USPSA Area representation

[vluc]

Since concern is over the different sizes of A8 vs A6, and you have nothing to do with A8, perhaps you should reduce the size of A6?

[Charles Bond]

Since concern is over the different sizes of A8 vs A6, and you have nothing to do with A8, perhaps you should reduce the size of A6?

Which is exactly what would happen Vince. Area 7 increases in size. Area 8 picks up the 700 or so shooters in NC presently in Area 6. Benefit for Area 8 is that they now have lots of new venues far enough south that they can have more flexiblity as to when and where to host major matches. Area 7 gets much the same benefit but it still snows a lot in PA.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Charles Bond

[Jaxshooter]

In the whole scheme of things when you only get a 30% return of ballots that are mailed out with a printed return envelope and all you have to do is check a box and stamp and return it, there are not a whole lot of members that really care what happens. The way to change that is to become involved,vote and demand that the people you elect support what you want and fight for it. With Areas only having 1500 members having a vote equal to an Area with 3000 members something needs to be changed.

[BBoyle]

We have to get away from thinking that a member gets more representation because they have less members in an area and therefore there is more weight for that area.

Take the political climate out of the equation.

We are all shooters and we all support the 2nd amendment. I have been all over the east coast and shooters are shooters no matter where I am. Same converstations take place. You guys have those converstaions over better tasting barbeque and we have it over better Italian food.

In todays day and age an argument can be made that there is no need for areas at all. The membership can vote online and just have section coordinators elected. Championships can just be sectional with majors being east, central, west and then National. With less major maches I could argue that the major matches would be better because more people would participate, but they would have too wouldn't they?

We all saw what happened last time "Change" was used a a reason.

Brian

Edited September 27, 2010 by BBoyle

[vluc]

In the whole scheme of things when you only get a 30% return of ballots that are mailed out with a printed return envelope and all you have to do is check a box and stamp and return it, there are not a whole lot of members that really care what happens. The way to change that is to become involved,vote and demand that the people you elect support what you want and fight for it. With Areas only having 1500 members having a vote equal to an Area with 3000 members something needs to be changed.

If numbers, again, are the issue, pick an optimal one, provide justification for it, and present it to the BOD and let them vote on it. If number of clubs is a better one to use, then go with that, justify it, present it to the Board and let them vote.

So here is what we see numbers-wise from USPSA: Using your logic, Areas 3, 7 and 8 are "causing problems" due to the lower number of members they have. Areas 2 and 6 are outside the norm. Average is 2,335 members.

1 2320

2 3595

3 1503

4 2281

5 2494

6 3481

7 1246

8 1762

We see 2 areas well over the average (1146 to 1260 over), 3 areas under (from A8 at 573 to 832 to 1089), and 3 just about at the average number. You highlight A8 which has the lowest difference of the 3 clubs below the average. Should 3 and 7 have voter turnout at 30%, will they be called to task as well? If the other above or average areas get below 30% turnout when it is there time, will you call them out as well?

What, specifically, has been damaged or hindered due to these two areas having different numbers of members? No, better still, what has been damaged or hindered by Areas 3, 7 and 8 having less than the average number of members? Let's not just isolate one Area, let's look at all of them.

You've not presented one valid argument - no specific, cogent examples of what was not received or able to be done because Areas 3, 7 and 8 have an equal vote with 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.

Edited September 27, 2010 by vluc

[bgary]

What, specifically, has been damaged or hindered due to these two areas having different numbers of members?

Not a thing. It appears to be just another complete non-problem being stirred up, with no apparent connection to logic.

JMHO

[Charles Bond]

I am not going to replow the ground discussed before on this thread. Basically the creditability of the organization being governed by a democratic BOD is at issue. Allocation of resources is also a concern.

I get it that the guys from PA do not want to move. But the good of the whole exceeds the needs of the few. Members from PA logically see this as not their problem since they have kept their numbers high while a neighboring area has not kept pace.

