Date   

Re: Willamette Signs

Eric Smith
 

I wasn't at the November meeting. 

$2500.00 + posts + fasteners + concrete = ?

Eric 

On Dec 4, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Everett Kaser <everett@...> wrote:

 

Eric wrote...
> I'm not sure I really care as much about the material of the sign
> (although I do like the ones at whistlers) but the expense seems high.

> Greg told me they would be paid for with business sponsor money.
> That's fine but the next year the city wants the money and every
> year after that? What happens if the businesses stop sponsoring?
> Are we on the hook for that money? Why are we raising money for the city?

The story told at the November meeting:

The signs will cost ~$2500. The club will get ALL the money from the
first year's sponsorships (assuming the club sells all 18 sponsorships),
at $100 per, is $1800 (minus $100 if the club sponsors hole #1, which
I think we should). So, the club is on the hook for $800.

After the first year, Parks gets the money from the sponsorships (and
is responsible for finding sponsors), which helps pay for the maintenance
and operation of the Park.

Everett

======================================================================
Everett Kaser Software Logic & Puzzle Games for computers
PO Box 403
Albany OR 97321-0117 Phone: 541-928-5259 8am-8pm PACIFIC TIME
USA http://www.kaser.com
======================================================================


Re: Willamette Signs

 

Eric wrote...
I'm not sure I really care as much about the material of the sign
(although I do like the ones at whistlers) but the expense seems high.
Greg told me they would be paid for with business sponsor money.
That's fine but the next year the city wants the money and every
year after that? What happens if the businesses stop sponsoring?
Are we on the hook for that money? Why are we raising money for the city?
The story told at the November meeting:

The signs will cost ~$2500. The club will get ALL the money from the
first year's sponsorships (assuming the club sells all 18 sponsorships),
at $100 per, is $1800 (minus $100 if the club sponsors hole #1, which
I think we should). So, the club is on the hook for $800.

After the first year, Parks gets the money from the sponsorships (and
is responsible for finding sponsors), which helps pay for the maintenance
and operation of the Park.

Everett

======================================================================
Everett Kaser Software Logic & Puzzle Games for computers
PO Box 403
Albany OR 97321-0117 Phone: 541-928-5259 8am-8pm PACIFIC TIME
USA http://www.kaser.com
======================================================================


Re: Willamette Signs

John Ross <rossjohn414@...>
 

Right on with all these comments and questions--start to finish. End to end.

Raise money for things we need a lot more than these. I have said parks has perfectly lovely, long lasting signpost materials collecting dust and spider webs in a building in their bone yard. They could be available with a little routing for numbers, maybe distance  and directional arrow for next tee direction.

I think. I would need to see them out of the building.

JohnR



From: Eric Smith
To: "wdgc@..."
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [wdgc] Re: Willamette Signs

 
I'm not sure I really care as much about the material of the sign (although I do like the ones at whistlers) but the expense seems high. 

Greg told me they would be paid for with business sponsor money. That's fine but the next year the city wants the money and every year after that? What happens if the businesses stop sponsoring? Are we on the hook for that money? Why are we raising money for the city?

Eric 

On Dec 4, 2012, at 10:03 AM, mike gibson <disharoonone@...> wrote:

 
Why make something harder to read? What is the good thing about those holes?
Mike

From: Kimberly Halsey <halseyk@...>
To: wdgc@...
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 9:28 AM
Subject: [wdgc] Re: Willamette Signs [1 Attachment]
 

How about this one?




Re: Willamette Signs

John Ross <rossjohn414@...>
 

My favorite ones are at Adair Village, with some improvements.

A solid wood oval backing;

A non creosote wood post.

They used to use Locust for posts in the old days or Red Cedar, which may not grow around here.

Metal still just leaves me cold. I could warm to some recycled metal, like say from an old aircraft carrier from Midway, or maybe some plow--something recycled, rather than new. Something from a metal recycling place, like the one in Albany. Something with some meaning if it has to be metal.

It's more in keeping with the club's sustainability ethic.

I just know it's out there, somewhere, perfectly rusted and ready to survive through time out of mind.

The money would be so much better spent on pavers from Willamette Graystone, but that's altogether another argument.

JohnR


From: evilhatechild
To: wdgc@...
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 11:46 AM
Subject: [wdgc] Re: Willamette Signs

 
My favorite tee signs are at Whistlers Bend.  Linky Linky. 

