Post by: MI 2 AZ on April 29, 2003, 06:34:00 AM
http://www.bowl.com/bowl/wibc/common/news/record.html?record=6803
Post by: Jerry Weller on April 30, 2003, 02:50:48 AM
The naked power grab the WIBC leadership was backing would have created a real nightmare situation between the ABC and the new single membership organization. I wouldn't have known who to keep my membership with.
Post by: michelle on April 30, 2003, 07:49:28 AM
If the article was to be believed, the SMO may not be dead. It sounds like the WIBC is going to have a motion brought forth to reconsider the vote. When you get that much going on in the way of parliamentary procedure, there is no telling what might happen.
Post by: jkirkman on April 30, 2003, 11:37:38 AM
Post by: Steven on April 30, 2003, 11:56:53 AM
Having said all this, I have to agree with Galaxy. While there are some hard working volunteers such as yourself, too many delegates are in it for personal prestige and not necessarily for the good of the common bowler. You may not want to believe this or acknowledge this, but it's an ugly truth.
I think it's great that you've spent so much personal time giving out awards and attending conventions, but ultimately that's not what the ABC should be about. The organization should first and foremost be about injecting scoring integrity and dignity into the sport. Unfortunately, the ABC threw in the towel on this issue years ago, so your mission has largely been reduced to pedaling trinkets for over inflated accomplishments. It's not a pretty situation.
I admit that I don't know what my reps do, but since the organization accomplishes little of real value, it doesn't matter. Maybe your time would be better spent with your wife and 3 kids -- they'll actually give you something back!
Post by: jimsey on April 30, 2003, 02:41:44 PM
This is certainly a difficult situation with no real right or wrong answer. The question boils down to will bowlers be better served by a single organization or by fragmented sectors that represent a specific portion of the bowlers? Can a twenty five member board who have a single focus on the sport make more intelligent decisions than a few thousand delegates who meet once a year and have a limited amount of industry information available to them? Is there sufficient structure in place that will allow a smaller board to better represent its members or does the larger delegate base have a better feel for the pulse of the bowlers? There is no doubt that the local volunteers perform a unique and valuable service but does that mean that they know what is best for a large segment of the industry?
Whatever the next move is, it should be interesting.
Post by: bowlin gr8 on April 30, 2003, 03:00:21 PM
Are you sure that the membership could vote out a board member? I thought that a replacement would be determined by the board itself and the membership would not have a say in it.
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?
Post by: bowlin gr8 on April 30, 2003, 03:17:04 PM
Still have not found anything on how to have a board member removed.
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?
Post by: Jerry Weller on April 30, 2003, 06:07:24 PM
Having said that, here's why I don't like the current proposal:
Let's say that the national board got together and decided that giving out honor scores was too darn expensive and that the profitability of the national organization needed to be enhanced.
Let us further decide that in order to restore this profitability, the most extreme possible measures needed to be taken and as a result - all sanctioned bowling should henceforth be done on a reverse block. (This is a purely theoretical proposition made purely to illustrate a point)
Let us further say for the sake of argument that the national board after careful research decided that Single Membership Organization profits could be maximized by raising the dues to $100 a year even though it would mean a loss of membership.
Under the single membership proposal as drafted, our representatives would still legislate the rules of the game itself... HOWEVER...the way that the proposal was drafted, the National Board retains the right to make all Constitutional amendments.
What does that mean?
It means that the National Board could strip the delegates of all power to regulate the game AT ANY TIME without any vote of the membership.
And what does it mean if that were to happen? The bowler in the settee would have zero voting power or influence. The National Board COULD indeed force all sanctioned bowling to take place on a reverse block.
Furthermore, the bowler in the settee has NO VOICE whatsoever in the dues setting process except to quit.
Now obviously these are extreme examples and we will in all probability never need to worry about such extreme things taking place - but the mere fact that they COULD take place and I would have ZERO recourse as a member is enough to make me say No.
Is it so much to ask, that the Board close the loopholes and resubmit the proposition? Why would this be, if there is no intent to ever exploit any of the loopholes?
Post by: MI 2 AZ on April 30, 2003, 06:24:00 PM
I am concerned if by only having 25 members on the National Board to make decisions, if that wouldnt (theoretically) make it easier for a dishonest company to bribe or otherwise influence enough of the National Board to pass new rules or amendments so that their new equipment could come onto the market that wouldnt otherwise have made it past the current ball specs? As it stands now, it would have to be voted on by the reps (how many 1000s) to amend and it would be difficult to influence enough to pass anything like that through but with only 25 we might end up seeing balls with gyros built in or some such
This is only idle speculation on my part so please dont take it too seriously. And isnt the CEO of the USBC supposed to be in for life? Did anyone find out if there is a way to remove a board member?
Post by: charlest on April 30, 2003, 08:51:52 PM
quote:
Sawbones sez:
If we live in a democracy and believe in democracy, why is it so difficult for the powers that be in each of the organizations not understand the main reason this proposal is not moving forward is that every member of each organization wants a vote and a say so as to how things are done?
