Charles Bond

Do you desire a room in the Patton Tower or Bluegrass Wing? Sun up or sun down view?

Folks I am posting this statement from Vince Pinto as a service to those who are attending the World Shoot perhaps for the first time and who might like to be reminded that the dinner attire for the match is a bit more dressy than what is required of matches in the US. I am not making a statement here as to whether or not this is appropriate and urge members to decline any impulse to do so as well. The way I look at it is that IPSC is hosting the party and they have the option of stating what attire is appropriate and guests should follow these guidelines in the same manner that if your moma tells you to come dressed for Sunday dinner you have the option of staying at home or doing as she asks. Please keep in mind that your compliance with this request reflects not only upon you but upon the United States as well. ____________________________________________________ Hi folks, I have been asked to post information about the Dress Code that will apply to the World Shoot Awards Dinner. The Dress Code was approved by the 2013 IPSC General Assembly. It is included in the Minutes of that meeting, which are available for download from the IPSC website but, for your convenience, the decision was: With effect from 1 January 2014, that a minimum standard dress code be established for Awards Dinners of Level IV (Continental) and Level V (World) competitions. For men, no sleeveless or collarless shirts, no shorts, no jeans, no sandals, no flip-flops. Women are expected to dress commensurately. Unlike other events like the Bianchi Cup, there is no requirement for a jacket and tie, nor is there is a prohibition against cargo pants or team shirts (provided they have sleeves and collars, as they invariably do). This is a world championship, and it is the premier event on IPSC's triennial-cycle match calendar. It is not a club match. This is why the World Shoot Awards Dinner is a more upscale event held in an indoor, air-conditioned venue, not at a hot and dusty range. This year, we will have 1,600 people attending the Awards Dinner, and everyone will be served a 3 course, table-service dinner. There will also be entertainment. Also remember that when you attend a World Shoot, you're representing your country. That alone should be reason enough to dress appropriately! Nonetheless, participants have every right to boycott the Awards Dinner if they cannot accept the Dress Code, but that does not diminish IPSC's right to have one. In fact, if you want to withdraw from the match altogether, we still have 300 people on our Waiting List desperately hoping for a slot, even at this late stage. However, if you want to attend the Awards Dinner, you're obliged to comply with the Dress Code. Off-duty Polk County Sheriff's Deputies will be checking tickets at the door, and they will also deny entry to anyone not in compliance with the dress code. I think that covers everything.

I can only imagine how much fun it would be to show up to shoot at the WS and not be able to find a parking spot. The match is running a shuttle since there is likely not a range in any IPSC country with parking for 1200 vehicles including every military range I have ever seen or heard about. I am very proud that Frank Garcia and his staff brought the WS to this country. I would love the opportunity to go to England and shoot one. But sadly unless there is a huge overhaul of the laws over there, all I might be able to do there is shoot air soft.

After some members noticed the fees incumbent on those who desired to attend the World Shoot as spectators, Frank Garcia went to work and I am pleased to announce that as a result of his efforts, USPSA members and their companions will be admitted free. You are still going to need to go to the off site office to obtain a ticket. Parking is going to be limited at the range but USPSA members and their companions are welcome to ride the off site shuttle bus to the range for free. If you desire a pass, please contact Manny Bragg and he will provide you passes for the shuttle and the gate. If you go, and even if you don't, please express your gratitude to Frank Garcia for not only bringing the World Shoot to the US but for his extra efforts on behalf of all USPSA members.

Let's be clear. I have not said this was a bad thing. What I am saying is that if USPSA did it all in house we would not be sharing revenue. Let's say the revenue off of this venture is $200K. Than analysis I would apply would be different if the contractor was getting 50% vs say 15%. Could you provide us that detail Chuck? Under the shared revenue model if the total revenue is $200K USPSA is paying the provider $100K if it is 50% but only $30K if it is 15%. Based on what I know about dealing with these companies for clients, the minimum is 40%. So say it is 40%, the work of the contractor, which USPSA could do in house, is costing USPSA $80K. For that amount of money we can host it, task a staffer to do it, and after all included costs, and have enough money left to host a Junior Camp or additional RO classes or other matters that will serve USPSA.

Constant Contact would indeed work well for such an application.

Bill you may very well be correct on that. But if I want to do marketing for my practice I hire someone to provide that service. I do not agree to give them a percentage of the gross revenue that their efforts generate.

Bill I agree there is nothing wrong with using the commercial vendor but let's not forget the larger question of what are we going to actually try to achieve? We have a new revenue stream. What are we going to do with the funds? I outlined a couple of ways we could broaden the offering for NROI and I am sure there are other's with ideas. My point is that USPSA has more to decide than just this issue. The notion that this new product is *Free* is simply illusionary. While it is correct that USPSA is not paying anything for the service is correct. But it is also correct that we are sharing the revenue stream with a third party so most assuredly, we are incurring a cost for this item when we have the people and resources to produce it ourselves. USPSA certainly has the headcount and if you look at the total salaries we are paying to staff the office, we should definitely have the talent to do so. To be sure we are moving forward with electronic media but saying we are moving forward now when everyone else moved started in the same direction 5 or 10 years ago is sort of a backhanded compliment.