Mike Storrs.


--- In wdgc@..., "Sexton Hoyman Weedman" wrote:
>
> I could not find a close approximation of the proposed willamette sign but here are what I did find:
>



Re: Willamette Signs

Eric Smith
 

I'm not sure I really care as much about the material of the sign (although I do like the ones at whistlers) but the expense seems high. 

Greg told me they would be paid for with business sponsor money. That's fine but the next year the city wants the money and every year after that? What happens if the businesses stop sponsoring? Are we on the hook for that money? Why are we raising money for the city?

Eric 

On Dec 4, 2012, at 10:03 AM, mike gibson <disharoonone@...> wrote:

 

Why make something harder to read? What is the good thing about those holes?
Mike

From: Kimberly Halsey <halseyk@...>
To: wdgc@...
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 9:28 AM
Subject: [wdgc] Re: Willamette Signs [1 Attachment]
 

How about this one?


Re: Willamette Signs [1 Attachment]

John Ross <rossjohn414@...>
 

I couldn't open this one without a Quick Time update. Is there another file format available?

JohnR


From: Kimberly Halsey
To: wdgc@...
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 9:28 AM
Subject: [wdgc] Re: Willamette Signs [1 Attachment]

 

How about this one?




Re: Willamette Signs

Lonnie Drouhard
 

I agree.  Whistlers good.  Holes bad.


From: evilhatechild
To: wdgc@...
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 11:46 AM
Subject: [wdgc] Re: Willamette Signs

 
My favorite tee signs are at Whistlers Bend.  Linky Linky. 

Mike Storrs.


--- In wdgc@..., "Sexton Hoyman Weedman" wrote:
>
> I could not find a close approximation of the proposed willamette sign but here are what I did find:
>



Re: Willamette Signs

Mike Storrs
 

My favorite tee signs are at Whistlers Bend.  Linky Linky. 

Mike Storrs.


--- In wdgc@..., "Sexton Hoyman Weedman" wrote:
>
> I could not find a close approximation of the proposed willamette sign but here are what I did find:
>


Re: Willamette Signs [1 Attachment]

Mike Gibson
 

Why make something harder to read? What is the good thing about those holes?
Mike

From: Kimberly Halsey
To: wdgc@...
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 9:28 AM
Subject: [wdgc] Re: Willamette Signs [1 Attachment]
 

How about this one?


Re: Willamette Signs

Kimberly Halsey
 


Re: Willamette Signs [3 Attachments]

Mike Gibson
 

The holes in the signs are a bad idea. What exactly do they add?
Mikw


--- On Mon, 12/3/12, Sexton Hoyman Weedman wrote:

From: Sexton Hoyman Weedman
Subject: [wdgc] Willamette Signs [3 Attachments]
To: wdgc@...
Date: Monday, December 3, 2012, 9:04 PM

 

I could not find a close approximation of the proposed willamette sign but here are what I did find:
 
 


Willamette Signs

Jay Sexton
 

I could not find a close approximation of the proposed willamette sign but here are what I did find:
 
 


Re: Getting to Consensus

Eric Smith
 

John

You ask for respect but give none. 
You want people to be friendly but you are mean.
You want us to abide by the bylaws but you don't want to. 
You act like a victim but you start the fights. 

You contradict yourself. 

Everett has not only been a great president but has probably singlehandedly put in more work than any other club member. Attacking him won't help you. 

John, all your good ideas (and you have some good ones) and your positive energy is overshadowed by your negative attitude toward the club and its members. You destroy everything you try to work for where the club is concerned. 

This forces someone like me to do another thing you don't like and that is to ignore you. 

It isn't too late to change for the positive. 

Please try. 


Eric 

On Dec 3, 2012, at 3:02 PM, John Ross <rossjohn414@...> wrote:

 

Everett wrote about what John wrote...
 
You can't have it both ways. If you want things done "to the letter"
according to the by-laws, then you have no business talking to Parks
about anything. . . .
 
You certainly can’t have it both ways in the same e-mail.
 
You're not the President, nor are you the Greenskeeper.
As I said before, you (as a private citizen) have every right to talk
to Parks,
 
What the by laws say for el Presidente:
 
Shall represent the WDGC in discussions with other entities, be they Parks Departments, local government bodies or boards, businesses, or other groups.
 
