Forum Search:
RSD No Spam
rec.sport.disc without the spam


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Vote for Frank/Toad
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #707 is a reply to message #689] Sat, 27 September 2008 17:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Seidler
Messages: 482
Registered: September 2008
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
On Sep 27, 8:12 am, Henry Thorne <htho...@thorleyindustries.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 25, 3:46 pm, aflictultim...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > ... Obviously everyone has their issues with Frank/Toad and all his nutty
> > ideas.  But hey, watching the path of ultimate and seeing that the
> > Board generally agrees together like a family on everything, I think
> > there needs to be someone put in there for change....
> >                                                  ...what will come from it is those
> > that love the sport now, can pull modified ideas from Frank/Toad that
> > can further the game without changing the complete makeup of it.  We
> > just need something NEW as players.  They seem to have a lot of that....
>
> I agree there's some appeal to this.
>
> But then there's the reality of how the UPA and board actually work
> together.  It's a relationship that shouldn't work.  There's the staff
> who work on Ultimate all day every day and know it cold, then there's
> the board who jet in once (now twice) a year and make all the big
> decisions.  Dave Lionetti, another current board member, likened it to
> having your parents fly in for XMAS, set all the rules in your house
> and leave.  We Ultimate players are natural anarchists, I flipped the
> bird at GM and started a business selling stuff back to them, and the
> thought of having authority tell me anything just about kills me.
> Most of the staff are Ultimate players and made of precisely the same
> stuff yet somehow we have to make that relationship work, and we have
> to do so so that your votes are the ultimate authority through your
> choice of who represents you, we have to wield that authority to give
> you voice.
>
> So how do we do that?  How do we make that non-functional system
> work?  Very carefully.  We've failed a lot of times.  But here are
> some keys:
>
> - You have to have a board of people who other people want to work for
> or with.  We finally got that when we hired Joey Grey.  She was the
> first really talented person we got to work full time on Ultimate and
> she told me when I hired her that the board really impressed her and
> drew her in.  Unfortunately we weren't able to make the board
> relationship work with her so went out and did a broader search for
> someone with a successful track record at leading sports orgs and
> found Sandie.  Once again we had a very good committee doing that
> search (I led it but Joe Seidler was the brains) and we did a really
> good job of recruiting her IMO.
> - You have to recruit great people into the rest of the organization
> and although that lands mostly on the director, it's also a board
> thing in that the people have to trust the board will send them on
> worthy missions.  That the board has values they can respect and will
> reach great decisions they can believe in.
> - You have to create an environment where people know they will be
> heard out when they are digging deep down wrestling with a tough
> issue.  We deal with really tough issues in board meetings and people
> have to know they aren't going to get run over if they can't quite
> articulate what they are trying to say or if they know they've got
> something important but are struggling with exactly what it is.  Bad
> decisions can happen if everybody can't get their guts out on the
> table.  Sounds awful, but it's really like that when you're trying to
> decide something like "should Canada be in the series".
> - You have to figure out ways to synthesize all of those deep thoughts
> into some galvanizing action that everyone feels energized to act
> upon.
>
> And if you do all that you end up with a great team at the UPA that's
> fired up and goes out and runs the sport incredibly well and grows it
> like crazy.  It's like having a great Ultimate team that goes out and
> wins big.  And that's what we've got.  Over the last 12 years of which
> I've been on the board 11, we've grown from a quarter million dollar
> budget to a million and a quarter (5x), from 2 people to 8 people
> (4x), and those 8 people are out kicking ass.  Nationals is better and
> better every year, we've created observer training programs, coaching
> clinics, innovation grants, grown the sanctioning program from a dozen
> tourneys a year to hundreds, gotten the richest newsletter in the
> sport out four times a year and on time now, kicked off a huge growth
> at the youth level through numerous efforts including seeding the
> sport at the high school athletic teacher level which has lead to
> 600,000 youth players who are about to get to college and want to
> play.  High school easterns/westerns/states, youth club championships,
> observers at every game at college nationals, coaching clinics created
> and now adding level II, adding mixed divisions to Nationals, growing
> Nationals from 10 teams to 16, we've done so much.
>
> An organizing clicking that well can get a massive strategic plan done
> where each board member is putting in some 100 hours to get dozens of
> focus groups to happen all across the country, lead them, digest and
> synthesize huge amounts of data and coalesce it into a plan that will
> lay the foundation for the huge growth ahead.  Add in staffers that
> not only had to make Ultimate go during that year, but grew it another
> 15% and "on the side" putting in huge hours doing the same leading,
> digging, and coalescing to create a plan that will grow Ultimate the
> way you want it grown.  That team is now out making all of this happen
> and they are incredibly good at it.  I'm on two of the committees
> pushing it forward and watching Will Deaver work with the key players
> to develop the new Grand Masters and Women's Masters Championships is
> a lot like watching him cut on the field, he's incredibly good at it.
> The other, reaching out to alumni through re-union events has Melanie
> Deaver just clicking perfectly and we'll see the first really well run
> alumni event in the sport at this years HoF induction/alumni reunion
> event in Sarasota at Nationals.  All the other major initiatives will
> also we incredibly well done, the doubling down on the observer
> system, addition of College DIV II, and more complex things like web
> site tools for leagues, tools to help leagues get fields, tools and
> relationships with colleges to get many more intramural programs into
> gear.
>
> And all of that is really really important because we've kicked off
> this nuclear explosion of growth at the youth level through seeding
> the sport to athletic directors and teachers where we now have 600,000
> of the 800,000 players being youth players.  We need to push hard now
> to create the structures and tools that will allow those players (who
> will all want to keep playing because we've got the most kick ass
> sport there is, the Ultimate sport in my opinion) to play in college
> and then beyond.
>
> I'd categorize all of those things I'm saying the board has to do to
> make that non-starter relationship that should create a huge mess of
> infighting and power struggles work and end up instead with an
> incredible kick-ass team so that all this great stuff can happen as
> "constructive."  We need to keep building up this organization like we
> have been so we can keep the sport on the wild growth path we've put
> it on.  And while I agree with the author of the post that having
> those wild oats sowed into the board would make for some really
> exciting and fun discussions, I think those folks we're talking about
> often aren't constructive but instead destructive.  There are examples
> all over rsd but one I know happened within the UPA is that Toad
> called Sandie some time after we hired her and F bombed her during the
> phone call.  What would happen with that type of scenario unfolding on
> the board level is that a lot of the energy we now direct towards
> making Ultimate better would instead get focused inwards keeping the
> wheels on as we tried to move forward.  People are people and we
> already have plenty of personnel crises that occur and because we're
> builders, we mitigate, rebuild and get everything back on track.  But
> time and energy spent on that is energy that isn't going into building
> Ultimate and getting great decisions made that energize the
> organization to go out there and continue kicking ass making Ultimate
> grow at an unprecedented rate.  There isn't anything that says we
> should have been growing at this doubling every few years rate, the
> sport and organization hadn't ever before.  There isn't anything that
> says it won't get bogged down with internal messes and just stop
> growing and running Ultimate as well as it's been run over the last
> five years.  It isn't trivial that it's been doing it as well as it
> has.  I've been working hard to create that team and an environment
> where those brilliant people that make Ultimate go every day are fully
> charged up about everything we're doing with the sport and the UPA.
> And fundamentally I need your help doing that, I need you to pick
> builders not bombers.  I agree the bombers have a good effect.  Toad
> is a friend of mine and I think he adds a lot to the sport.  But let's
> keep the bombs at a safe distance and take only the good from them and
> not introduce the destructive force at the core where real damage
> could occur to the main organization pushing the sport we love forward
> so vigorously.
>
> Henry Thorne, current board member, and board nominee.

