What do PPA State Directors do ?

Is the link from the PPA website (below) still an accurate description of the current staff of State Directors ?

Are PPA State Directors Paid Employees or Volunteers ?

http://theppa.org/state-directors/

I have a better question, for the players. If there was a full time state director working to advance legislation in your state, would that get you to support the PPA with those $15 annual dues?

Only if I knew exactly what they did. How about a tiny blurb about their current efforts on that link?

I've heard nothing from my director (WA). Thank you, Curtis, for your efforts, in WA.

What about a rating system (use SurveyMonkey?) to give feedback about the effectiveness of our Directors?

They are unpaid volunteers.

Thanks for responding......I have been learning more about this....if I understand correctly,

It appears Volunteer State Directors are responsible for monitoring poker-related issues and events throughout the state, alerting the national PPA office to emerging trends or issues.

Also....leading the PPA activities in each state.

I am watching this video from a "PPA Town Hall Meeting " in my home State of Massachusetts recently.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHmKosLajyU

I know what my state director did. He wrote the book many people used to learn how to play.

He also won the first legal hand of poker in another state.

PPA State Directors are unpaid volunteers that serve in part of our eyes and ears on the ground in their respected states.

State Directors help get the word out about the PPA and our mission where ever poker players meet and they also help organize lobbying days at state capitals, help identify legislators that are friends of poker and those that are not as well as represent the poker community at Town hall meetings, state legislative committee hearings and other types of public meetings.

State Directors also play a big role in our PPA’s grassroots and grass-top strategy and activities by submitting letters to the editor, doing local interviews and help generate support around a particular piece of legislation in a variety of different ways.

Issues in each state are differ from protecting the ability to play charity poker in Michigan to legislatively redefining what a game of skill in New Hampshire to de-criminalizing playing Internet poker in Washington. State Directors help drive our activism in these areas as wells as support PPA’s federal activities.

If you have any questions about the State Director program or would like to find how you can get more involved in promoting and protecting poker in your state or area please email me directly at drew@theppa.org.

Proud to play,

Drew Lesofski
Director of Grassroots and External Affairs

Wouldn't the cause be better served by state directors that are full time employees?

I understand the limited resource reasoning, but I question whether it is sound, particularly in states where movement is likely to succeed. A paid director would have far more time to interact with players in the state and otherwise promote activism. He/she would also be able to help raise crucial funding to put to use directly in their home state. Further, they could be a registered lobbyist, and serve directly and exclusively the cause of internet poker legislation during state legislative sessions.

I believe there is a balance somewhere that could be achieved, where having a full time employed state representative could be cost neutral, and the benefit of his activities would be significant. It something I feel strongly the PPA should take another look at.

Perhaps it doesn't pencil out in every state, particularly the states where there is little to no hope of passing state legislation. But there are many markets where I dare say this could work wonders for the cause.

And the message it would send to the players and the members would also be significant.

Hmm, let's see.

Spend money to pay state directors for them to coordinate efforts on poker.

or

Spend money for efforts on poker.

Which way would enable the PPA to have more money to spend on the efforts themselves?

I think that is short sighted.

The biggest shortcoming of the PPA is the lack of participation and contribution of the membership. Virtually all of the PPA's funding comes from industry, and a 'million member' resource is there not being accessed. less than one percent of the membership pays dues, and I dare say the biggest reason for that is . . . "I've heard nothing from my director . . . "

A full time state director would lead to increased support from the players, and could very well be cost neutral.

Let me put something in perspective for you. There was an initiative push in my state to put labeling on food to indicate if it contained GMO's. The granola eating hippies (lol) not only managed to get 300K signatures without paying signature gatherers, they raised $7 million dollars for the state effort, half again the PPA's entire budget.

We are failing to engage and inspire those most affected, and not capitalizing on that resource. I think looking at a change in business model is not unreasonable at all.

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You are saying.

PPA needs paid state directors to energize the players and by the way look at what a group did to energize people without paid workers. They did a great job.

explain?

Well maybe I should have been clearer. That campaign was led by a (well) paid leader who then coordinated a vast grassroots effort.

Well, PPA does have paid leaders. They just happen to be on the national level which is appropriate as poker is a national issue.

I think the success in gathering support on GMO may have had more to do with the issue rather than there being a paid leader.

WAS a national issue, it clearly is a state level fight now. I think all are in agreement, or at least see that the path forward is state by state.

It becomes a chicken or the egg question because players may not be motivated without an engaged state director but an engaged state director is pointless without motivated players.

The answer is obviously the first one. Far more efforts and progress would be made by hiring a full time advocate and director for the state. No organization, commercial or non-profit would expect to succeed by managing everything directly from the top. Middle and lower management is necessary for delegation of tasks and responsibilities. That is just a common sense approach.

I appreciate the desire for this. It's an easy question for now, unfortunately. PPA does not have anywhere near the resources needed to hire 50 full time state directors. If we were able to get state directors for just $60,000 per director (salary + benefits), it would be $3M per year, over and above current expenses. If they were expected to crisscross their states to meet with members regularly, visit their respective capitals, etc., that would add another $½M+. And, that presumes we can find the right people for that salary.

Now, we could do this if a whole lot of people were to join and to donate extra, but I don't know that this will happen.

KY, NH, FL, CO and other states have very engaged state directors. We really haven't seen a huge differential in paid members in these states.

I'd rather work toward empowering the volunteer state directors, as that's the best option we have available to us (at least as far as I can see). This is something to which I've been giving a great deal of thought, FWIW.

If he was willing to volunteer for the job, I think I know who would be a very engaged state director for Washington.

Personally, I think the work on empowering state directors should start with the remainder of the fourteen states where Harrah's has a presence but there's not an internet poker law on the books. They are a big presence and they have a vested interest to help.

I already do as much for the cause as I possibly can as a volunteer. But what is needed in Washington is a full time effort. Someone has to go and meet with legislators and win them over to our cause. Someone has to get to the four corners of the state, and get the players to get involved. Someone has to raise the money necessary to grease the wheels of progress. To get it done requires a full time effort.

I understand the PPA's position, and given their experience in the matter, it's hard to argue with. I don't fault them (anymore lol) for what they do with what they have, I understand you need to fight the battles you can win. But I do believe with a bit more mobility, an engaged state director could not only serve as a lobbyist but as a fundraiser, and a true representative of the players. It would be a change in business model for them, but as the dynamic has changed from a centralized federal effort to skirmishes in select states (not every state needs a full time director, in fact probably only a dozen do), new ideas and approaches should be looked at carefully.

I'm still hopeful I can get industry to kick down some money for the fight here in Washington, and if I am successful, I hope to work full time on this issue in 2014.

Our legislative session is extremely short, and there are hard deadlines for a bill to progress that come up quickly. These next ten weeks are important, and without an active representative of the players, opportunity may be squandered.

I know what you mean by a short legislative session. In my state, it is like five months and efforts here are further hampered by term limits. Every so often, there are guaranteed to be new faces.

So basically if the job is for no pay you won't do it, but if there is pay involved, you would do it?

That isn't what I said at all. I said I am already doing all a volunteer can. I could do more if I had the resources and I am actively pursuing those resources.