What the by laws say for le Greenskeeper:
 
The WDGC Course Greenskeeper shall be the only contact person for the WDGC with the administrative entity that manages the land on which the course exists.
 
At no time did I present myself as representing the club. No time. Nobody I spoke with suffered any illusions and I uttered no such language as “The club would like you to. . .” whatever.
 
My report on my meeting with Chair Griffiths contained language like:
 
“I told her my story. . .I told Betty about my conclusions . . .I didn’t want even want to write. . .”
 
Later in the report, I speculated on what the club could do. I commented there were questions the club needs to address. Betty’s report on our discussion confirms that she clearly understood I wasn’t “club leadership” and that I would take my concerns to “the club’s representative.” She knew I was representing me and me alone.
 
Then in my report on my meeting with Emery and Deghetto, one of my takeaways bullet item states: “Parks needs to know who speaks for the club.” Now does it make sense for Steve to say that if he thought he was speaking to the spokesperson for the club? Nah. But, hey, you don’t have to take my word for any of the folks I talked to about whether they thought I was representing the club. We’ll go together—heck, get them on the phone together.
 
This poor horse has been beaten enough.
 
And as for:
 
but the moment the words "club" or "WDGC" escape your lips
in those talks, you are 'bending' the letter of the club by-laws, of
which you are a member.
 
The letter is the letter and can’t be bent. I or any club member can talk with whoever we want whenever we want about the club, club personnel and disc golf issues local or far away. Of course we’re always ethically bound to be telling the truth. But the key, where public officials are concerned, is not misrepresenting your authority to speak for the club. They have hats too—as citizens, as human beings, as personal friends  as well as elected or appointed officials. They can even dream as ordinary people, believe it or don’t.
 
As for the corruption of club by laws, that occurred the moment you said, as reported in club minutes, that you would post the fact that I stood for President on the website. That’s not provided for in the by laws.
 
Then, three days before the November meeting, Jay announces, much to my surprise and who knows who else. I did suggest putting off the voting but that didn’t legitimize anything. I was just responding to a highly irregular situation the best I could with precious little notice.
 
Everett writes: “If a simple vote of the membership can do that, then a simple
vote of the membership can also allow additional candidacies, and other
changes. And even arguing against that, there's nothing that says
there can't be "write-in" candidates.”
 
It probably couldn’t or at least shouldn’t when the bylaws are perfectly clear on the October deadline. But beyond all this hair splitting, you have to admit the situation was not what was in the bylaws, starting with the announcement by the very guy who wrote them—who came to the meeting knowing they were outside the bylaws and admitting that.
 
I was more than generous when I had no need, especially given some of the toxic exchanges and accusations that followed. Gloves came off.
 
And on the Priorities vote, I saw that as about worth the effort that went into it. Not much. It was certainly no comprehensive approach to planning. More of a hack job for the moment with a lame duck president trying to do something he maybe should have done two years earlier. But certainly not setting goals and priorities for the next administration. Useless, poorly conceived and poorly executed, in my humble opinion as a person who’s actually studied and published scientifically on surveys and questionnaires. It was not ready for prime time.
 
Moreover, a Willamette makeover was a concept even Jim and Shari had trouble conceptualizing and wanted to see some particulars. How can you measure support for something only a handful of members have considered? I guarantee you the one I can visualize will get interest. For you to write it got “no interest” is misrepresents even the results you reported.
 
Why should new signage at Willamette even be on a list of goals? It’s maintenance that should have been addressed way back before Greg Alpert started coming to an occasional meeting.
 
Finally, the “flexibility and reasonableness” that “has to be part of how we operate” depends on who’s ox is being gored and who’s dispensing flexibility and reasonable to whom. Take your ruling on my first proposal to roll the vote forward: “However the election will proceed at tonight’s meeting, as the By-Laws state.” Where was the flexibility and reasonableness there?
 
You do have a dog in this fight, no? I’m pretty sure it ain’t me from what you’ve been writing. But we will both be relieved when you’re “thankfully done with it.
 
I stopped having much fun when the whole Crazy Joe thing kicked up. Hopefully tonight we can get this sucker out of the ditch and back on smooth highways.
 
