Members present: Don Tommasko, Will Corey, Barbara Daniels, and Josh Lenox (Mike Sidebottom and Matthew Gardner voted absentee for one issue.)

1. John Kittrell requested that the BOD exempt the Camp Smile tournament from paying dues owed from the past 2 years events. BOD voted 4-0 in favor.

2. Tommy Sheets requested that the BOD exempt this years Camp Smile. The BOD voted 3-3 on this issue. Josh Lenox, Will Corey, and Don Tommasko voting no. Barbara Daniels, Matthew Gardner, and Mike Sidebottom voted yes. Jim Orum was emailed to give the deciding vote.

3. Voted 4-0 to discontinue the Camp Smile exemption past this year.

4. Established the following standards for charity event waivers:
A. The event must be for a specific purpose/charity.
B. It must be a one time event.
C. The SN must be listed as an event sponsor equal to the amount of the waived fees.
D. The event/TD must apply at least one month in advance of the event to the BOD for the waiver.

5. Discussed issues regarding course prep for the SNAC.

SNBOD

Edited for a spelling error. Josh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2009 09:12PM by Hilltopper.

I don't know how many people know this so I am putting it out. Also I think this is SAD for our SN family:

Quoted from the Sn BoD meeting on 29 July 09 "3. Voted 4-0 to discontinue the Camp Smile exemption past this year."

This is my response to the BoD:

BoD,

I think we messed up on the Camp Smile exemption! This tournament is to help mentally handicap kids go to camp. All the money raised goes to this cause! How can we in good conscious, charge people $2.00 to play?! I would hope we remember that we are people first and not money grubbers! If I am elected I will bring this back up to the BoD. Remember we are people who want to grow our sport and help our community. IMO by not helping this type of event out, we look bad in the public eyes. How can we NOT want to help kids out?

I expect an answer from every BoD member to explain “why you voted NO on this proposal?”

IMO this is a sad day for the BoD!!!

I'm with you Keith. I'd like to know WHY this was discontinued. I truly believe the boards thinking is completely WRONG on this issue.
But, if your goal is to simply make people throwing TRUE CHARITY events simply run them as Local Mini's (which I don't think will change the turnout in any way) then you accomplished your goal.

"4. Established the following standards for charity event waivers:
A. The event must be for a specific purpose/charity.
C. The SN must be listed as an event sponsor equal to the amount of the waived fees.
D. The event/TD must apply at least one month in advance of the event to the BOD for the waiver."

I think the above 3 things would have been a much better solution.

Sad day indeed for the SN.


Chad Rousse

There are many events in the SN that are charity events which are equally valuable to society. We can not exempt them all. The PDGA does not discount it's player fee (it does the nonplayer fee) for charity events. The exemption has been used only twice in the past, once for a disc golf scholarship program and for Hurricane Katrina relief.

Josh

Jim Orum voted yes to allow the exemption to continue for this weekend's event.

Josh

Sorry Josh that is a BS excuse!!! These are kids! You can’t tell me 200.00 are going to hurt us!!!!!!!!!!! The BoD missed this one!!!!!!!!!!! No excuses we screwed up BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The BoD should be ashamed of their vote!!!!!

Why can't they all be exempt?
I've always heard that the $2 players "fees" are for who? The Players. If a player is showing up to such a Charity event, i think they are showing their interest in being there to help with the Charity. I understand if the event is deemed to be bogus, but any true charity event should be promoted, not shunned. If their asking for an exemption, then the BOD can determine if it should or shouldn't be exempt.
All the BOD did with this vote is push such charity events to simply run without the SN attached. That is truly SAD. At some point, votes such as these will have players questioning whether the SN is something they want to be a part of and start placing the SN hand in hand with the PDGA$$.

The SN needs the players, not vice versa. I would hope that all of you BOD's rethink your position on this one.

Well let me add something. I would hope that the BOD would change their minds. But, they should also require documentation from the Charity event of just how much of the proceeds are going to the Charity. And that needs to be CLEARLY stated before the event can be given an exemption. And after the event is over, documentation should also be furnished proving what was given to the Charity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2009 09:03PM by Rouster.

Word Chad!