When the membership of area 6 exceeds the membership of areas 7 and 8 combined, there is absolutely nothing that can be used to justify that situation remaining. And this is not just about area 6. Area 2 comes within just over a 100 members of being as large as areas 3 and 4 combined.

And if anyone thinks this does no harm think again. If the concept of one man one vote is not embedded in a group that holds the second amendment sacred, the concept of government in America is more broken than even I suspected.

[bgary]

It seems that, on nearly every thread you are involved in, you are the lone voice, and everyone else "doesn't understand the problem".

I think, with all "due" respect, you should perhaps try a little reflection to see if perhaps it is *you* who misunderstands the problems.

Just like in your dealings on The Board. It is positively amazing how many times the minutes reflect this pattern:

Roll call requested

A1 Yes

A2 Yes

A3 Yes

A4 Yes

A5 Yes

A6 No

A7 Yes

A8 Yes

Pres Yes

Does that mean that none of them are able to understand the problems that only you can see, too?

I think, perhaps, it is you who doesn't "get" what's wrong with the org.

Nothing personal. Just observing a pattern.

[vluc]

I am not going to replow the ground discussed before on this thread. Basically the creditability of the organization being governed by a democratic BOD is at issue. Allocation of resources is also a concern.

I get it that the guys from PA do not want to move. But the good of the whole exceeds the needs of the few. Members from PA logically see this as not their problem since they have kept their numbers high while a neighboring area has not kept pace.

When the membership of area 6 exceeds the membership of areas 7 and 8 combined, there is absolutely nothing that can be used to justify that situation remaining. And this is not just about area 6. Area 2 comes within just over a 100 members of being as large as areas 3 and 4 combined.

And if anyone thinks this does no harm think again. If the concept of one man one vote is not embedded in a group that holds the second amendment sacred, the concept of government in America is more broken than even I suspected.

Re-plow away. You still have not given examples. How is credibility at issue? Because USPSA will not agree to do something you want done on this issue means they have lost credibility? What resources have not been allocated properly? You were denied resources by the BOD? Specifics, please.

If PA were to be moved, such is life. I would hope that it would be available for discussion, that my AD would solicit and value my opinion and the opinions of the members in his Area and vote accordingly. If he loses that vote, then he loses the vote. I accept it - I may not like it, but I would accept it and not feel that it was a process that was undemocratic in any way.

I guess for you, USPSA members are all equal with areas having more members being more equal than others. Gee, with only 390 GM's in USPSA, maybe their votes should be reduced since there are more unclassified shooters in your area than there are GM's in USPSA.

If you are not getting the resources you feel you should be getting, perhaps it is your reasoning and planning that is at fault, not that another area has less members than you. If another area is not using all of their resources because the clubs are more self sufficient and do not ask for much from USPSA, that does not mean they are "taking" resources from you. Maybe it's not fair that certain Areas can have a longer shooting season due to weather and that impacts and influences resource allocation for the AD's.

There are more issues to this than a simplistic use of numbers. Population density, state laws affecting magazine capacity, ability to purchase firearms and components, local laws and club availability, weather, job and educational opportunities, etc. Perhaps your peers are looking at it through a wider gaze than you.

[Jim Norman]

I've been sitting back and just looking in on occasion.

I can see where we could someday reorganize our areas for two reasons. One would or MIGHT be for a more balanced membership, although that in and of itself is NOT a good idea since once that Genie is out, we will forever be reallocating. The other reason MIGHT be and I think this might make more sense is to make travel for the AD's and the members of an Area less onerous.

The way I look at the BOD is more like a Senate, where each State (Area) gets two, or in the case of USPSA one Senator or Area Director. We really don't have a House, but I suppose that within the Areas we COULD do some sort of balancing act with the number of clubs in a Section. I think I would stay away from trying to balance out the number of members. Our population shifts as we age and as different areas of the country change with respect to legal issues.