JohnR
 


From: Everett Kaser <everett@...>
To: John Ross <wdgc@...>
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [wdgc] Getting to Consensus

 
John wrote...
> I think a dedicated meeting by interested members or an appointed
> committee are a good first step toward addressing my Willamette
> concerns. The outcome still has to be presented to the board, as
> Betty and I discussed or adopted and championed by P&R Staff.
> Richard Hervey suggested a joint guided visioning session with
> Parks and WDGC to come up with a master plan, including course
> design principles and processes for collaborating on maintenance,
> repairs and improvements. I thought that was doable and an excellent
> suggestion.

> The presidential election process has been corrupted according to
> the established, standing club bylaws. Specifically, they only
> provide for nominations at or before the October meeting. Nothing more.

John, respectfully (as you said you'd prefer that over friendly):

You can't have it both ways. If you want things done "to the letter"
according to the by-laws, then you have no business talking to Parks
about anything. You're not the President, nor are you the Greenskeeper.
As I said before, you (as a private citizen) have every right to talk
to Parks, but the moment the words "club" or "WDGC" escape your lips
in those talks, you are 'bending' the letter of the club by-laws, of
which you are a member.

Further, YOU suggested, at the November meeting, moving the vote for
club President to December, and a vote of attending members agreed to
do so. If a simple vote of the membership can do that, then a simple
vote of the membership can also allow additional candidacies, and other
changes. And even arguing against that, there's nothing that says
there can't be "write-in" candidates.

And regarding your comments on Willamette stuff in your first paragraph
above, the club showed minimal interest in a "Willamette make-over"
in the recent 2013 Priorities vote. The club, by a large majority,
showed no interest in "addressing [your] Willamette concerns," but
rather (by a vast majority) wanted three priorities for the coming year:

1) Concrete tees at Adair
2) A new course
3) New signage at Willamette

The subject of your post was "Getting to Consensus." That IS the
consensus. Maybe not the one YOU wanted to get to, but c'est la vie.

> So either the by laws are invalid or the process stands corrupted and
> at odds with WDGC bylaws. That makes debate and discussion a moot
> point, never mind 20 minutes, more or less. One candidate, one office.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say by, "One candidate, one office,"
so I'll ignore that part. But we're a small group, and flexibility
and reasonableness has to be part of how we operate. If you really
want to force the issue, fine, but you'll need to get a majority of
the club to go along with you, which is essentially what this election
is about. I'd say if you get elected, then the club has demonstrated
that they agree that we need stricter application of the by-laws (and
perhaps a complete rewrite thereof, headed up by the new club President).
If you don't get elected, then I guess it says something else.

Either way, I'm (thankfully) soon done with it.

Everett

======================================================================
Everett Kaser Software Logic & Puzzle Games for computers
PO Box 403
Albany OR 97321-0117 Phone: 541-928-5259 8am-8pm PACIFIC TIME
USA http://www.kaser.com
======================================================================




Re: Getting to Consensus

John Ross <rossjohn414@...>
 

Everett wrote about what John wrote...
 
You can't have it both ways. If you want things done "to the letter"
according to the by-laws, then you have no business talking to Parks
about anything. . . .
 
You certainly can’t have it both ways in the same e-mail.
 
You're not the President, nor are you the Greenskeeper.
As I said before, you (as a private citizen) have every right to talk
to Parks,
 
What the by laws say for el Presidente:
 
Shall represent the WDGC in discussions with other entities, be they Parks Departments, local government bodies or boards, businesses, or other groups.
 
What the by laws say for le Greenskeeper:
 
The WDGC Course Greenskeeper shall be the only contact person for the WDGC with the administrative entity that manages the land on which the course exists.
 
At no time did I present myself as representing the club. No time. Nobody I spoke with suffered any illusions and I uttered no such language as “The club would like you to. . .” whatever.
 
My report on my meeting with Chair Griffiths contained language like:
 
“I told her my story. . .I told Betty about my conclusions . . .I didn’t want even want to write. . .”
 
Later in the report, I speculated on what the club could do. I commented there were questions the club needs to address. Betty’s report on our discussion confirms that she clearly understood I wasn’t “club leadership” and that I would take my concerns to “the club’s representative.” She knew I was representing me and me alone.
 
Then in my report on my meeting with Emery and Deghetto, one of my takeaways bullet item states: “Parks needs to know who speaks for the club.” Now does it make sense for Steve to say that if he thought he was speaking to the spokesperson for the club? Nah. But, hey, you don’t have to take my word for any of the folks I talked to about whether they thought I was representing the club. We’ll go together—heck, get them on the phone together.
 