Henry,

Your description of how the UPA works (both the Board and the Staff)
is accurate and captures the nuances, subtleties and real world things
that happen running the UPA. It is by far the best write up of how the
UPA works that I've seen in the past 10 years I've been active in the
UPA and reading rsd. Thank you. It prompts me to respond in two areas
which I will divide into two posts. The first is:

HOW TO MEASURE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE UPA BOARD (AND STAFF).

IMO it's very helpful to first understand how to measure the staff so
that people do not get confused about who is responsible for what.

HOW TO MEASURE THE STAFF:
1. Are the tasks assigned by the Board accomplished well and on
schedule?
2. Are monies spent per the budget (that is approved annually by the
Board)?
3. Is personnel turnover low and morale high?

That's about it. Given that pretty much everything over the past 5
years has run smoothly, without any major emergencies, within budget
and with little staff turnover, I don't see how the Staff could get
anything below an A- in performance. [note: my involvement in helping
to find and select Sandy Hammerly as ED was probably the best thing I
did while on the UPA board.] People like Sandy, Will and Melanie are
great at their jobs and UPA members are lucky to have them IMO.

So things like whether new rules are experimented with, or are
observers used, or is the sport promoted enough, etc., etc. are not
decisions made by the staff. They are made by the Board.

HOW TO MEASURE THE BOARD:
1. Do they understand the wishes of the members?
2. Are they adequately considering the wishes of the members while
appropriately evaluating the pros and cons of how to accomplish those
wishes?
3. Are they prudent with setting the budget and being fiscally
responsible?
4. Are they researching and discussing the future direction of the UPA
and the sport of Ultimate in the US and moving the organization in the
approved direction?

Of course, each person will evaluate the above areas differently. But
like in any election, the electorate must be educated and take the
time to understand the issues and how their leaders responded to them
in order to make good decisions on what leaders to elect. While I was
on the Board (2002-2004), I was disappointed at how little effort was
made to learn the wishes of the members. I think since most Board
members were current players, they thought they probably already knew
what the members wanted. But that is hubris and inexperience IMO.
Since I left the Board, Mike Payne has led the effort to create a long
term strategy including 1-2 years of gathering feedback from the
members. That is exactly what was needed. My only additional wish is
that the Board would have a web based feedback mechanism that annually
the members could respond to with their evaluations of how good the
Board and Staff are doing (e.g., how good is the quarterly magazine,
how good are the championship tournaments, are the rules clear, etc.)

I would give the Board over the past few years a B. To get better, I
think it will take a little of what I discuss in my next post.
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #709 is a reply to message #689] Sat, 27 September 2008 17:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Seidler
Messages: 482
Registered: September 2008
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
On Sep 27, 8:12 am, Henry Thorne <htho...@thorleyindustries.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 25, 3:46 pm, aflictultim...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > ... Obviously everyone has their issues with Frank/Toad and all his nutty
> > ideas.  But hey, watching the path of ultimate and seeing that the
> > Board generally agrees together like a family on everything, I think
> > there needs to be someone put in there for change....
> >                                                  ...what will come from it is those
> > that love the sport now, can pull modified ideas from Frank/Toad that
> > can further the game without changing the complete makeup of it.  We
> > just need something NEW as players.  They seem to have a lot of that....
>
> I agree there's some appeal to this.
>
> But then there's the reality of how the UPA and board actually work
> together.  It's a relationship that shouldn't work.  There's the staff
> who work on Ultimate all day every day and know it cold, then there's
> the board who jet in once (now twice) a year and make all the big
> decisions.  Dave Lionetti, another current board member, likened it to
> having your parents fly in for XMAS, set all the rules in your house
> and leave.  We Ultimate players are natural anarchists, I flipped the
> bird at GM and started a business selling stuff back to them, and the
> thought of having authority tell me anything just about kills me.
> Most of the staff are Ultimate players and made of precisely the same
> stuff yet somehow we have to make that relationship work, and we have
> to do so so that your votes are the ultimate authority through your
> choice of who represents you, we have to wield that authority to give
> you voice.
>
> So how do we do that?  How do we make that non-functional system
> work?  Very carefully.  We've failed a lot of times.  But here are
> some keys:
>
> - You have to have a board of people who other people want to work for
> or with.  We finally got that when we hired Joey Grey.  She was the
> first really talented person we got to work full time on Ultimate and
> she told me when I hired her that the board really impressed her and
> drew her in.  Unfortunately we weren't able to make the board
> relationship work with her so went out and did a broader search for
> someone with a successful track record at leading sports orgs and
> found Sandie.  Once again we had a very good committee doing that
> search (I led it but Joe Seidler was the brains) and we did a really
> good job of recruiting her IMO.
> - You have to recruit great people into the rest of the organization
> and although that lands mostly on the director, it's also a board
> thing in that the people have to trust the board will send them on
> worthy missions.  That the board has values they can respect and will
> reach great decisions they can believe in.
> - You have to create an environment where people know they will be
> heard out when they are digging deep down wrestling with a tough
> issue.  We deal with really tough issues in board meetings and people
> have to know they aren't going to get run over if they can't quite
> articulate what they are trying to say or if they know they've got
> something important but are struggling with exactly what it is.  Bad
> decisions can happen if everybody can't get their guts out on the
> table.  Sounds awful, but it's really like that when you're trying to
> decide something like "should Canada be in the series".
> - You have to figure out ways to synthesize all of those deep thoughts
> into some galvanizing action that everyone feels energized to act
> upon.
>
> And if you do all that you end up with a great team at the UPA that's
> fired up and goes out and runs the sport incredibly well and grows it
> like crazy.  It's like having a great Ultimate team that goes out and
> wins big.  And that's what we've got.  Over the last 12 years of which
> I've been on the board 11, we've grown from a quarter million dollar
> budget to a million and a quarter (5x), from 2 people to 8 people
> (4x), and those 8 people are out kicking ass.  Nationals is better and
> better every year, we've created observer training programs, coaching
> clinics, innovation grants, grown the sanctioning program from a dozen
> tourneys a year to hundreds, gotten the richest newsletter in the
> sport out four times a year and on time now, kicked off a huge growth
> at the youth level through numerous efforts including seeding the
> sport at the high school athletic teacher level which has lead to
> 600,000 youth players who are about to get to college and want to
> play.  High school easterns/westerns/states, youth club championships,
> observers at every game at college nationals, coaching clinics created
> and now adding level II, adding mixed divisions to Nationals, growing
> Nationals from 10 teams to 16, we've done so much.
>
> An organizing clicking that well can get a massive strategic plan done
> where each board member is putting in some 100 hours to get dozens of
> focus groups to happen all across the country, lead them, digest and
> synthesize huge amounts of data and coalesce it into a plan that will
> lay the foundation for the huge growth ahead.  Add in staffers that
> not only had to make Ultimate go during that year, but grew it another
> 15% and "on the side" putting in huge hours doing the same leading,
> digging, and coalescing to create a plan that will grow Ultimate the
> way you want it grown.  That team is now out making all of this happen
> and they are incredibly good at it.  I'm on two of the committees
> pushing it forward and watching Will Deaver work with the key players
> to develop the new Grand Masters and Women's Masters Championships is
> a lot like watching him cut on the field, he's incredibly good at it.
> The other, reaching out to alumni through re-union events has Melanie
> Deaver just clicking perfectly and we'll see the first really well run
> alumni event in the sport at this years HoF induction/alumni reunion
> event in Sarasota at Nationals.  All the other major initiatives will
> also we incredibly well done, the doubling down on the observer
> system, addition of College DIV II, and more complex things like web
> site tools for leagues, tools to help leagues get fields, tools and
> relationships with colleges to get many more intramural programs into
> gear.
>
> And all of that is really really important because we've kicked off
> this nuclear explosion of growth at the youth level through seeding
> the sport to athletic directors and teachers where we now have 600,000
> of the 800,000 players being youth players.  We need to push hard now
> to create the structures and tools that will allow those players (who
> will all want to keep playing because we've got the most kick ass
> sport there is, the Ultimate sport in my opinion) to play in college
> and then beyond.
>
> I'd categorize all of those things I'm saying the board has to do to
> make that non-starter relationship that should create a huge mess of
> infighting and power struggles work and end up instead with an
> incredible kick-ass team so that all this great stuff can happen as
> "constructive."  We need to keep building up this organization like we
> have been so we can keep the sport on the wild growth path we've put
> it on.  And while I agree with the author of the post that having
> those wild oats sowed into the board would make for some really
> exciting and fun discussions, I think those folks we're talking about
> often aren't constructive but instead destructive.  There are examples
> all over rsd but one I know happened within the UPA is that Toad
> called Sandie some time after we hired her and F bombed her during the
> phone call.  What would happen with that type of scenario unfolding on
> the board level is that a lot of the energy we now direct towards
> making Ultimate better would instead get focused inwards keeping the
> wheels on as we tried to move forward.  People are people and we
> already have plenty of personnel crises that occur and because we're
> builders, we mitigate, rebuild and get everything back on track.  But
> time and energy spent on that is energy that isn't going into building
> Ultimate and getting great decisions made that energize the
> organization to go out there and continue kicking ass making Ultimate
> grow at an unprecedented rate.  There isn't anything that says we
> should have been growing at this doubling every few years rate, the
> sport and organization hadn't ever before.  There isn't anything that
> says it won't get bogged down with internal messes and just stop
> growing and running Ultimate as well as it's been run over the last
> five years.  It isn't trivial that it's been doing it as well as it
> has.  I've been working hard to create that team and an environment
> where those brilliant people that make Ultimate go every day are fully
> charged up about everything we're doing with the sport and the UPA.
> And fundamentally I need your help doing that, I need you to pick
> builders not bombers.  I agree the bombers have a good effect.  Toad
> is a friend of mine and I think he adds a lot to the sport.  But let's
> keep the bombs at a safe distance and take only the good from them and
> not introduce the destructive force at the core where real damage
> could occur to the main organization pushing the sport we love forward
> so vigorously.
>
> Henry Thorne, current board member, and board nominee.