One could make an argument for NJ, NY and MA to be an Area with VT, ME, NH as an area since they are much less restrictive. That of course leaves CT and RI out. Then moving west we have IL which is very restrictive and CA which is arguable large enough to be an Area unto itself, Of course HI is as or more restrictive, so maybe we can have the CA/HI Area, then OR, WA, ID, and well you can see where this is going to go, No Where Fast.

Our Area Directors supposedly represent the members that reside in their Areas. That only 30% choose to vote is not much different from our country as a whole. The AD can represent his area properly by visiting his clubs, or at the very least hosting a Section Coordinators and MD meeting once a year. The MDs hear the members at large, the SCs hear the MDs and the ADs would get a condensed picture to act upon.

Then again I could be totally full of crap here.

I think we might have more pressing problems than realigning the Areas. I don't want to get off on a tangent so I'll leave this subject alone other than to say, let us pay attention to the things that NEED attention and worry about the other stuff when all the big problems are solved.

[vluc]

+1

[Nik Habicht]

Why would PA need to move? If we're really having an issue with 2/8 areas, why not split those two areas -- to essentially create ten areas.....

Then we can divide the pie ten ways, balance can be restored. Of course I remain unconvinced that this is really problem --- I'd be happier to consider it, if I heard additional feedback from some of the members residing in Area 6 or Area 2, that they feel disenfranchised by the current allocation....

[rgkeller]

A lot of Area Seven shooters do most of their shooting in Area Six it seems sometimes in the winter.

[Charles Bond]

Why would PA need to move? If we're really having an issue with 2/8 areas, why not split those two areas -- to essentially create ten areas.....

Then we can divide the pie ten ways, balance can be restored. Of course I remain unconvinced that this is really problem --- I'd be happier to consider it, if I heard additional feedback from some of the members residing in Area 6 or Area 2, that they feel disenfranchised by the current allocation....

Nik your idea had been previously considered. Adding two areas would of course add more cost to USPSA governance. I am not opposed to that since I believe that having the ADs in smaller areas is a good thing all the way around and would fuel USPSA growth more than enough to justify that. The problem that could arise here is the result at this point to do that might force directors into the same areas but I have really not looked at presenting a proposal to do that but if your AD would support it I would be glad to support it.

At the end of the day it is about equal voices. A member in NH should not have a voice larger than one in PA and the PA member should not have more authority than on in TN.

[Nik Habicht]

At the end of the day it is about equal voices. A member in NH should not have a voice larger than one in PA and the PA member should not have more authority than on in TN.

There's a fatal flaw in your logic here: Every member -- other than perhaps foreign members -- is represented by an area director; hence every member has equal representation. Now, some members may get differing attention from their ADs.....

I'm still not seeing an issue --- but then I tend to vote for candidates who I think have the best interests of organization at heart; a super successful Area 8 does me little good if it means that Area X is struggling or if the national organization is failing.....

I'm still waiting to hear from members who feel partially or wholly disenfranchised....

[vluc]

...I believe that having the ADs in smaller areas is a good thing all the way around and would fuel USPSA growth more than enough to justify that.

Sorry, explain how AD's grow USPSA? Clubs and shooters come in at the local level, via other MD's, shooters, and sometimes the SC. You earlier indicated that each member in A8 should get someone new to join. That sounds member-driven, unless the primary growth job of the AD is to encourage us to get more members. If you want the AD to take credit when new clubs (and their volunteer workers) come into USPSA, you have to take the hit when the clubs and the workers leave.

At the end of the day it is about equal voices. A member in NH should not have a voice larger than one in PA and the PA member should not have more authority than on in TN.

Like Nik, I still don't see where the issue is.

[vluc]

Adding two areas would of course add more cost to USPSA governance.

What is the cost to "govern" an Area? Is it a set dollar amount to address things as they arise, or is it a "by request" format? Mileage for AD's? Stipend? Just what costs go into overseeing an Area?

I really do not know, and I would be fairly certain that many (if not most) members do not know.

