How the PPA's board should be composed

BluffTHIS! · #1 03-06-2007, 10:39 PM

The other thread I started got off topic with a debate over whether certain individuals should or should not be on the board, as well on what types of individuals should or shouldn't be there. So I am starting this thread to discuss that. My view which I stated there, is that it is unreasonable to expect the PPA to hold elections for the board because most of its members aren't active enough in the issue to care. Thus it probably is going to have to be self-chosen to some degree. Furthermore I believe it is unreasonable to expect a board with zero conflicts of interests, and that as long as they constitute a minority, there can be members who are owners/employees in CP or other magazines, or name players with sponsorship deals with major online sites. There just shouldn't be too many of them again.

So I would suggest that potential members of a newly constituted board be chosen to some formula as follows:

A) ex-officio members - the president and chairman =2

B) reps of CP magazine - choose only 1

-Allyson Jaffrey Schulman
-Jan Fischer
-Linda Johnson

C) players who rep various sites - choose only 1
-Fossilman
-Chris Ferguson
-Daniel Negraneau

D) state directors of PPA (regular poker players presumably)- choose 5 or 6

E) high profile members of various professions who are poker players but who have no financial interests in any B&M or online gaming company or advertising media for same - choose 3 or 4

-Prof. Rose
-etc.

If some type of formula like above were used, the possibilities for major conflicts of interests involving a majority of the board, as currently exists, would be very small to non-existant. Some won't be happy with any board members with such conflicts, and the PPA's current board won't be happy with fewer ones most likely. But the above or something similar to it is a reasonable compromise.

*TT* · #2 03-06-2007, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
B) reps of CP magazine - choose only 1

-Allyson Jaffrey Schulman
-Jan Fischer
-Linda Johnson

[/ QUOTE ]

We should note that Linda and Jan have no financial input to Card Player at this time, Jan sold off her interest in the company to Barry Schulman years ago. Linda and Jan however are partners in multiple ventures if you know what I mean.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

BluffTHIS! · #3 03-06-2007, 10:46 PM

TT,

I understand that. My point is just that is OK if there is a writer or someone with an ownership interest in CP, but that there shouldn't be more than one. That means both Linda and Jan couldn't serve.

BluffTHIS! · #4 03-08-2007, 05:24 PM

Don't Les or any of the state directors of the PPA have a comment on this matter?

TheOpus · #5 03-09-2007, 04:22 AM

If I knew more about how the Board of Directors of the PPA operated, I feel as if I'd be in a better position to form an opinion (although I do agree with your suggestions as to what sort of composition the Board should have). Unfortunately, I have no idea what anyone on the Board is responsible for, how often their meetings are, what the agendas of those meetings are, if meeting minutes are available for viewing, or anything else that someone would expect that a "typical" Board of Directors would do. But that is not for lack of trying to find out.

Once a week for the past month I have EMailed the PPA (I re-sent my original EMail to them 3 times) asking them for information about how their Board operates, etc. I received no response until after the 4th week when I mentioned that I thought 4 weeks was way too long to wait for an answer to a question that was not difficult, that I didn't understand why it was taking so long to answer, and that perhaps I should ask a member of the media if they thought 4 weeks was too long to wait for an answer.

They EMailed me back the next day and explained that "Michael was busy". They didn't seem to share my view that it shouldn't take the President of an organization to respond to an EMail. Overall, it was a very frustrating experience and I have yet to receive an answer.

Sorry to ramble and I hope I didn't get your topic off the subject, but I felt my little experience was relevant to my answer. My answer being that I don't think that it matters (at this point) who is on the Board of Directors because the impression that I have is that the title of "board member" seems to be more of an honorary title (at best) rather than an active role that is actively being fulfilled by those who hold those positions.

If the PPA had some sort of documentation that explains how the decisions within the organization are made, what kind of issues require a Board vote, etc., then I could make a more specific comment based on a more informed opinion. That being said, I do agree with your suggestions. But considering I've been waiting for 6 weeks to get answers to questions that would let me make an informed opinion, my opinion based on my experience is that it doesn't matter because the Board of the PPA seems to be not much more than a "For Display Only" showpiece.

*TT* · #6 03-09-2007, 12:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They EMailed me back the next day and explained that "Michael was busy". They didn't seem to share my view that it shouldn't take the President of an organization to respond to an EMail.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have no staff, its practically just Michael. Considering the amount of donations to date this still baffles me. Not that its bad, or even good - just WHY? I know that Michael is busy, or maybe he is just a bad manager? This is just a speculation, I really don't know.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

BluffTHIS! · #7 03-09-2007, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They have no staff, its practically just Michael.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true because they don't recruit poster volunteers from this forum and/or their general membership to handle some easy administrative tasks like reading and sorting emails into ones volunteers could easily and quickly respond to, and others that might have to come to the president's attention. Call those volunteers communications staff or something.

LesJ · #8 03-10-2007, 02:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Don't Les or any of the state directors of the PPA have a comment on this matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your suggestions concerning potential make-up of the Board of Directors make alot of sense. To be honest, this is the first time I understood your concerns over the current make-up of the board.

That being said, I am still unsure how "functional" this current board is. Board of Directors for some groups I have seen in the past are largely public figureheads, with vitually no input on the operations of the group. In other groups, obviously, the Board of Directors are much more active and provide the direction for the group that they serve.

I think it would be advantageous for the PPA Board to be an active Board, with a more diverse make-up than they currently have.

Les

TheOpus · #9 03-10-2007, 02:47 AM

If the PPA is understaffed to the point where they cannot respond to inquiries regarding their organization during a time when they are actively (and almost desperately) seeking new members, then they need to look at how to reorganize. And understaffed or not, there are SEVEN people on the "Board of Directors". Any ONE of those SEVEN could have and should be able to answer a simple question about how the Board operates. And that fact that no one could, no one did and no one has since given a response, it gives me the impression that the Board is merely a showpiece and does nothing.

The PPA has already said that without a membership base of at least one million, getting a bill that would exempt poker from current legislation is just not going to happen. With that need of new members, why would an organization not be more accomodating and forthcoming with information? It just doesn't seem like an effective method of recruiting. And if I wasn't already a member, I can guarantee that after being told "he's busy" I absolutely would NOT be one in the future. How many other potential members have not joined because someone was "too busy" to respond to them?

This is supposed to be the PPA, not the Michael Bolcerek Show. At this point, it would best serve the goal of the PPA for Michael to step away from "the Hill" and focus on organizing his organization, perhaps by scheduling a Board meeting or two.

If the Board is going to function as a Board of Directors, let's see it, because I see this ship sinking fast. If ANY of those seven directors can't start doing some directing, they shouldn't be sitting on that board as should resign as soon as possible. That should leave a few empty seats of which to fill up with individuals of the caliber that Bluffthis! suggests.

BluffTHIS! · #10 03-12-2007, 04:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be advantageous for the PPA Board to be an active Board, with a more diverse make-up than they currently have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Les,

Thanks for your response. I agree 100% with your quote above of course, and if that doesn't come to pass, then it begs the question of who is actually running things in a "non-active" board and whose interests are thus being served.

I am curious too about Linda Johnson's status, as D'Amato is obviously taking over as chairman, and whether she will remain on the board.

As a state director, I hope you will be able to discuss these things with the board, and that yourself and some other state directors might also be asked to step up and give the board the diversity and wider range of experience it needs, especially with some poker players like yourself not tied to organizations with vested interests.