Here is my second post replying to Henry's original post.

WHAT QUALIFICATIONS MAKE FOR A GOOD UPA BOARD MEMBER:

The UPA has grown not only financially in the past 8-9 years, but it
has transitioned from a seat-of-the-pants organization to one
requiring a disciplined structure to manage the myriad of activities
now going on every year. IMO, the current and future needs of the UPA
require a more experienced Board then it has traditionally had.
Traditionally the Board was comprised of 80-90% of current players and
10-20% of past players. This means the typical age and experience
level of Board members are relatively low as compared with the
business sector in the US. I understand the UPA is a "members"
organization, but the needs of the organization are now complex and
growing. IMO it needs experienced people in management, finance,
marketing and legal to lead it.

I would suggest the breakdown of Board members should be more like:
- 33% current players.
- 33% past players in their 40s-50s with experience in knowing the
impact of major decisions 10-15 years later.
- 33% experienced business people who can bring more long term
thinking to the organization. These people may never have played
Ultimate and perhaps are familiar with the sport through their
children or friends.

So where do Frank/Toad fit into this? They don't. Many of you have
heard the saying "It's not what you say but how you say it" that
matters. There are dissenters within organizations who get things done
and facilitate change. They know "how to communicate." As I mentioned
above, I hope the UPA Board in the future has more of them. However,
when someone who enjoys dissenting by throwing bombs and antagonizing
everyone is on a team, that team becomes less effective. In fact, that
person actually hurts the chances of accomplishing what they claim
they want by being in a position of power. They thrive on being the
antagonist/martyr and play those roles constantly.

So I would suggest members look for the current candidates who bring
the most management and "world" experience to the table rather than
playing ability or the most number of rsd posts.
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #713 is a reply to message #703] Sat, 27 September 2008 18:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 27, 6:03 pm, "colinmcint...@gmail.com"
<colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
-
>
> That's funny.  But it seems to me like he's been getting a lot done.


key word there...."seems". things arent always as they seem people.
---------------------------------------------------------
> Let me take a turn speaking for the silent majority


pffft. you aint the silent majority. you side with
management......which makes you a scab.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------


and say that we
> could use another term out of Henry Thorne and other candidates like
> Henry Thorne (in terms of qualifications -- diversity of experience/
> perspective is great, too).


what a shock, colin supports spirit zealots for board seats.
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #720 is a reply to message #592] Sat, 27 September 2008 23:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Seidler
Messages: 482
Registered: September 2008
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
On Sep 26, 4:53 am, Baer <collin.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 7:55 pm, Joe Seidler <j...@seidler.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > If Toad or Frank are elected to the BOD, they would have to spend a
> > > lot of time actually defending their positions to the rest of the
> > > Board, and therefore would be spending less time on RSD...
>
> > If you are going to begin promoting a particular candidate, or
> > candidates, I take back my kudos for the work you are doing helping
> > members understand who the candidates are. I guess you're just a wolf
> > in sheep's clothing.
>
> Seriously? My above statement about time spent on RSD was tongue-in-
> cheek and in no way an endorsement of anyone. My intent in the
> analyses I've been writing is to start up discussion on the candidates
> and the elections as a whole (which has been somewhat successful).
> Between the UPA's audio interviews, the Huddle's upcoming research
> results, and the chatter here on RSD, I'm not aware that the BOD
> elections have ever gotten more talk.
>
> Also, in my earlier threads, I clearly state that my comments are a
> reflection of my own biases and opinions, and you can see that I am
> more favorable to some candidates than others. Regardless, I try to be
> respectful to everyone I write about and talk to. Even the Huddle has
> announced that they will be endorsing candidates of their choice at
> the end also. That doesn't mean that the Huddle's research won't be
> helpful or enlightening.
>
> I want people to keep talking about the candidates and make this whole
> process fun and interesting, and most of all, meaningful. I'm not a
> wolf. I'm not a sheep. I'm Baer.