I agree with Bill Noyes 99% of the time but this is one of those situations where I differ. I am rather solid in by conviction that USPSA could and should have done this without resorting to a partnership with an outside vendor. There are plenty of methods that USPSA could have used to publish an on line publication without spamming anyone. How dog on hard is it to run a program where the server sends out batches of 10 emails addressed to 10 members with each batch being 3 minutes a part? Setting up a blog/newsletter/electronic and inviting members who subscribe to it in Front Sight is certainly within the scope of currently USPSA abilities. But that yet might not be the proper larger question. A larger question is what does USPSA want to be when it grows up and why are we fearful of allowing that to take place? Most people do not know that the public interest, the only public interest that is listed on our tax filing used to gain 501c3 status is to choose and support teams for international competition. Now that might have been fine at the time that USPSA was created but we have in place the ability to do so much more without adding staff or overhead. With the advent of electronic net based advertising, it is altogether easier for USPSA to gain revenue than ever before as in the $113K that was generated last year which is all new revenue. It makes sense to at least me to ask ourselves what should we be doing with this revenue. I do not get why it would make sense to use this new revenue stream to support a larger national championship. Matches should pay their own way as the member sitting home should not see a loss of benefits due to the fact he was not selected to attend the national match. Rolling back membership dues should not be the function of this money in so much as dues are easily affordable to those who can afford the equipment and gear, even basic to participate in this sport. Yes we need to market but as income increases, we should not just grow for the sake of growth. If we want to be THE sport shooting organization we need to focus on that as opposed to just doing more of the same. Would it not make sense to showcase NROI by giving them a larger mission? How about having NROI train range staff not only on matches centered around USPSA rules but centered around anyone's rules? Safety is not unique to USPSA and we should be able to offer that to everything from skeet and trap to pellet guns. What we call a range officer presently is based on safety and our rules. If we separate the two, our methods of safety training becomes marketable to a wide area of shooting disciplines. We also know that there is an increasing demand for firearm instructors. At this point in our society, the NRA has this market all but cornered but those of us who are NRA instructors know full well that the materials NRA presents is very dated, as exciting as watching paint dry, and slow to change. NROI has the talent and ability to present a course that is much more exciting and relevant to give USPSA trained instructors the ability to train new shooters. I am not saying we should go head to head against NRA but if all that is ever offered is fried chicken, folks never learn what a hamburger tastes like. Both of just the two items mentioned above, as well as several others, are services that would easily meet IRS public service standards and in the long run earn us a lot more respect in the shooting world and the world in general than just confining ourselves to our intended purpose. The key to most leadership issues is not being able to supply the correct answers but rather asking the correct questions. And any organization that does re-examine their purpose on a regular basis whether it is USPSA or the local garden club has just limited appeal to a shrinking number of people.

No. USPSA is a partner in the effort. I do not believe that USPSA did anything wrong. If the information provided by Jay Corn is correct, we are doing a lot right. The better question is why did we need a partner in this. It is our email list. Most of the content consists of other stories linked from the net and Shooting Wire. Could we not as done just as well or better without multi view?

Thanks guys. I see nothing wrong with the Nosler rifles except that what I am looking for is something several pounds lighter.

Aside from Nosler, is anyone offering a factory gun chambered in the 26 Nosler? Or has anyone announced plans to offer one?

When the agendas posted lack enough detail to advise the membership what is being discussed and the minutes posted fail to advise how and why a decision was make, when the financial records of the organization are not fully available to each and every member, when no supporting documentation or even the document approved is attached to the minutes, when we see the BOD meeting repeatedly in executive session and when we hear that members of the BOD have been hired for compensation by USPSA without BOD approval which is required by the Bylaws, that is when an appearance of impropriety arises. As Jay points out the HOW of doing something is often more important than what you do. For the BOD to enjoy the full support of the membership, they must become more transparent in their process of decision making and reporting those decisions to the members which they are elected to serve.

On the topic of the release of the HHFs, that is entirely up to the BOD. All the BOD needs to do is instruct the ED if she did not get the message clear enough at the meeting from which Bill Noyes posted minutes. I do not read that entry as it is up to her as to whether to post it but rather that it is up to her HOW to post it. Strick is correct that we are not having to assess members due to losses……..yet. But just like counting the number of burgers that get trashed, hit the floor, or go out the back door at the local burger place, unless you manage what you are doing that situation can change overnight. Good management is necessary in good times and in bad since if you do the good times well, you have a reserve and a plan to navigate the bad times.

Management is hired by the elected BOD. The BOD and the President are elected by the members. Until and unless the members decide they need competent business people serving on the BOD, problems like those you note will arise. Selection should not be about how well you know the rules, what type of match you run, or how well you shoot or have advanced in the game. Rather what is needed are the type of individuals you want serving on your local bank board such as CPAs, lawyers, business owners, marketing people, managers, administrators, and other business leaders. You need the type of people who in their regular life supervise and direct employees. There are 2 types people in American society. You have check writers and check cashers. Check writers get to write the checks becasue they have achieved an objective measure of success which gives them skills that transfer to other organizations. If these are the types of people members desire to serve the BOD, they need to seek them out and vote them in.