[Joe4d]

Actually I would expect my AD to take credit for new clubs, as I expect him/her to actively seek getting new club off the ground, and makes me a single issue voter in Area representation. Some areas dont have this issue but I live in a huge black hole in a large population center in the most gun friendly state in the Area.

The thinking process for change needs to take into account basic steps,

Significance,,,, is the problem significant.

Inherency, is the problem inherent to the system and does something need to change it,

Solvency, will the sugested change actually fix the original problem.

Other than the principle of numbers to rep, I still havent seen anything leading me to believe this is a significant problem.

[Charles Bond]

At the end of the day it is about equal voices. A member in NH should not have a voice larger than one in PA and the PA member should not have more authority than on in TN.

There's a fatal flaw in your logic here: Every member -- other than perhaps foreign members -- is represented by an area director; hence every member has equal representation. Now, some members may get differing attention from their ADs.....

I'm still not seeing an issue --- but then I tend to vote for candidates who I think have the best interests of organization at heart; a super successful Area 8 does me little good if it means that Area X is struggling or if the national organization is failing.....

I'm still waiting to hear from members who feel partially or wholly disenfranchised....

Given that the members of PA are currently super franchised, I doubt you are going to hear from them except to express satisfaction with what they have. I have certainly heard very well the voices of my members in Area 6.

When you observe that having a super successful area does little good if it means another area is struggling or the nationals is failing you are correct. We have trees to consider on an individual basis and we have to also take care of the forest. We do not do that by undermining the notion of what our forest is about or giving one or two of the foresters a much larger forest to oversee than the other foresters.

[Charles Bond]

Adding two areas would of course add more cost to USPSA governance.

What is the cost to "govern" an Area? Is it a set dollar amount to address things as they arise, or is it a "by request" format? Mileage for AD's? Stipend? Just what costs go into overseeing an Area?

I really do not know, and I would be fairly certain that many (if not most) members do not know.

Each director is given $3000.00 a year to use within the area and pay travel expenses to attend matches and meetings in the area and to provide support for the clubs therein. Each director attends two USPSA BOD meetings a year and that cost varies depending on the meeting location but cost of hotel and airfare and meals is going to likely average $1000.00 per meeting. Each director attends one nationals at the expense of USPSA and allow $600.00 for that (the director has to pay their own entry fee) so you are talking just under $6,000.00 a year.

This does not address other issues such as the cost of junior scholarships, range officer courses, etc.

The reality is that if I attend even most of the matches within my area in a year, I run out of travel money before I attend half of them. I have never sent in a voucher for all of the telephone calls I make and I average 3 emails a day (and yes that is 7 days a week) dealing with USPSA member issues. As we approach a BOD meeting, the pace and content of the email among the members of the BOD increases. Net loss to me serving as an AD has been between $1500 and $5000 a year depending on how busy I want to be and how much travel I have time for.

[Charles Bond]

The thinking process for change needs to take into account basic steps,

Significance,,,, is the problem significant.

Inherency, is the problem inherent to the system and does something need to change it,

Solvency, will the sugested change actually fix the original problem.

Other than the principle of numbers to rep, I still havent seen anything leading me to believe this is a significant problem.

If you subscribe to the concept that we should maintain the status quo, no matter how unequal the membership of the areas has become, and if, like a few others who have posted here you believe that the areas ought to reflect a senate like concept, do you find it logically inconsistent that we elect a President of USPSA by popular vote? Would it not be proper that if that is the path we are going to follow that in lieu of a popular vote we would rather elect a USPSA by one of the following methods:

1. Let the USPSA BOD elect him or her.

2. Let the members of each state vote and whoever wins in that state gets that state's vote so if we have a state that has 10 members that state has the same voice as a state with 1000 members.

3. Let the members of each area vote and whoever wins a majority of the areas gets that area's vote.

If we are going to decide USPSA policy by the vote of the BOD consisting of members of the BOD coming from areas with less than equal membership, should we not use the same method to elect a USPSA president?