Is this because a democrocy is NOT we vote for a representative to vote what we want,
BUT
a democracy is we vote for a representative to vote the way his/her conscience direct them to vote,
AND
we, the public, can't stand that thought???
quote:
Its (take the time to write correct grammar, DOc!, please.) It's not that difficult to bring anything to a vote since less than half of those who have the opportunity to vote, don't do so anyway.
The main reason for the rejections is taking the vote away from the membership at large and placing it in the hands of a few. While the few may be smarter than the rest of us and a majority is not always the best way to go, but it is our system and why should a SMO operate any differently? Bones
Isn't that called a plutocracy and not a democracy, Bones?
OR
as we Romans say,
Ain't that a kick in the you-know-where?
Because this, the SMO, is not and should not reflect our governmantal processes.
Wow! crazy thoughts for Midnight, no???
Post by: Jerry Weller on May 01, 2003, 02:09:28 AM
I feel my concerns are legitimate. I don't feel they've been addressed in any substantive way - all we've heard thus far is a bunch of name calling and accusations by the losing side without dealing with any of the legitimate and substantive objections that bowlers at large might have.
You say all it's about Kingdom building? Clinging desperately to power? Not wanting to work with the opposite sex?
I say lose the personal attacks, deal with the legitimate problems people have with the SMO and bring it up again after the loopholes are closed. I'll back the single membership organization and take the time and trouble to ask my delegate to vote for it after that gets done.
If the proponents of the SMO can't deal with the substance, the rest is nothing but sour grapes.
Edited on 5/1/2003 2:17 AM
Post by: bowlin gr8 on May 01, 2003, 07:35:10 AM
I do not golf. Never played or been on a course in my life. Until you spelled out what the initials USGA stood for, I didnt know. Could you tell me about the USGA - what does it do, how is it set up, is it like the ABC or the BPAA? What is the main difference between the USGA and the USBC proposal? Thanks.
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?
Post by: Tex on May 01, 2003, 07:37:09 AM
Jerry, you hit the nail on the head when you said they could take away the vote on the rules of the game once in power. That was always my biggest fear. Even though I always stirred the pot for USBC. We need one organization. BUT, with all rules and voting power left "as is". Do that and the vote will pass. Once passed, then they can bring rules changes to improve the game to the single convention.
Like Fondude, I am on the local board. In fact we serve on the same board and often have different opinions, but we work together to promote the same sport. The key is we work together and without much help from the local women's board, we try to help our local bowlers in everyway we can. Dallas actually has new centers opening up almost every year. Thanks to "AMF" we have lost some, but we are also replacing those with new and better centers. Our board makes mistakes, but voting NO on this issue was not one of them. In the long run, I think the issue will come back and this time the way "WE" want it. Then it will pass and we can all move forward.
Post by: jimsey on May 01, 2003, 09:36:40 AM
I know from speaking to several people who were on the USBC merger committee that USGA and several other membership/volunteer organizations were looked at as part of the formation of the merger proposal. I do have limited knowledge of USGA and feel that there are some significant differences. Please correct me if I am wrong.
1. USGA membership fees are $15 per year(or higher depending on the level/gifts selected) compared to a max of $16 for ABC (max of $20 in 2004 if USBC passed)
2. USGA total membership is significantly less than ABC and certainly the total number of members if USBC merger passed.
3. USGA has no national or local awards programs (no hole in one ring, 10 strokes under parr award, or low average.
4. USGA does not have a convention nor process for its members to vote on anything (dues, rules, or bylaws)
5. USGA does not have a bonding program to protect members prize funds for leagues or tournaments.
6. USGA does not have an inspection program to make sure that putting surfaces are in good condition, holes are cut in an appropriate location, or hole lengths are accurate as listed on the score card.
Yes, there are alot of things that USGA does well to promote the sport. The structure of the organization is more flexible by allowing the board to institute and promote programs to enhance the sport without going to a yearly national convention for approval prior to making a commitment.
As in many situations, there is not a one size fits all solution. Hopefully, we will keep working at it and continue to improve and learn through the effort.
Edited on 5/1/2003 11:04 AM
Post by: bowlin gr8 on May 01, 2003, 09:42:44 AM
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?
Post by: mumzie on May 01, 2003, 09:44:42 AM
That said,
I would have probably voted in favor of the SMO, just to get the inevitable over with. However -
JUST ONCE during the whole discussion period, I would have liked to see one of my local reps (ABC or WIBC - doesn't really matter) come talk to the league bowlers, and get their opinions. The local associations say that the bowlers don't come to their meetings. Duh. So why don't the associations come to the bowlers?
Our local association has an annual meeting. I don't know when the ABC meeting is. The WIBC - I only know because I got invited to it so I can receive an award.
