finger to the "little people" who elected you to represent them, and by recommending that the Board appoint Mr. Sinclair to fill the seat you vacated--ironic, especially given your past vocal opposition to the Board filling vacated seats-- including your own by appointment--you reinforce the perception of the PDGA as an "old boys" network and, more seriously, casts Mr. Sinclair under the cloud of being one of the "old boys."
As others have said, I appreciate your past service, but I strongly disagree with the timing and the manner in which you made your decision.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,525
My reaction to reading this last Shive post was to loose a lot of respect for the man. I decided to sleep on it as I was brought up to respect my elders and people in authority and did not want to pop off something that I would later regret. Having slept on it, I still feel that way....in fact it is rubbing me worse.
It will take a lot of convincing to explain how you Peter, having already served on the BoD and knowing the entire lay of the land, did not know all of this before the election (only a few weeks back). Why did you not have the honor then to withdraw your name then? Instead, we see you jobbing the system and completely making a mockery of the biggest vehicle that most "little people" have to express their will for how their organization will serve their perceived needs.
This is "Chicago Politics". This seems to me much more about Shive serving Shive than Shive serving the greater good of the PDGA and the Sport of disc golf. I like the words he has articulated in hist posts here a lot, but actions speak much louder than words. And actions gain or loose respect much faster than words do.
It will take a lot of convincing to explain how you Peter, having already served on the BoD and knowing the entire lay of the land, did not know all of this before the election (only a few weeks back). Why did you not have the honor then to withdraw your name then? Instead, we see you jobbing the system and completely making a mockery of the biggest vehicle that most "little people" have to express their will for how their organization will serve their perceived needs.
This is "Chicago Politics". This seems to me much more about Shive serving Shive than Shive serving the greater good of the PDGA and the Sport of disc golf. I like the words he has articulated in hist posts here a lot, but actions speak much louder than words. And actions gain or loose respect much faster than words do.
Last edited:
Did Shawn take 3rd place in the election? That's the only reason I can see for appointing him over anyone else :|
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,515
jobwilson
Eagle Member
Not entirely. The by-laws allow for the BOD to elect a replacement. While logic says they will elect the next high vote-getter, in theory, they can elect whomever they choose. (At least that is how I read it.)
3.11 VACANCIES. Any vacancy occurring in the Board of Directors or in a directorship to be filled by reason of an increase in the number of Directors, may be filled by the Directors. A Director elected to fill a vacancy shall be elected for the unexpired term of his predecessor in office.
3.12 RESIGNATION AND REMOVAL. Any Director of the Corporation may resign at any time by giving written notice to the President or the Secretary of the Corporation. The resignation of any Director shall take effect upon receipt of notice thereof or at such later time as shall be specified in such notice; and, unless otherwise specified therein, the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective. When one or more Directors shall resign from the Board, effective at a future date, a majority of the Directors then in office, including those who have so resigned, shall have power to fill such vacancy or vacancies, the results of the vote thereon to take effect when such resignation or resignations shall become effective. Any Board member may be removed, with or without cause, upon the unanimous affirmative vote of the entire Board of Directors. In addition, the Board shall cause a vote of the members to be held to recall any Director upon the written petition of not less than ten percent (10%) of the Active members calling for such vote. In the event of a vote of the members regarding the recall of a Director, the proposed change shall be approved upon the affirmative vote of not less than sixty-six percent (66%) of participating voting members.
Mr. Shive, this is really poor timing and a bonehead move. That's all I will say, because everything else has been said.
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,515
Correct - I was responding to criticism that the PDGA would appoint someone, which they are allowed to do.
Peter is simply recommending Shawn and due to him finishing 3rd, I feel that is the fairest nomination. However, they do have the power to choose anyone.
That's assuming Mr. Sinclair would have been the third choice of the majority of those who voted for Mr. Shive, which may or may not have been the case.
Mr. Sinclair garnered 5 more votes than Mr. West (1131 vs. 1126, out of 3861 ballots cast). Regardless of the vote for Mr. Shive had been split among the other candidates, if six more of Mr. Shive's supporters had voted for Mr. West than for Mr. Sinclair, Mr. West would have won by one vote.
Unfortunately, there is no way of identifying the 1434 members who voted for Mr. Shive and finding out who they would have voted for instead. That's why the timing of Mr. Shive's abrupt resignation is unconscionable and amounts to flipping a bird at the very "little people" he claimed to represent.
Last edited:
Note: I'm not saying Mr. Sinclair (who I think would be an excellent choice) is not qualified, or that he should not be appointed to fill the vacancy; only that the argument for appointing him based primarily or exclusively on his having finished third is not as cut-and-dried as it appears on the surface.
mfcastillo17
Eagle Member
Took the words right out of my mouth. Either way I didn't vote for Shive so I'm happy about it. I guess when the going gets tough.........
WORST TIMING EVER!!!
Peter, I voted for you because I thought we shared a common view of what the PDGA should (and shouldn't) be doing. I voted for you because I wanted MY(your) voice to be heard at BOD meetings. Even if you felt like you were tilting at windmills, you were doing it on MY behalf and for the other 1433 people that voted for you!
I think you wrongly assumed your view was solely pessimistic and that you would have nothing positive to contribute. Even if you were going to be in the minority in voting, your dissension would be part of the record.
Now I feel my vote was completely wasted and our point of view will NOT be heard at BOD meetings. At least ask the BOD to appoint someone that held similar views to yourself.
ScottyLove
Double Eagle Member
^^^ This! Count me as one of the 1433 voices that were just silenced.
shive
Par Member
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.
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.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,525
I want to buy this....but I don't because what you are essentially saying is that one event (debacle) made you change your mind. I am speculating that you are probably thinking/meaning that this debacle was "the straw that broke the camel's back"....since there have been previous debacles (per your post).
If this is the case, then you knew the lay of the land well before throwing your name in the ring and had to be strongly inclined already to have this attitude of how you couldn't rightfully serve on the BoD. So, you should have withdrawn your name earlier (or not even run).
If this was not the case (straw that broke....), then you should be rising above one debacle for the greater good of those who elected you. You signed up for that possibility when you decided to run.
My opinion only.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,039
you need to stop posting about this. you are just losing more and more respect. you've got great ideas and foresight, but you lack responsibility and stamina.
on the bolded section
an honorable man would have still resigned not gambled. even if you resigned mid election, some of those 1400 people had not voted yet im sure. they could have voted for someone else. the pDGA could've sent out an email that you were no longer electable. and possibly (idk how the system works) allowed for those who did vote for you already to recast a single vote for one of the other candidates.
And who cares if the BoD had re-made itself again. it was voted that way. people wanted your voice there, especially your standard position of dissent against the wrong ideas. people wanted McCoy there again cause he has forward thinking ideas.
disc qualified
Banned
open, honest communication without an agenda is a wonderful thing when it comes from people who want to be leaders
unfortunately, it's about as rare as unicorn farts
unfortunately, it's about as rare as unicorn farts