You do a good job of being respectful (which is much more than the guy
you hope gets on the Board does), but when you first introduced your
Candidate Statements analyses, you did not say (or imply) that you
already had a favorite candidate. If you had, many of us would have
read your posts with a different mindset. IMO you misled rsd readers.
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #729 is a reply to message #689] Sun, 28 September 2008 09:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Seidler
Messages: 482
Registered: September 2008
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
Henry,

Your description of how the UPA works (both the Board and the Staff)
is accurate and captures the nuances, subtleties and real world
things
that happen running the UPA. It is by far the best write up of how
the
UPA works that I've seen in the past 10 years I've been active in the
UPA and reading rsd. Thank you. It prompts me to respond in two areas
which I will divide into two posts. The first is:

HOW TO MEASURE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE UPA BOARD (AND STAFF).

IMO it's very helpful to first understand how to measure the staff so
that people do not get confused about who is responsible for what.

HOW TO MEASURE THE STAFF:
1. Are the tasks assigned by the Board accomplished well and on
schedule?
2. Are monies spent per the budget (that is approved annually by the
Board)?
3. Is personnel turnover low and morale high?

That's about it. Given that pretty much everything over the past 5
years has run smoothly, without any major emergencies, within budget
and with little staff turnover, I don't see how the Staff could get
anything below an A- in performance. [note: my involvement in helping
to find and select Sandy Hammerly as ED was probably the best thing I
did while on the UPA board.] People like Sandy, Will and Melanie are
great at their jobs and UPA members are lucky to have them IMO.

So things like whether new rules are experimented with, or are
observers used, or is the sport promoted enough, etc., etc. are not
decisions made by the staff. They are made by the Board.

HOW TO MEASURE THE BOARD:
1. Do they understand the wishes of the members?
2. Are they adequately considering the wishes of the members while
appropriately evaluating the pros and cons of how to accomplish those
wishes?
3. Are they prudent with setting the budget and being fiscally
responsible?
4. Are they researching and discussing the future direction of the
UPA
and the sport of Ultimate in the US and moving the organization in
the
approved direction?

Of course, each person will evaluate the above areas differently. But
like in any election, the electorate must be educated and take the
time to understand the issues and how their leaders responded to them
in order to make good decisions on what leaders to elect. While I was
on the Board (2002-2004), I was disappointed at how little effort was
made to learn the wishes of the members. I think since most Board
members were current players, they thought they probably already knew
what the members wanted. But that is hubris and inexperience IMO.
Since I left the Board, Mike Payne has led the effort to create a
long
term strategy including 1-2 years of gathering feedback from the
members. That is exactly what was needed. My only additional wish is
that the Board would have a web based feedback mechanism that
annually
the members could respond to with their evaluations of how good the
Board and Staff are doing (e.g., how good is the quarterly magazine,
how good are the championship tournaments, are the rules clear, etc.)

I would give the Board over the past few years a B. To get better, I
think it will take a little of what I discuss in my next post.
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #730 is a reply to message #689] Sun, 28 September 2008 09:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Seidler
Messages: 482
Registered: September 2008
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
Here is my second post replying to Henry's original post.

WHAT QUALIFICATIONS MAKE FOR A GOOD UPA BOARD MEMBER:

The UPA has grown not only financially in the past 8-9 years, but it
has transitioned from a seat-of-the-pants organization to one
requiring a disciplined structure to manage the myriad of activities
now going on every year. IMO, the current and future needs of the UPA
require a more experienced Board then it has traditionally had.
Traditionally the Board was comprised of 80-90% of current players
and
10-20% of past players. This means the typical age and experience
level of Board members are relatively low as compared with the
business sector in the US. I understand the UPA is a "members"
organization, but the needs of the organization are now complex and
growing. IMO it needs experienced people in management, finance,
marketing and legal to lead it.

I would suggest the breakdown of Board members should be more like:
- 33% current players.
- 33% past players in their 40s-50s with experience in knowing the
impact of major decisions 10-15 years later.
- 33% experienced business people who can bring more long term
thinking to the organization. These people may never have played
Ultimate and perhaps are familiar with the sport through their
children or friends.

So where do Frank/Toad fit into this? They don't. Many of you have
heard the saying "It's not what you say but how you say it" that
matters. There are dissenters within organizations who get things
done
and facilitate change. They know "how to communicate." As I mentioned
above, I hope the UPA Board in the future has more of them. However,
when someone who enjoys dissenting by throwing bombs and antagonizing
everyone is on a team, that team becomes less effective. In fact,
that
person actually hurts the chances of accomplishing what they claim
they want by being in a position of power. They thrive on being the
antagonist/martyr and play those roles constantly.

So I would suggest members look for the current candidates who bring
the most management and "world" experience to the table rather than
playing ability or the most number of rsd posts.
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #742 is a reply to message #566] Sun, 28 September 2008 16:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pkurshan
Messages: 63
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Sep 25, 11:21 pm, swillaho...@yahoo.com wrote:

> During the 2007 meeting, one person voted "no", once.
>

As a current board member, I would like to add a little insight into
how decisions are made on the board, and why you should think about
that before deciding whom to vote for in this election.

Most of the major decisions are made during our bi-annual board
meetings, where we all sit in a room for 3 days straight, discussing
proposals and policy issues. These discussions are lengthy, can be
heated, and are always very productive. It is common for people to
change their minds back and forth as the issues get discussed in
greater and greater detail. Sometimes the discussions get so heated
that we need to take a break and come revisit the issue once things
have cooled down. Many times proposals are revised to accommodate
people's criticisms. But in the end, as has been pointed out, most of
the votes get decided almost unanimously. This is a testament to two
things: first, that we work really hard to address everyone's concerns
regarding the proposal, most often by revising the proposal until it
is acceptable to everyone, and second, that we are working within a
framework of mutual respect for each other and a sense of teamwork and
cohesion.

The respect that we have for each other comes from knowing that we are
all in this to make the sport better, and to do it in a way that
represents our constituents. We ALL ran for the board because we
wanted to change the way things are done. Nobody runs for the board
because he or she thinks that things are just dandy the way they are.
And I believe that we've accomplished a lot of things, even over the
relatively short period of time that I've been on the board. And as
someone on the inside, I know that there are a lot more things in the
pipeline- all the proposed changes and suggestions that have come out
of the strategic planning process that are only now just starting to
be implemented (remember, it's a 5 year plan!).

