Is it safe to assume that one or more of these clubs competing with the CDC were created by a former member of the CDC? Would it also be safe to assume that the former member(s) were either a former BOD, Chair Holder, or Office Staff employee or volunteer? If so, would it be logical for the members of this club to allow members known to be in association with these competing club(s) to hold any of the said positions? If not then are we saying that our objective of establishing friendly relationships with similar organizations is a false representation of our objectives? If any of this is true are we accomplishing an effective means of promoting the sport of darts or are we just trying to promote the CDC?

With respect to Pete Smolleck, this side of the story DID need to be told even though I dont really see this as a story, just plain fact. But if this is a story it is about how this competing club came about and to be in compition with the CDC. And as with many stories, there are underlying circumstances that got it to this point. Is it that what is underlying needed to be changed or is it better that things worked out the way they have? If what is underlying needed to be changed then someone must tell the rest of the story.

Nobody wants to touch this one? Come on! The first article contained some very good factual information (which by the way could have been expressed without the mention of a competing club) unfortunatly it was seemingly written as a counter attack upon the competing club, which brings me to believe that the Cleveland Darter Club (or some of those contained within) do not support their exisitance.

This is all good with me as I agree with the facts stated in the article, but it raises the questions I've asked in my previous post. Maybe the questions I have asked are to in depth, but they are all relavent to the existence of this club, and the competing club. It is also my belief that an existing chair holder of what is said to be the greatest dart team on the planet is counter productive to a negative campaign against a competing club when the chair holder has said to be a member of the competing club, not that I believe the chair holder isnt worthy of the position, it just isnt good publicity, nor is it good publicity when our by-laws state the objective to establish friendly releationships with simlar organizations.

It is not my objective to destroy the statment contained within the article but to bring forth new ideas which will strengthen its objective, otherwise we're just chasing our tail.

The original “article” written by our President, was simply a statement of facts comparing and contrasting the Cleveland Darter Club to the Gold Coast Darters, in response primarily to recent communications to our members and bar affiliates urging them to, in effect, switch memberships from the CDC to the Gold Coast. Keep in mind that the Gold Coast Darters, as a for-profit business enterprise, has every right to promote its business as it sees fit. The CDC was merely informing its members of the basic and fundamental differences between our two organizations. As I’m sure you are aware, the CDC’s “promotional campaign” is designed primarily to attract new league darters, not to sway darters from other leagues to quit theirs and join ours.

The Cleveland Darter Club, as the oldest dart organization in the Cleveland area, has over the years, spawned other similar organizations throughout the Cleveland area. It is no coincidence that other organizations have very similar scoresheets, scheduling, trails programs, etc. The fact is, every dart organization in the Cleveland area, probably can trace its roots directly, or indirectly, to the CDC.

And as you mention, establishing friendly relations with similar organizations has always been one of the Cleveland Darter Club’s objectives. I think it’s safe to say we have very positive relationships with the LEDA, SSDL and ACDC, just to name a few, and I think our participation in the annual Quad City Challenge is another example of how the CDC works with other dart organizations around the state to hold a very competitive and worthwhile team dart event that is arguably the most successful and certainly the longest running event of its kind in the country. In addition, the CDC is a charter member of ADO, which by its nature, promotes cooperation and friendly competitions among darters from dart organizations throughout the country. I am of a strong opinion that the future success of dart leagues in Cleveland will largely depend on the ability of each of its organizations to continue to maintain and foster positive relations, share information and resources, and hopefully work together on joint events or competitions which will help promote our great sport. Considering that the CDC, LEDA, ACDC and SSDL likely face very similar challenges and opportunities this only makes sense. The Cleveland area, in my opinion, is blessed with several very strong dart organizations supporting our great sport. But for darts to thrive and reach its full potential in Cleveland, it will take the cooperation and joint efforts of all of its dart organizations, clubs and leagues. How we go about that is a subject that probably deserves its own “article.”

As far as existing members of the CDC belonging also to the Gold Coast (or any other darts organization for that matter), I don’t think that is something the CDC should prohibit or even discourage. Geographically, there are obvious reasons why some darters would choose to play in the SSDL or LEDA, and the CDC wouldn’t hesitate in recommending that to existing or prospective members if it was better for them. (If we get a call from someone in Willoughby who is interested in forming a team, we would likely refer them to the LEDA, as I’m sure the LEDA would return the favor if they received a call from somebody in Parma). But aside from geographic considerations, I think it best to leave it to the individual darter as to what organization they would like to join or play league in. In many cases, some darters would like to play on mulitiple nights in multiple leagues simply for the variety of competition.

When you start getting into whether board members should be “allowed” to be members of other organizations, you start to get into a touchy area. Obviously, the members of the Board of Directors hold a fiduciary responsibility to our club and its members and, in my opinion, a moral obligation to act in the best interest of its members at all times. So prohibiting a Board member from holding a similar position with another organization that could create a perceived conflict of interest, probably makes sense. But to bar them or any committee chairperson, member, etc. from belonging to another organization, in and of itself, doesn’t make sense. I think part of the “bad blood” between the Gold Coast and the CDC can in part, be traced to a perception that the “owners” of the Gold Coast may have used knowledge gained as members of the CDC’s board to help benefit their “business.” So I think that kind of situation is something the CDC should try to prevent in the future.

I understand the compare and contrast the article was meant to convey and I agree with much of what you say. Since I know that you know where I was going with this, the following quote is where I was mainly concentrating.

A touchy area is an understatement unless it is written into the by-laws then it becomes unquestionable, but that wasnt the point I was trying to make. The point is that it is very difficult to sell a product to your supporters when the main representitives support the compitition!

This is another touchy area which I believe has larger underlying circumstances than what are percieved and go beyond Gold Coast. Anyhow they started a darts business and they are trying to promote their business, the CDC is supposed to be doing the same thing which I believe is happening. The article explains the difference between the two but it is a matter of opinion as to which is better so it becomes futile to aknowledge their differences. Some people believe it is better to belong to an organization open to elected officials where others need a dictated environment.

Maintain the OBJECTIVE and define the DIRECTIVE!