I have NEVER been asked my opinion by anyone involved with my local WIBC association. I have given my opinions freely, however. I work closely on other things with our ABC executive director, so he knows my opinion.
I don't even know how our local reps voted.
So - as far as the local issues go - I know that it's about protecting the little empires here in this state. I have to assume that, because no one has asked for my opinion.
--------------------
One advantage of bowling over golf
is that you seldom lose the ball.
Post by: card79 on May 01, 2003, 09:50:46 AM
--------------------
I don't really play cards and I am not 79, but it fits together somehow.
Post by: bowlin gr8 on May 01, 2003, 09:56:06 AM
It was after our local ABC rep came to our league a few months ago and gave us a somewhat one-sided view of the SBO that I became aware of the issue and I tried to get some info by reading the SMO proposal at www.bowl.com . I also followed some of the discussions that were here earlier and appreciated seeing both sides of the issue but I did not know anything at all about the USGA.
Thanks to all who gave their views on this and tried to inform all bowlers who were interested in reading through all of this.
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?
Post by: Jerry Weller on May 01, 2003, 12:38:36 PM
Golf has it's own equipment issues with Big Bertha drivers, etc. and wasn't titanium used in golf long before it made it's way into bowling?
The area where I think golf does a better job than bowling is in labeling the courses and tees to reflect how difficult they really are. Unfortunately, given that there are a lot more lanes than there are golf courses and that those lanes can be modified at the proprietor's whim at any time by changing the oil pattern - labelling the difficulty of the lanes strikes me as a much more challenging proposition.
I do have an idea myself, but I'm sure people will find fault with it. For what it's worth - here goes...
I think the bowling powers that be should track the "house" average for every bowling center in America and using a bell curve, come up with a system to rate the difficulty of the houses by virtue of the house average. In order to have sanctioned leagues in their house, proprietor's should be required to prominently post a decal on their front door with the rating of their house difficulty on it. In order to prevent easier and easier conditions from degrading the standards, a gold standard should be established based upon conditions from "the golden age of bowling" the 1950s.
In turn, the ABC should modify it's awards according to the house difficulty. The ABC gold 300 ring should not be available by upgrade anymore. If you shoot your 300 in a cake house, you get a cheap ring with the level of difficulty of the house marked on the ring.
e.g.
300 - C means you shot your perfect game in a house of average difficulty, etc.
In order to get a gold 300 ring, your perfect game would have to be shot in a house that met the gold standard - the house average would be in line with the averages established in the 1950s - bowling's "golden era".
The same rules would apply to high series awards, etc.
Edited on 5/1/2003 1:33 PM
Post by: bowlin gr8 on May 01, 2003, 02:46:55 PM
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?
Post by: Tex on May 01, 2003, 02:49:08 PM
On the ball or product rejection question. There are probably hundreds of balls that are rejected annually we never know about. We here about the ones that are made anyway, like the Quasar and Micheal Jordan. I think the first to be banned after the ball was out and approved was the old Orange DOt. There was another one a couple years ago, but can't remmember which one. I think the La Nina would be denied approval under the new standards or so I understand. The plastic pins were denied for something like 10 years or more. The new DBA Laneshield was denied approval for around 7 years. So, yes ABC does reject products on a regular basis. We just never hear about them unless the manufacturer makes it an issue or have friends in Wisconsin.
HOw exactly did we go from SMO to GOlf vs. Bowling. Bit of a tangent. Oh well, that is how it goes. I don't Golf, understand why some people do. It just is not my cup of tea. Love to bowl and have no idea why. Just do. I have friends that are 200++ bowlers and just as good at Golf. I know that many of the PBA tour guys enjoy both sports, hear them talking about it often.
Post by: Jerry Weller on May 01, 2003, 11:05:27 PM
Here's what the USGA website has to say about the organization...
"What Is The USGA?
More than 9,100 private and public golf courses, clubs and facilities make up the USGA.
An Executive Committee of 15 volunteers oversees the Association. More than 1,200 volunteers from all parts of the country serve on more than 30 USGA committees. A professional staff of approximately 250 directs the Association's day-to-day functions from Golf House, the USGA's headquarters in Far Hills, N.J.
In 1975, the Association formed the USGA Members Program to help individual golfers support the game and the USGA. Today, approximately 800,000 players from around the nation are USGA Members.
The USGA acts in cooperation with national, regional and local golf associations in areas of common interest. The Association also represents the United States in relations with golf associations of other countries."
--------------------------------------------------------------
And what do the members get?
"By supporting the United States Golf Association, you are taking an active part in preserving and protecting the game of golf. Join today and receive many benefits including the latest updates on the Rules of Golf, as well as preferences to purchase tickets to the U.S. Open and other USGA Championships."
Hoooo-rah! - NOT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by: Bill Thomas on May 02, 2003, 04:19:54 AM
Post by: Jerry Weller on May 02, 2003, 06:32:56 AM
Post by: bowlin gr8 on May 02, 2003, 10:52:15 AM
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?