So as far as voting for board members goes, if you agree with Toad and
Frank's ideas (ie- you want refs in ultimate, and you want us to be
playing dischoops, respectively), then by all means, vote for them.
But if you think voting for them is a good idea just to "shake things
up", I believe that you are making a mistake. The board will be less
efficient and less effective with Toad and Frank on board, not because
of their ideas, but because of their antagonistic demeanor and self-
righteousness. The culture of respect that allows us to delve into
heated discussions about contentious issues, knowing that we will
emerge from those discussions with a consensus and better
understanding, will be lost. People that feel the need to verbally
abuse those that disagree with them will not bring about "change",
they will simply waste your membership dollars on unproductive
meetings.

I will be posting a more detailed discussion on my endorsements of the
candidates that are running for the board in a follow-up post later
this week.

-Peri Kurshan
NE rep, UPA Board of Directors
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #753 is a reply to message #742] Sun, 28 September 2008 19:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Frankie
Messages: 93
Registered: September 2008
Member
Thank you so much Peri for explaining to everyone why the UPA is so
dysfunctional.

I think you're a bit confused though. I'm not the antagonist, I'm the
protagonist here. I'm out to save Ultimate from incompetent players such as
yourself.

By the way, how many votes did you win your board seat by?

Also, to make it perfectly clear to anyone voting, I don't have any respect
for any current board members' ultimate Frisbee skills so, so much for
mutual respect.

This is not me being abrasive or antagonistic, it's just a simple fact.


<pkurshan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c61cc97e-49bd-4df1-bbf4-36f5c673f1ac@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 25, 11:21 pm, swillaho...@yahoo.com wrote:

> During the 2007 meeting, one person voted "no", once.
>

As a current board member, I would like to add a little insight into
how decisions are made on the board, and why you should think about
that before deciding whom to vote for in this election.

Most of the major decisions are made during our bi-annual board
meetings, where we all sit in a room for 3 days straight, discussing
proposals and policy issues. These discussions are lengthy, can be
heated, and are always very productive. It is common for people to
change their minds back and forth as the issues get discussed in
greater and greater detail. Sometimes the discussions get so heated
that we need to take a break and come revisit the issue once things
have cooled down. Many times proposals are revised to accommodate
people's criticisms. But in the end, as has been pointed out, most of
the votes get decided almost unanimously. This is a testament to two
things: first, that we work really hard to address everyone's concerns
regarding the proposal, most often by revising the proposal until it
is acceptable to everyone, and second, that we are working within a
framework of mutual respect for each other and a sense of teamwork and
cohesion.

The respect that we have for each other comes from knowing that we are
all in this to make the sport better, and to do it in a way that
represents our constituents. We ALL ran for the board because we
wanted to change the way things are done. Nobody runs for the board
because he or she thinks that things are just dandy the way they are.
And I believe that we've accomplished a lot of things, even over the
relatively short period of time that I've been on the board. And as
someone on the inside, I know that there are a lot more things in the
pipeline- all the proposed changes and suggestions that have come out
of the strategic planning process that are only now just starting to
be implemented (remember, it's a 5 year plan!).

So as far as voting for board members goes, if you agree with Toad and
Frank's ideas (ie- you want refs in ultimate, and you want us to be
playing dischoops, respectively), then by all means, vote for them.
But if you think voting for them is a good idea just to "shake things
up", I believe that you are making a mistake. The board will be less
efficient and less effective with Toad and Frank on board, not because
of their ideas, but because of their antagonistic demeanor and self-
righteousness. The culture of respect that allows us to delve into
heated discussions about contentious issues, knowing that we will
emerge from those discussions with a consensus and better
understanding, will be lost. People that feel the need to verbally
abuse those that disagree with them will not bring about "change",
they will simply waste your membership dollars on unproductive
meetings.

I will be posting a more detailed discussion on my endorsements of the
candidates that are running for the board in a follow-up post later
this week.

-Peri Kurshan
NE rep, UPA Board of Directors
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #767 is a reply to message #753] Mon, 29 September 2008 00:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 28, 7:24 pm, "Frankie" <billy_berrou(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Thank you so much Peri for explaining to everyone why the UPA is so
> dysfunctional.

Pre-vote negotiation doesn't strike me as a sign of dysfunction.
Perhaps you could explain in more detail?

> I think you're a bit confused though.  I'm not the antagonist, I'm the
> protagonist here.  I'm out to save Ultimate from incompetent players such as
> yourself.

An "antagonist" is someone who opposes something. How does your
formulation not constitute opposition to the board as constituted?
Esp. when you just called it dysfunctional, like one sentence ago?

> By the way, how many votes did you win your board seat by?

Relevant how?

> Also, to make it perfectly clear to anyone voting, I don't have any respect
> for any current board members' ultimate Frisbee skills so, so much for
> mutual respect.

I don't think board members are running for Best Frisbee Player Ever,
I don't even see why it ought to be a requirement that a board member
has PLAYED frisbee ever (though it's certainly a benefit). I don't
think that using "x groks the motion offense" as a proxy for "x is a
good administrator of a large organization" is a good move.
Especially given that the motion offense appears to be kind of like
Communism - never "really" tried in real life. Does anyone grok it
but you? Has anyone ever even seen it but you? In your head?
Seriously?

> This is not me being abrasive or antagonistic
It's both. You're being an ass, with little to gain.

> , it's just a simple fact.
It's not, it's an opinion. Your opinion of the quality of the board's
function, your opinion of what you value in a board member. This
seems to be a common point featured in my kindly review of your debate
technique: an inability (or unwillingness) to distinguish between
personal values and universal truths. An issue plaguing many
ideologues, I'm sure, but it is what it is.

~p
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #795 is a reply to message #742] Mon, 29 September 2008 06:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 28, 7:15 pm, pkurs...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 25, 11:21 pm, swillaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > During the 2007 meeting, one person voted "no", once.
>
> As a current board member, I would like to add a little insight into
> how decisions are made on the board, and why you should think about
> that before deciding whom to vote for in this election.
>
> Most of the major decisions are made during our bi-annual board
> meetings, where we all sit in a room for 3 days straight, discussing
> proposals and policy issues. These discussions are lengthy, can be
> heated, and are always very productive. It is common for people to
> change their minds back and forth as the issues get discussed in
> greater and greater detail. Sometimes the discussions get so heated
> that we need to take a break and come revisit the issue once things
> have cooled down. Many times proposals are revised to accommodate
> people's criticisms. But in the end, as has been pointed out, most of
> the votes get decided almost unanimously. This is a testament to two
> things: first, that we work really hard to address everyone's concerns
> regarding the proposal, most often by revising the proposal until it
> is acceptable to everyone, and second, that we are working within a
> framework of mutual respect for each other and a sense of teamwork and
> cohesion.


but this means absolutly nothing to the membership unless we KNOW
where each and every one of you stands on ALL the pertinant issues(and
there isnt equitable representation to begin with). What good does it
do me, a proponent of refs, to have a room full of spirit zealots
arguing over the relevence of spirit scoring for 3 hours. NONE thats
what!
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------
>
> The respect that we have for each other comes from knowing that we are
> all in this to make the sport better, and to do it in a way that
> represents our constituents.