This poor horse has been beaten enough.
 
And as for:
 
but the moment the words "club" or "WDGC" escape your lips
in those talks, you are 'bending' the letter of the club by-laws, of
which you are a member.
 
The letter is the letter and can’t be bent. I or any club member can talk with whoever we want whenever we want about the club, club personnel and disc golf issues local or far away. Of course we’re always ethically bound to be telling the truth. But the key, where public officials are concerned, is not misrepresenting your authority to speak for the club. They have hats too—as citizens, as human beings, as personal friends  as well as elected or appointed officials. They can even dream as ordinary people, believe it or don’t.
 
As for the corruption of club by laws, that occurred the moment you said, as reported in club minutes, that you would post the fact that I stood for President on the website. That’s not provided for in the by laws.
 
Then, three days before the November meeting, Jay announces, much to my surprise and who knows who else. I did suggest putting off the voting but that didn’t legitimize anything. I was just responding to a highly irregular situation the best I could with precious little notice.
 
Everett writes: “If a simple vote of the membership can do that, then a simple
vote of the membership can also allow additional candidacies, and other
changes. And even arguing against that, there's nothing that says
there can't be "write-in" candidates.”
 
It probably couldn’t or at least shouldn’t when the bylaws are perfectly clear on the October deadline. But beyond all this hair splitting, you have to admit the situation was not what was in the bylaws, starting with the announcement by the very guy who wrote them—who came to the meeting knowing they were outside the bylaws and admitting that.
 
I was more than generous when I had no need, especially given some of the toxic exchanges and accusations that followed. Gloves came off.
 
And on the Priorities vote, I saw that as about worth the effort that went into it. Not much. It was certainly no comprehensive approach to planning. More of a hack job for the moment with a lame duck president trying to do something he maybe should have done two years earlier. But certainly not setting goals and priorities for the next administration. Useless, poorly conceived and poorly executed, in my humble opinion as a person who’s actually studied and published scientifically on surveys and questionnaires. It was not ready for prime time.
 
Moreover, a Willamette makeover was a concept even Jim and Shari had trouble conceptualizing and wanted to see some particulars. How can you measure support for something only a handful of members have considered? I guarantee you the one I can visualize will get interest. For you to write it got “no interest” is misrepresents even the results you reported.
 
Why should new signage at Willamette even be on a list of goals? It’s maintenance that should have been addressed way back before Greg Alpert started coming to an occasional meeting.
 
Finally, the “flexibility and reasonableness” that “has to be part of how we operate” depends on who’s ox is being gored and who’s dispensing flexibility and reasonable to whom. Take your ruling on my first proposal to roll the vote forward: “However the election will proceed at tonight’s meeting, as the By-Laws state.” Where was the flexibility and reasonableness there?
 
You do have a dog in this fight, no? I’m pretty sure it ain’t me from what you’ve been writing. But we will both be relieved when you’re “thankfully done with it.
 
I stopped having much fun when the whole Crazy Joe thing kicked up. Hopefully tonight we can get this sucker out of the ditch and back on smooth highways.
 
JohnR
 


From: Everett Kaser
To: John Ross
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [wdgc] Getting to Consensus

 
John wrote...
> I think a dedicated meeting by interested members or an appointed
> committee are a good first step toward addressing my Willamette
> concerns. The outcome still has to be presented to the board, as
> Betty and I discussed or adopted and championed by P&R Staff.
> Richard Hervey suggested a joint guided visioning session with
> Parks and WDGC to come up with a master plan, including course
> design principles and processes for collaborating on maintenance,
> repairs and improvements. I thought that was doable and an excellent
> suggestion.

> The presidential election process has been corrupted according to
> the established, standing club bylaws. Specifically, they only
> provide for nominations at or before the October meeting. Nothing more.

John, respectfully (as you said you'd prefer that over friendly):

You can't have it both ways. If you want things done "to the letter"
according to the by-laws, then you have no business talking to Parks
about anything. You're not the President, nor are you the Greenskeeper.
As I said before, you (as a private citizen) have every right to talk
to Parks, but the moment the words "club" or "WDGC" escape your lips
in those talks, you are 'bending' the letter of the club by-laws, of
which you are a member.