The financial consequences of plan one would save USPSA thousands of dollars and plans two and three would cost the same as what we pay now since we would still mail just as many ballots but we would only count them differently so there is no question that there would not be any adverse financial impact to adopting one of these plans.

[vluc]

If we are going to decide USPSA policy by the vote of the BOD consisting of members of the BOD coming from areas with less than equal membership, should we not use the same method to elect a USPSA president?

Yes.

Our Section By-laws have the SC and Deputy SC elected by our BOD - the MD's of the member clubs. Not all member clubs have similar membership numbers or total USPSA shooters at their matches, but all have an equal voice in the Section. Not all choose to use their voice, but that is their choice.

Do all of your member clubs have an equal voice to you regardless of their size, attendance or club membership? Or are some more equal than others?

Edited September 29, 2010 by vluc

[wgnoyes]

It seems that, on nearly every thread you are involved in, you are the lone voice, and everyone else "doesn't understand the problem".

I think, with all "due" respect, you should perhaps try a little reflection to see if perhaps it is *you* who misunderstands the problems.

Just like in your dealings on The Board. It is positively amazing how many times the minutes reflect this pattern:

Roll call requested

A1 Yes

A2 Yes

A3 Yes

A4 Yes

A5 Yes

A6 No

A7 Yes

A8 Yes

Pres Yes

Does that mean that none of them are able to understand the problems that only you can see, too?

I think, perhaps, it is you who doesn't "get" what's wrong with the org.

Nothing personal. [Then why use the emoticon? -Bn] Just observing a pattern.

It's "positively amazing"? I'm sure you'll be happy to document for us exactly how many times this has happened, right? But before you do, consider this.

I've been recording secretary for 5 BoD meetings. Having watched these things first hand, I'm not sure how many times this so-called undesirable voting pattern has been repeated, but I certainly don't consider being the sole vote against some of the issues I've seen come and go to be anything requiring any sort of apology; rather, I believe Charles Bond was and is reflecting the the wishes and intent of the majority of the constituency that he represents. That is, he is doing his job in the best interests and traditions of USPSA, and I'm glad people like him volunteer their time and energy to serve the sport we all enjoy.

[wgnoyes]

... Would it not be proper that if that is the path we are going to follow that in lieu of a popular vote we would rather elect a USPSA by one of the following methods:

1. Let the USPSA BOD elect him or her.

...

Damn, that might not be a bad idea.

[Charles Bond]

It seems that, on nearly every thread you are involved in, you are the lone voice, and everyone else "doesn't understand the problem".

I think, with all "due" respect, you should perhaps try a little reflection to see if perhaps it is *you* who misunderstands the problems.

Just like in your dealings on The Board. It is positively amazing how many times the minutes reflect this pattern:

Roll call requested

A1 Yes

A2 Yes

A3 Yes

A4 Yes

A5 Yes

A6 No

A7 Yes

A8 Yes

Pres Yes

Does that mean that none of them are able to understand the problems that only you can see, too?

I think, perhaps, it is you who doesn't "get" what's wrong with the org.

Nothing personal. Just observing a pattern.

And that is a fair question.

I can tell you that at least one of the roll calls which had the pattern above concerned USPSA's purchase of SC. I voted against it then and I would vote against it now because of the price we were paying. The BOD then subsequently agreed, with exactly the same voting pattern, to keep the price we paid secret.

Keep in mind that this is a nonprofit organization run by a board elected by the membership. If the members are not entitled to know how much they are paying for something, the entire process becomes a star chamber and elections of these representatives are meaningless.

Same thing with areas being a equally balanced as possible. If the BOD is to represent the will of the membership, there has to be balance to the process.

Please note that I am not inviting an outcry as to the wisdom of the SC purchase. My point is simply that I believe members deserve to know what is going on in the organization of USPSA becasue it is THEIR organization. The concept of it being THEIR organization is undermined if members of the BOD who represent a small number of members have the same vote as those who represent a body of members two or three times a large.