nobodys up there representing me though.....or my people.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------



We ALL ran for the board because we
> wanted to change the way things are done. Nobody runs for the board
> because he or she thinks that things are just dandy the way they are.
> And I believe that we've accomplished a lot of things, even over the
> relatively short period of time that I've been on the board. And as
> someone on the inside, I know that there are a lot more things in the
> pipeline- all the proposed changes and suggestions that have come out
> of the strategic planning process that are only now just starting to
> be implemented (remember, it's a 5 year plan!).


so what are you saying......to just keep the same olde stale people in
there? or that anyone that is subversive in any way shape or form
should be kept out at all costs?
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> So as far as voting for board members goes, if you agree with Toad and
> Frank's ideas (ie- you want refs in ultimate, and you want us to be
> playing dischoops, respectively), then by all means, vote for them.


do you really think they/we need you to tell us that........thats a
little condesending there peri, dont ya think.
------------------------------------------------------------ --
> But if you think voting for them is a good idea just to "shake things
> up", I believe that you are making a mistake.

why should we believe YOU? you have an obvious agenda to keep us out.
--------------------------------------------------


The board will be less
> efficient and less effective with Toad and Frank on board, not because
> of their ideas, but because of their antagonistic demeanor and self-
> righteousness.

is that what it says in that crystal ball of yours or are you just
speculating?
----------------------------------------------------


The culture of respect that allows us to delve into
> heated discussions about contentious issues, knowing that we will
> emerge from those discussions with a consensus and better
> understanding, will be lost.

speculation again your honor.
----------------------------------------------------------


People that feel the need to verbally
> abuse those that disagree with them will not bring about "change",
> they will simply waste your membership dollars on unproductive
> meetings.


how much did the membership pay for that ult rev that didnt even get
10% membership feedback again peri???? and you accuse me of wasting
their money........spending 3 hours discussing spirit scores that
NOBODY seems interested in????
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
>
> I will be posting a more detailed discussion on my endorsements of the
> candidates that are running for the board in a follow-up post later
> this week.

and i will be refuting her contentions
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #806 is a reply to message #730] Mon, 29 September 2008 06:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Parinella
Messages: 126
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 28, 12:51 pm, Joe Seidler <j...@seidler.com> wrote:
> Here is my second post replying to Henry's original post.
>
> WHAT QUALIFICATIONS MAKE FOR A GOOD UPA BOARD MEMBER:
> So I would suggest members look for the current candidates who bring
> the most management and "world" experience to the table rather than
> playing ability or the most number of rsd posts.

As a former Board member who was there for the transition from an era
where one's ultimate background was more important to an era where
one's professional background is more important, I concur heartily
with this statement. Taking Joe as an example, I was extremely
skeptical when he was elected that a non-player could possibly offer
anything to our organization. But before the end of the morning of
the first day, I was impressed with his professional insights and
ability to ask the right questions, and I never had reason to go back
on that assessment.

Paul Bonfatti was another example of someone who came in with specific
professional qualifications (in his case, significant experience
working with non-profits) and made an impact immediately.

A well-run organization requires professionally-qualified personnel.

Jim
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #810 is a reply to message #806] Mon, 29 September 2008 07:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
throw
Messages: 743
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Dismissing Toad and Frank H. as possible UPA board members is a little
like playing "whack a mole" with 2 mallets and only 2 holes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0n8N98mpes

Hank
www.thisisultimate.com
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #817 is a reply to message #753] Mon, 29 September 2008 08:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
swillaholic
Messages: 78
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Sep 28, 10:24 pm, "Frankie" <billy_berrou(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Thank you so much Peri for explaining to everyone why the UPA is so
> dysfunctional.
>
> I think you're a bit confused though.  I'm not the antagonist, I'm the
> protagonist here.  I'm out to save Ultimate from incompetent players such as
> yourself.
>
> By the way, how many votes did you win your board seat by?
>
> Also, to make it perfectly clear to anyone voting, I don't have any respect
> for any current board members' ultimate Frisbee skills so, so much for
> mutual respect.
>
> This is not me being abrasive or antagonistic, it's just a simple fact.
>
> <pkurs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c61cc97e-49bd-4df1-bbf4-36f5c673f1ac@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 11:21 pm, swillaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > During the 2007 meeting, one person voted "no", once.
>
> As a current board member, I would like to add a little insight into
> how decisions are made on the board, and why you should think about
> that before deciding whom to vote for in this election.
>
> Most of the major decisions are made during our bi-annual board
> meetings, where we all sit in a room for 3 days straight, discussing
> proposals and policy issues. These discussions are lengthy, can be
> heated, and are always very productive. It is common for people to
> change their minds back and forth as the issues get discussed in
> greater and greater detail. Sometimes the discussions get so heated
> that we need to take a break and come revisit the issue once things
> have cooled down. Many times proposals are revised to accommodate
> people's criticisms. But in the end, as has been pointed out, most of
> the votes get decided almost unanimously. This is a testament to two
> things: first, that we work really hard to address everyone's concerns
> regarding the proposal, most often by revising the proposal until it
> is acceptable to everyone, and second, that we are working within a
> framework of mutual respect for each other and a sense of teamwork and
> cohesion.
>
> The respect that we have for each other comes from knowing that we are
> all in this to make the sport better, and to do it in a way that
> represents our constituents. We ALL ran for the board because we
> wanted to change the way things are done. Nobody runs for the board
> because he or she thinks that things are just dandy the way they are.
> And I believe that we've accomplished a lot of things, even over the
> relatively short period of time that I've been on the board. And as
> someone on the inside, I know that there are a lot more things in the
> pipeline- all the proposed changes and suggestions that have come out
> of the strategic planning process that are only now just starting to
> be implemented (remember, it's a 5 year plan!).
>
> So as far as voting for board members goes, if you agree with Toad and
> Frank's ideas (ie- you want refs in ultimate, and you want us to be
> playing dischoops, respectively), then by all means, vote for them.
> But if you think voting for them is a good idea just to "shake things
> up", I believe that you are making a mistake. The board will be less
> efficient and less effective with Toad and Frank on board, not because
> of their ideas, but because of their antagonistic demeanor and self-
> righteousness. The culture of respect that allows us to delve into
> heated discussions about contentious issues, knowing that we will
> emerge from those discussions with a consensus and better
> understanding, will be lost. People that feel the need to verbally
> abuse those that disagree with them will not bring about "change",
> they will simply waste your membership dollars on unproductive
> meetings.
>
> I will be posting a more detailed discussion on my endorsements of the
> candidates that are running for the board in a follow-up post later
> this week.
>
> -Peri Kurshan
> NE rep, UPA Board of Directors

Personally, I cannot recollect this amount of discussion with this
level of participation, regarding the UPA and BoD elections. IMO,
this is valuable and necessary, and hopefully a precedent for future
elections, and in general communciations with the general membership/
public.

A few thoughts and comments...