If a TD violates the rules and doesn't do what he pledged to do then he is publicly outed for such atrocities and he is banned for 2 years from running any SN events!

It's simple, if you can't be selfless enough to run a charity event right and for the cause, then don't do it!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database

So are you guys for exempting every ICE BOWL tourney? There are several SN events that are Ice Bowls..ie Charity events.
Wonder how much that would be? a bit more than $200 Im sure.
OR are you guys suggesting the BOD pick and choose which event(s) get exemptions? That could get dicey.
Or are you guys saying that because the/this charity is for kids, only those events for kids charities get exemptions?
What about the food bank events? Or Cancer events? Dont we care about them too? Where will the line be drawn?
I for one agree with the BOD's position. Cant let them all slide all the time...or can we?
Apparently the exemption has been used at least 5 times by my count. Camp Smile got 2 years in the bag now a 3rd time w/JIMO's vote
for this year plus the scholarship event and Hurricane Katrina relief.


JABBA.


it MUST be the plastic

Thats exactly the reasoning for my vote jabba.

People can still request exemptions.. . they just have to go by the guidelines that we set..

-will

Actually, I don't think the BOD set enough "Guidelines" when it comes to this issue. 1 Guideline that must be added is ACCOUNTABILITY.
Again, some common sense would go a long way on this issue.
Yes, there are many "Charity" events. Those are great. But, if they are simply collecting food or using Mulligans purchased as the funds raised, then no exemption should be in order.
But, if the sole purpose of the event is to raise money for a worthy charity (minus say the cost of trophies/shirts) and every cent is going to that worthy charity. Then what should it matter if it's an every year event. I could be wrong, but I would say that there would only be a couple of true CHARITY EXEMPTIONS to put out each year.
And there Jabba, IMO, is where the line is drawn. Ice Bowls are great, but most of them are supporting Charity while still running a regular tourament. The Exemption should ONLY be for TD's who are running that tournament for the sole purpose of raising money for Charity. There is a big difference.

Well I guess the BoD is smarter than I am, I would investigate what the charity is for and then make a decision. It took me a total of ONE phone call to understand what the money for this event went to. That is hitting TEN numbers on my cell phone. The hardest part was having enough service to talk because of the weather. This event sends handicap kids to camp. I would bet not many players in the SN pro or am would complain if there championship had 200.00 less dollars at the end of the year to add if it helped out something like this. Now the BoD is saying "what happens for all the rest of the charity events that want exemptions?" Well I'm NOT talking about every other event. I am talking about this one!!! The rest can be handled with better guide lines. This year's event should have never gone to JimO for a vote either. Greed will destroy us if we keep this type of attitude on the BoD!!

As I have always said I am not a “yes man”. I will speak my mind and I don’t care who doesn’t like it! If I see something that is not right, I will call it out and this is not right. We are a community first, and communities help out children first!! Everybody wants to know how do we grow our sport so every division offered has enough players to play at every tournament? We also say we need to change the public perception of disc golf so we don’t look like a bunch of “redneck hippies.” Well I can tell you this is not the way to do it!!!!

Again Chad... exactly what I was saying!

(I'm starting to get a little nervous about how much we are aligned on this issue.) ;)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database

I trust the BOD to make wise decisions as a result of thoroughly-debated issues. I firmly believe that a majority of the views expressed on this thread were carefully considered during their discussion.

In its decisions, I believe the BOD properly considered the bigger picture, rather than just the single event that has prompted sincere responses on both sides of the issue.

If there was any lack of judgment by the BOD, I would submit the timing of these decisions as the point of contention. A policy change which affected a tournament less than a week away was perhaps not the prudent thing to do.

Waiting a month or two to announce policy changes would have removed the "lightening rod" from the issue. By changing a policy not attached with, or near, a single event, I believe the membership would be more willing to accept the proposed purpose and necessity of the change.

Additionally, we must be cautious to not portray those who gave an unpopular vote as not caring about children. This would simply not be true, and would be a grave injustice to them as individuals.

It is reasonable for us to carefully and publicly voice our opinions on the issue itself, but not on the character of the board members. Division can often be good, but divisiveness will never be.

Thank you for considering my feedback.

B. It must be a one time event.

That's lame.