Originally Posted by friable7
Jeremy seems to hint at the idea that I don’t have the vision or focus to represent the Membership. What I think is that you have a choice between two different approaches to how you reach the end of the course. For instance, Jeremy and Jeff Crum’s last posts on the forum include what are essentially endorsements for nominees for open Board positions. I believe this is inappropriate and unproductive. It is not only unfair – (especially coming from Jeff’s position as a current elected official) but can result in people voting a “ticket” type of measure when in actuality nothing of the sort exists. These positions are distinct and separate deserving your scrutiny based on individual talents, abilities and merits. “Ticketing” can back fire (It is the, “I don’t like Jeremy so I won’t vote for Sean” type stuff we need to get over) or results in a suspicious or resentful Board if the “ticket” does not get voted in intact. I say, Lobby to your heart’s content outside of the public forum but keep the forum airwaves clear for people to do their own thinking. These are the types of things that tear organizations apart and create suspicion and resentment. We all want level playing field when we hit the course.
It would be nice if there weren't two party's here but based on last years voting there was exactly the same vote for two different people running for office. Gordy and Bob received the exact same amount of votes. When you analyze board votes Gordy and Bob have voted exactly the same on every single issue over the last 3 years except once. Tim hasn't voted against them even when he said that it made sense to.
My biggest issue in this whole thing is centered around Camp Sekani. Starting by building an upper course is as short sighted as a mistake as one could make.
1. There isn't a single property within 200 miles that is more difficult to walk on and play on.
2. Building a full upper course before we figure out whether or not we get 40 more acres means that we would build a course that would not use 40 acres that could make it out of this world. In other words all the work to build a course could be put in and than we could find out that we only used 1/3 of the land we had.
3. The lower course is playable by 90% of the disc golf population.
4. The lower course could be ready to be built immediately once the MOU and the Park gives it's final approval.
I also am of the opinion that the club shouldn't have $10,000+ in the bank account. Golfers have been waiting to have new courses for a while. Our courses are full and our parking lots are too.
With a club vote tonight and a park approval this whole thing could be irrelevant. There is nothing guaranteed about a new club being formed yet but it is a good possibility. I can guarantee that I will work to make sure that disc golf growth is the best that it could possibly be for the golfers in our area no matter what club I am working for. I want the best teepads, equipment and courses we can get. I look forward to helping make this possible with your support.