- I appreciate the time/effort that the BoD members and volunteers put
forth into making the organization work. Moreso with consideration to
the general traits found within our sport, and it's players. In
short, the rewards and appreciation are limited to a volunteer
position, but the commitments and responsibilities are more in-line
with 'a job'.

- Personally I find it extremely frustrating that this degree of
transparency is coming forward at this time, and in this manner.
Specifically, I was unaware of any verbal confrontations directly
between Sandie and Todd, and personally, I would like more input on
that encounter. In short, I think it matters.

- Valuing and highlighting successes is necessary for maintaining a
level of confidence and morale among the BoD and the membership.
However, it is also necessary to honestly assess and address the
'failures' or fundamental disagreements. I would propose an ombudsman
position to provide honest assessment, and as well as channel for
'external criticisms' to be forwarded to the BoD, in an collective
manner. (I actually have a nomination for this position.)

- I absolutely agree that an atmosphere of mutual repsect and
understanding is vital for a volunteer organization to work. Working
towards agreement and consensus ensures that most (if not all)
opinions/concerns are respected and addressed, but at some expense and
sacrifice of the original propositions. In contrast, as with any
professional environment, it is also necessary at times to be capable
of respectfully understanding and accepting disagreements.

Again, just thoughts and comments....
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #820 is a reply to message #817] Mon, 29 September 2008 08:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pkurshan
Messages: 63
Registered: September 2008
Member
I agree with you wholeheartedly- if nothing else, the candidacy of
Toad and Frank has led to the type of discussion and interest in the
board elections that was sorely needed! I too hope that this sets a
precedent for future elections.

I also agree with you that it's important to highlight the successes
of the organization, as well as have an effective and transparent
mechanism to address dissent. We are currently working towards both of
those aims. Specifically, with the reorganization of our IT system,
and recent proposals that address UPA communications, we are
prioritizing these issues. The strategic planning initiative itself,
as well as the recent UPA Public Statements page on our website, are
two examples of ways in which we're working towards better and better
communication with our membership. There's a lot more in the pipeline,
including measures to better introduce UPA board and staff members to
the membership, and even the potential formation of a UPA hosted
newsgroup that could give members a discussion forum that might better
serve their needs and be a more appropriate platform for the UPA to
communicate with its members than rsd is. If you (or anyone else!)
have additional ideas, I encourage you to submit them as a proposal to
the board (or get in touch with me personally to discuss them further-
my email address is on the upa website).

-peri




On Sep 29, 11:28 am, swillaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sep 28, 10:24 pm, "Frankie" <billy_berrou(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thank you so much Peri for explaining to everyone why the UPA is so
> > dysfunctional.
>
> > I think you're a bit confused though.  I'm not the antagonist, I'm the
> > protagonist here.  I'm out to save Ultimate from incompetent players such as
> > yourself.
>
> > By the way, how many votes did you win your board seat by?
>
> > Also, to make it perfectly clear to anyone voting, I don't have any respect
> > for any current board members' ultimate Frisbee skills so, so much for
> > mutual respect.
>
> > This is not me being abrasive or antagonistic, it's just a simple fact.
>
> > <pkurs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:c61cc97e-49bd-4df1-bbf4-36f5c673f1ac@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 25, 11:21 pm, swillaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > During the 2007 meeting, one person voted "no", once.
>
> > As a current board member, I would like to add a little insight into
> > how decisions are made on the board, and why you should think about
> > that before deciding whom to vote for in this election.
>
> > Most of the major decisions are made during our bi-annual board
> > meetings, where we all sit in a room for 3 days straight, discussing
> > proposals and policy issues. These discussions are lengthy, can be
> > heated, and are always very productive. It is common for people to
> > change their minds back and forth as the issues get discussed in
> > greater and greater detail. Sometimes the discussions get so heated
> > that we need to take a break and come revisit the issue once things
> > have cooled down. Many times proposals are revised to accommodate
> > people's criticisms. But in the end, as has been pointed out, most of
> > the votes get decided almost unanimously. This is a testament to two
> > things: first, that we work really hard to address everyone's concerns
> > regarding the proposal, most often by revising the proposal until it
> > is acceptable to everyone, and second, that we are working within a
> > framework of mutual respect for each other and a sense of teamwork and
> > cohesion.
>
> > The respect that we have for each other comes from knowing that we are
> > all in this to make the sport better, and to do it in a way that
> > represents our constituents. We ALL ran for the board because we
> > wanted to change the way things are done. Nobody runs for the board
> > because he or she thinks that things are just dandy the way they are.
> > And I believe that we've accomplished a lot of things, even over the
> > relatively short period of time that I've been on the board. And as
> > someone on the inside, I know that there are a lot more things in the
> > pipeline- all the proposed changes and suggestions that have come out
> > of the strategic planning process that are only now just starting to
> > be implemented (remember, it's a 5 year plan!).
>
> > So as far as voting for board members goes, if you agree with Toad and
> > Frank's ideas (ie- you want refs in ultimate, and you want us to be
> > playing dischoops, respectively), then by all means, vote for them.
> > But if you think voting for them is a good idea just to "shake things
> > up", I believe that you are making a mistake. The board will be less
> > efficient and less effective with Toad and Frank on board, not because
> > of their ideas, but because of their antagonistic demeanor and self-
> > righteousness. The culture of respect that allows us to delve into
> > heated discussions about contentious issues, knowing that we will
> > emerge from those discussions with a consensus and better
> > understanding, will be lost. People that feel the need to verbally
> > abuse those that disagree with them will not bring about "change",
> > they will simply waste your membership dollars on unproductive
> > meetings.
>
> > I will be posting a more detailed discussion on my endorsements of the
> > candidates that are running for the board in a follow-up post later
> > this week.
>
> > -Peri Kurshan
> > NE rep, UPA Board of Directors
>
> Personally, I cannot recollect this amount of discussion with this
> level of participation, regarding the UPA and BoD elections.  IMO,
> this is valuable and necessary, and hopefully a precedent for future
> elections, and in general communciations with the general membership/
> public.
>
> A few thoughts and comments...
>
> - I appreciate the time/effort that the BoD members and volunteers put
> forth into making the organization work.  Moreso with consideration to
> the general traits found within our sport, and it's players.  In
> short, the rewards and appreciation are limited to a volunteer
> position, but the commitments and responsibilities are more in-line
> with 'a job'.
>
> - Personally I find it extremely frustrating that this degree of
> transparency is coming forward at this time, and in this manner.
> Specifically, I was unaware of any verbal confrontations directly
> between Sandie and Todd, and personally, I would like more input on
> that encounter.  In short, I think it matters.
>
> - Valuing and highlighting successes is necessary for maintaining a
> level of confidence and morale among the BoD and the membership.
> However, it is also necessary to honestly assess and address the
> 'failures' or fundamental disagreements.  I would propose an ombudsman
> position to provide honest assessment, and as well as channel for
> 'external criticisms' to be forwarded to the BoD, in an collective
> manner.  (I actually have a nomination for this position.)
>
> - I absolutely agree that an atmosphere of mutual repsect and
> understanding is vital for a volunteer organization to work.  Working
> towards agreement and consensus ensures that most (if not all)
> opinions/concerns are respected and addressed, but at some expense and
> sacrifice of the original propositions.  In contrast, as with any
> professional environment, it is also necessary at times to be capable
> of respectfully understanding and accepting disagreements.
>
> Again, just thoughts and comments....
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #822 is a reply to message #767] Mon, 29 September 2008 09:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Frankie
Messages: 93
Registered: September 2008
Member
<MrPinto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf2a449a-96c5-498f-9437-3abc81a81b8a@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 7:24 pm, "Frankie" <billy_berrou(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Thank you so much Peri for explaining to everyone why the UPA is so
> dysfunctional.