Further, YOU suggested, at the November meeting, moving the vote for
club President to December, and a vote of attending members agreed to
do so. If a simple vote of the membership can do that, then a simple
vote of the membership can also allow additional candidacies, and other
changes. And even arguing against that, there's nothing that says
there can't be "write-in" candidates.

And regarding your comments on Willamette stuff in your first paragraph
above, the club showed minimal interest in a "Willamette make-over"
in the recent 2013 Priorities vote. The club, by a large majority,
showed no interest in "addressing [your] Willamette concerns," but
rather (by a vast majority) wanted three priorities for the coming year:

1) Concrete tees at Adair
2) A new course
3) New signage at Willamette

The subject of your post was "Getting to Consensus." That IS the
consensus. Maybe not the one YOU wanted to get to, but c'est la vie.

> So either the by laws are invalid or the process stands corrupted and
> at odds with WDGC bylaws. That makes debate and discussion a moot
> point, never mind 20 minutes, more or less. One candidate, one office.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say by, "One candidate, one office,"
so I'll ignore that part. But we're a small group, and flexibility
and reasonableness has to be part of how we operate. If you really
want to force the issue, fine, but you'll need to get a majority of
the club to go along with you, which is essentially what this election
is about. I'd say if you get elected, then the club has demonstrated
that they agree that we need stricter application of the by-laws (and
perhaps a complete rewrite thereof, headed up by the new club President).
If you don't get elected, then I guess it says something else.

Either way, I'm (thankfully) soon done with it.

Everett

======================================================================
Everett Kaser Software Logic & Puzzle Games for computers
PO Box 403
Albany OR 97321-0117 Phone: 541-928-5259 8am-8pm PACIFIC TIME
USA http://www.kaser.com
======================================================================




Re: Getting to Consensus

 

John wrote...
I think a dedicated meeting by interested members or an appointed
committee are a good first step toward addressing my Willamette
concerns. The outcome still has to be presented to the board, as
Betty and I discussed or adopted and championed by P&R Staff.
Richard Hervey suggested a joint guided visioning session with
Parks and WDGC to come up with a master plan, including course
design principles and processes for collaborating on maintenance,
repairs and improvements. I thought that was doable and an excellent
suggestion.
The presidential election process has been corrupted according to
the established, standing club bylaws. Specifically, they only
provide for nominations at or before the October meeting. Nothing more.
John, respectfully (as you said you'd prefer that over friendly):

You can't have it both ways. If you want things done "to the letter"
according to the by-laws, then you have no business talking to Parks
about anything. You're not the President, nor are you the Greenskeeper.
As I said before, you (as a private citizen) have every right to talk
to Parks, but the moment the words "club" or "WDGC" escape your lips
in those talks, you are 'bending' the letter of the club by-laws, of
which you are a member.

Further, YOU suggested, at the November meeting, moving the vote for
club President to December, and a vote of attending members agreed to
do so. If a simple vote of the membership can do that, then a simple
vote of the membership can also allow additional candidacies, and other
changes. And even arguing against that, there's nothing that says
there can't be "write-in" candidates.

And regarding your comments on Willamette stuff in your first paragraph
above, the club showed minimal interest in a "Willamette make-over"
in the recent 2013 Priorities vote. The club, by a large majority,
showed no interest in "addressing [your] Willamette concerns," but
rather (by a vast majority) wanted three priorities for the coming year:

1) Concrete tees at Adair
2) A new course
3) New signage at Willamette

The subject of your post was "Getting to Consensus." That IS the
consensus. Maybe not the one YOU wanted to get to, but c'est la vie.

So either the by laws are invalid or the process stands corrupted and
at odds with WDGC bylaws. That makes debate and discussion a moot
point, never mind 20 minutes, more or less. One candidate, one office.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say by, "One candidate, one office,"
so I'll ignore that part. But we're a small group, and flexibility
and reasonableness has to be part of how we operate. If you really
want to force the issue, fine, but you'll need to get a majority of
the club to go along with you, which is essentially what this election
is about. I'd say if you get elected, then the club has demonstrated
that they agree that we need stricter application of the by-laws (and
perhaps a complete rewrite thereof, headed up by the new club President).
If you don't get elected, then I guess it says something else.

Either way, I'm (thankfully) soon done with it.

Everett

======================================================================
Everett Kaser Software Logic & Puzzle Games for computers
PO Box 403
Albany OR 97321-0117 Phone: 541-928-5259 8am-8pm PACIFIC TIME
USA http://www.kaser.com
======================================================================


Re: Festivus Registrations

Greg Johnson
 

Attached is the registration form.  I'll bring a few copies to the club meeting tonight.  GJ 


--- On Fri, 11/30/12, Greg Johnson wrote:

From: Greg Johnson
Subject: Festivus Registrations
To: wdgc@...
Date: Friday, November 30, 2012, 5:03 PM

Hi all,
 
The tournament is Saturday January 26th.  I getting to work on trophies tonight!
 
Festivus Registrations will open at midnight tonight.  NWDiscgolf merged with Firefly for tournament registrations. Here is the online registrations page:
 
http://www.4discgolf.com/13festivus

I would attach the offline registration form but I don't have it with me and wanted to get this message out before registrations go live.
 
I will take Registrations from club members at the next 2 club meetings.  If you wait past early January to get me your paid registrations you might find yourself on the wail list rather than on the registration list.
 
Cheers,
 
Greg Johnson


Getting to Consensus

John Ross <rossjohn414@...>
 

I have read and wholeheartedly welcome Jay's Candidate Statement. I might like "friendly" added to his meeting goals, but "respectful" will be a giant step forward to user friendliness. We still have a different perspective on who takes the lead with agencies and I'll clarify my approach below. 

I think a dedicated meeting by interested members or an appointed committee are a good first step toward addressing my Willamette concerns. The outcome still has to be presented to the board, as Betty and I discussed or adopted and championed by P&R Staff. Richard Hervey suggested a joint guided visioning session with Parks and WDGC to come up with a master plan, including course design principles and processes for collaborating on maintenance, repairs and improvements. I thought that was doable and an excellent suggestion.

However, and it's an all caps HOWEVER:
 
The presidential election process has been corrupted according to the established, standing club bylaws. Specifically, they only provide for nominations at or before the October meeting. Nothing more.

So either the by laws are invalid or the process stands corrupted and at odds with WDGC bylaws. That makes debate and discussion a moot point, never mind 20 minutes, more or less. One candidate, one office.
 
One way to address that would be to invalidate the bylaws in part or in whole with a 2/3 majority vote as provided within the bylaws. Simple but ugly, I'm thinking.
 
Another would be if Mr. Sexton might agree to a few stipulations, whereupon I could cheerfully withdraw my hat from the ring and celebrate our unifiying club membership. Jay's not a politician for no reason. And I respect that. I'm considerably more skilled at stirring the pot and ruffling certain members feathers.

But I'm no slouch at finding common ground with policy makers.

However some things just need to change from my perspective.

A good starting point would be club officers and appointees knowing and abiding by the established club bylaws--especially a club president. Several provisions currently being neglected or outright ignored, include:
 
[Under Article I Name-Purpose]
 
  • working with local governments to expand disc golf opportunities (specifically Corvallis P&R and City Government. Nothing for years);
  • maintaining, and improving courses (including agreed upon standards for maintenance and upkeep of signs, teepads, baskets as well as highly visible signs that state “groups restricted to four or fewer players” or something equally unequivocal)
  • outreach to encourage proper rules and etiquette among casual golfers (such as clinics and non-PDGA fun, “different levels of play – introductory, casual, . . .”)
  • support sustainable, eco-friendly, disc golf course design and maintenance emphasizing native ecotypes (specifically at Willamette)
  • support transparent, mutually supportive, cooperative relationships with public land agencies (emphasis added).
 
[Under Article III Membership]
 
  • Club members are encouraged to: Abide by PDGA rules of courtesy, integrity, responsibility, and safety (emphasis added re: integrity and truthfullness).
  • Support the WDGC, it’s sponsors, members, and friends (Supporting sponsors means remodeling or relocating the Willamette course so players will play there and work to maintain it).
  • Suspension of membership: Repeated unsportsmanlike conduct such as cursing, throwing objects in anger, excessive displays of anger, overt rudeness, threats, or willful physical harm to anyone present (emphasis added along with a suspension for “material misrepresentation of the truth.”
 