--Pre-vote negotiation doesn't strike me as a sign of dysfunction.
Perhaps you could explain in more detail?

From reading her post (and taking into account that the Board of Directors
can kick either Todd or I off the board for not being cooperative)
everything about what she said here in this post smacks of a
closed-mindedness

> I think you're a bit confused though. I'm not the antagonist, I'm the
> protagonist here. I'm out to save Ultimate from incompetent players such
> as
> yourself.

--An "antagonist" is someone who opposes something. How does your
formulation not constitute opposition to the board as constituted?
Esp. when you just called it dysfunctional, like one sentence ago?

I'm a protagonist. I am PRO-functional. I am for a functional UPA.
Pro-reform.

The statement that the UPA is dysfunctional is a statement of fact, not me
slinging mud.

> By the way, how many votes did you win your board seat by?

--Relevant how?

Because Peri in her post is talking about how she's representing her
constituents and how the UPA is doing such a good job and how everybody
works so hard together for moving the sport forward.



> Also, to make it perfectly clear to anyone voting, I don't have any
> respect
> for any current board members' ultimate Frisbee skills so, so much for
> mutual respect.

--I don't think board members are running for Best Frisbee Player Ever,
I don't even see why it ought to be a requirement that a board member
has PLAYED frisbee ever (though it's certainly a benefit).

The fact that Peri is the chair of the standing rules committee makes a
complete mockery of the sport.

Besides, I've never said I'm the best Frisbee player, just the best point
guard.

--I don't think that using "x groks the motion offense" as a proxy for "x is
a
good administrator of a large organization" is a good move.

Fine, let Peri administer the UPA. My platform is that the governing body
doesn't have a clue what it's doing so I'm focused on doing what should have
been done decades ago.

Especially given that the motion offense appears to be kind of like
Communism - never "really" tried in real life. Does anyone grok it
but you? Has anyone ever even seen it but you? In your head?
Seriously?

> This is not me being abrasive or antagonistic
It's both. You're being an ass, with little to gain.

> , it's just a simple fact.
It's not, it's an opinion. Your opinion of the quality of the board's
function, your opinion of what you value in a board member. This
seems to be a common point featured in my kindly review of your debate
technique: an inability (or unwillingness) to distinguish between
personal values and universal truths. An issue plaguing many
ideologues, I'm sure, but it is what it is.

~p
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #826 is a reply to message #822] Mon, 29 September 2008 09:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pkurshan
Messages: 63
Registered: September 2008
Member
> --I don't think board members are running for Best Frisbee Player Ever,
> I don't even see why it ought to be a requirement that a board member
> has PLAYED frisbee ever (though it's certainly a benefit).
>
> The fact that Peri is the chair of the standing rules committee makes a
> complete mockery of the sport.
>
> Besides, I've never said I'm the best Frisbee player, just the best point
> guard.
>

not that it's at all relevant... and i'm a little embarrassed that
you've goaded me into responding.... but i'd gladly go head-to-head
with you on frisbee skills Frank.
unfortunately, since i'm usually playing in sarasota in october, and
you're in california somewhere, it might be hard to meet up...
:)

(man, I respect barack obama even more now for all his restraint... ;)
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #828 is a reply to message #817] Mon, 29 September 2008 10:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Seidler
Messages: 482
Registered: September 2008
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
On Sep 29, 8:28 am, swillaho...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> - I appreciate the time/effort that the BoD members and volunteers put
> forth into making the organization work.  Moreso with consideration to
> the general traits found within our sport, and it's players.  In
> short, the rewards and appreciation are limited to a volunteer
> position, but the commitments and responsibilities are more in-line
> with 'a job'.
>

This is a great point. Except for a small staff who get paid a salary,
the majority of people working to make the UPA better are
volunteers... including the Board. You can view who the volunteers and
staff have been since the beginning of the UPA by downloading a .pdf
document from this web page:
http://www.ultimatehistory.com/book/UPA_Positions.pdf

And a .pdf document that shows who all of the Board of Directors have
been can be downloaded here:
http://www.ultimatehistory.com/book/UPA_History.pdf
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #833 is a reply to message #806] Mon, 29 September 2008 10:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 29, 9:52 am, Parinella <parin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 12:51 pm, Joe Seidler <j...@seidler.com> wrote:
>
> As a former Board member who was there for the transition from an era
> where one's ultimate background was more important to an era where
> one's professional background is more important, I concur heartily
> with this statement.  Taking Joe as an example, I was extremely
> skeptical when he was elected that a non-player could possibly offer
> anything to our organization.  But before the end of the morning of
> the first day, I was impressed with his professional insights and
> ability to ask the right questions, and I never had reason to go back
> on that assessment.


of course not....your both spirit zealots. YOU were the guys that
came upa with that bullshit creed "if there refs in it.....it just
aint ultimate", right?????
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
>
> Paul Bonfatti was another example of someone who came in with specific
> professional qualifications (in his case, significant experience
> working with non-profits) and made an impact immediately.

well i havent played in years AND i have specific professional
qualifications......as well as both ultimate AND sports related ones.
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> A well-run organization requires professionally-qualified personnel.


i'm your man

VOTE TODD LEBER FOR BOARD IN 08'
Re: Vote for Frank/Toad [message #859 is a reply to message #826] Mon, 29 September 2008 11:18 Go to previous message
Frankie
Messages: 93
Registered: September 2008
Member
<pkurshan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eea00fd6-af4e-4e16-a060-0286cda75f58@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> --I don't think board members are running for Best Frisbee Player Ever,
>> I don't even see why it ought to be a requirement that a board member
>> has PLAYED frisbee ever (though it's certainly a benefit).
>>
>> The fact that Peri is the chair of the standing rules committee makes a
>> complete mockery of the sport.
>>
>> Besides, I've never said I'm the best Frisbee player, just the best point
>> guard.
>>
>
> not that it's at all relevant... and i'm a little embarrassed that
> you've goaded me into responding.... but i'd gladly go head-to-head
> with you on frisbee skills Frank.

Excellent, we'll meet up at the next Board meeting and after which, I expect
you to immediately resign as the chair of the rules committee.

And you're still not answering my question, just exactly how many votes did
you receive?
Previous Topic:upa website down?
Next Topic:2008 Club Wildcards
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Apr 9 05:58:41 PDT 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.0RC2.
Copyright ©2001-2009 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software