Dues: (Adding an amount that can be offset by club service or volunteerism)
 
[Under Article IV: Election]
 
  • The candidates for the offices of the WDGC shall be nominated at the regular monthly meeting in October, with elections of the officers for the next year at the regular November meeting (abide by it or cast it aside).
  • Move paragraph on “Appointees are agents . . . to before the Greenskeeper position description.
  • Add a provision for a vote of non confidence for causes such as non attendance of meetings, non performance of duties, overstepping authority, malfeasance or misfeasance.
  • Greenskeeper: Spell out “reasonable independence” for Greenskeepers as freedom from micromanagement on issues of negligible importance, but prohibiting creation or violation of policy.
 
Article V: Duties
 
President:
 
(Add) Shall facilitate or assist in facilitating a formal visioning process that produces a clear vision, goals and steps toward realizing that vision. (I have trained facilitators by the binders full, including councilor Hervey)
 
(Amend) Shall take the lead in representing the WDGC in discussions with other entities, be they Parks Departments, local government bodies or boards, businesses, or other groups on policy-level discussions and meetings (As per italicized language).
 
Greenskeeper:
 
(Clarify) The WDGC Course Greenskeeper shall be the main (not only) contact person for the WDGC with the agency that manages the course property regarding routine maintenance and improvement activities. All policy-level discussions and activities shall be limited to and consistent with previously-established policy positions. The greenskeeper shall refer any policy level issues that arise to the full club membership for establishing a clear, consistent policy position.
 
-0-
 
In addition to reaffirming and revising club by laws along these lines, I would like to hear Jay endorse:
 
  • Budgeting that sets target amounts for specific expense categories;
  • Semiannual club walkthrough maintenance reviews;
  • Respect for opinions and perspectives of fellow club members (or did I say that already).

Of course, in the final analysis, final decisions rest with the membership. Long live the membership!

-0-

I'm JohnRoss and I endorse this message.




WDGC Monthly Club Meeting, 12/3/2012, 6:00 pm

wdgc@...
 

Reminder from:   wdgc Yahoo! Group
 
Title:   WDGC Monthly Club Meeting
 
Date:   Monday December 3, 2012
Time:   6:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Location:   Woodstock's Pizza (back room) on King's Blvd, Corvallis
Notes:   Everyone welcome, club members or not. Usually meet in the "back room." Meeting time is 6pm during the winter, 7pm during the spring/summer/fall (after Daylight Savings Time change).
 
Copyright © 2012  Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy


Re: Format for 2013 Presidential Election

Jay Sexton
 

WDGC folk,

I'm OK with any sort of discussion the WDGC would like to entertain.
I do not think I would use as much time as has been proposed by John, but
it's all good.

Jay

Contested WDGC Presidential elections have been rare. Certainly
discussions of positions, credentials, approaches or the like have been
non
existent in club history to my knowledge.
 
I would like to see that happen this round AND for that to
take place at the beginning of the December meeting. This would allow it
to
expand as needed and encourage greater time efficiency on the standing
reports that follow.
 
I am proposing a 20 minute limited session to be extended
for specific amounts of time club members willing. Of course it could
conclude
sooner if we find ourselves with less to say or respond to. A 20 minute
period
would allow:

* four minutes each for opening statements;
*

* five minutes each for questions and responses to each other;
*

* two minutes apiece for closing statements.
 
Then members would vote by whatever method the President and
members prefer.
 Everett or a willing volunteer with a watch could keep
track of time and signal if we’re about to run over the allocated time.

JohnR


Candidate statement Sexton

Jay Sexton
 

If elected as WDGC president my main goal would be running efficient and
effective meetings of the WDGC, and facilitating respectful WDGC email
discussion.

I would represent the WDGC in any non-course related discussions with
other entities. Course operations discussions will be through the
greenskeeper.

I would run the Presidents Cup Tourney in a new location in 2013.

I would prepare and facilitate a discussion, by interested members of the
club, of the advantages and deficits of the current layout of Willamette
DG Course, and explore if there are alternative layouts which would be
able to gain broad consensus. This would take place in a dedicated meeting
- not a normal monthly meeting.

I would promote disc golf through Park�s programs, WDGC activities,
cooperation with other disc golf organizations, and activities which
encourage sustainable disc golf play by casual players.

I would explore possibilities of leasing land for the establishment of a
new disc golf course, though this may require a more formal organization
of the WDGC, possibly including non-profit status filing.

1581 - 1600 of 2254