USPSA Area representation

[vluc]

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.

Members do deserve to know what is going on in the organization. That thought, though, exists regardless of the size of the individual areas. What if Areas which, under your scenario have more votes than others, vote to keep things secret while those smaller ones vote for public views? I can very easily see a scenario where that could happen - where smaller areas voices are not heard.

Imagine A2 and A6 with 3 votes each to other areas having one, Pres has 1 vote. 3 individuals could set the direction regardless of what 6 other votes have to say. Do those two areas speak for the other 6, is their opinion truly worth more than the others? So here we have a minority numbers-wise (3 vs 6) and we are right back to square one with you on the other side of the argument - should you and 2 other people be the decision-makers for USPSA because you have greater number of votes assigned to you due to membership in your areas?

[wgnoyes]

Or maybe just do what the original simple idea was to redraw the Area lines to get more equal representation of population?

[rgkeller]

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.

Members do deserve to know what is going on in the organization. That thought, though, exists regardless of the size of the individual areas. What if Areas which, under your scenario have more votes than others, vote to keep things secret while those smaller ones vote for public views? I can very easily see a scenario where that could happen - where smaller areas voices are not heard.

Imagine A2 and A6 with 3 votes each to other areas having one, Pres has 1 vote. 3 individuals could set the direction regardless of what 6 other votes have to say. Do those two areas speak for the other 6, is their opinion truly worth more than the others? So here we have a minority numbers-wise (3 vs 6) and we are right back to square one with you on the other side of the argument - should you and 2 other people be the decision-makers for USPSA because you have greater number of votes assigned to you due to membership in your areas?

what do you have against redrawing Area lines to achieve equal member numbers?

[JThompson]

The solution is simple... we need to have "recruiters" that work with the Areas that need more members. We put the time and money to build up those Area's. We do stuff like sponsor open houses and provide ammo and guns and get people to come out... part of what you do there is to show them all the different shooting disciplines while they are there. Tri County does that once a year and it get's them a whole bunch of new members and more USPSA shooters as well. The USPSA demo and shoot is one of the most popular stages in the open house.

I say we table this whole discussion and put forth ways on how to build membership in those Areas that have smaller numbers. We need to do that for all the Areas as well, but I think the initial push should be in the lower attendance Areas. What's that old saying....? You have to spend money to make money. How about FREE classes for NRA basic pistol (cost $20 for the packet) and then we do USPSA/IPSC demos in the class and do recruitment from within those classes via film and demo.

Look, I just think all the energy on representation could be better spent on getting those Areas up to or past what we now have in any Area. THE BOD needs to think seriously about spending some money on adds and recruitment in all the forms it deems will help membership. I know they are doing the Junior stuff and some other worthy programs. I think there is a whole lot more that could be done. Perhaps form a committe of committed shooters and have them present ideas to the BOD. Try one or two of those ideas on a limited basis and see how spending a few dollars goes... We need to commit to growing the sport and not pointing any fingers, but I think we could be doing a LOT more than what we are doing now.

We have an awesome product and we need to market it better. I hope I have not offended anyone here or at Sedro, but I love this sport and want to see it grow... it is growning, but I think we can do better!!

JT

Edited September 29, 2010 by JThompson

[vluc]

what do you have against redrawing Area lines to achieve equal member numbers?

I have nothing against redrawing Area lines if there is truly a problem that exists throughout USPSA and if equal membership numbers will address whatever this issue(s) is (still don't know what the issue is).

I've yet to see a valid argument made for using numbers as the rationale for it that does not deal with A6 and A8. I hear no solid facts being given for why it needs to be done - or why it should be done for all of USPSA.

I'm not from Missouri, but show me. Facts, not philosophical discussions and comments, facts. As I stated before, show me how an area has been hurt by this difference in membership numbers. Then show me how equal members would fix it. I'd like to see information on actual shooter participation, not raw membership numbers. You can have 3000 members but only a small percentage of them actively shooting.

And I would like to see comments from other Area Directors to see if they see this the same way. They have been remarkably silent.

Edited September 29, 2010 by ima45dv8

[vluc]

I say we table this whole discussion and put forth ways on how to build membership in those Areas that have smaller numbers.

Not a flame, JT.

Smaller numbers of what? Raw membership numbers or active participants? Number of clubs? Number of matches per month? Any one would be an arbitrary choice as the problem has not been identified. Maybe a formula can be developed that takes these and other factors into account.

This thread developed from a comment made by an outgoing AD about voter participation in two areas at the recent elections. No comment about the uncontested candidate in another, and I wonder what the voter participation was in that area. God forbid it be less than 30%.

Regardless, the issue seems to revolve around one area feeling it should have a greater voice due to higher numbers of raw members than another area. No facts and supportive information as to why, or what is happening to that area due directly to another area having smaller membership.

[rgkeller]

what do you have against redrawing Area lines to achieve equal member numbers?

I have nothing against redrawing Area lines if there is truly a problem that exists throughout USPSA and if equal membership numbers will address whatever this issue(s) is (still don't know what the issue is).

I've yet to see a valid argument made for using numbers as the rationale for it that does not deal with A6 and A8. I hear no solid facts being given for why it needs to be done - or why it should be done for all of USPSA.

I'm not from Missouri, but show me. Facts, not philosophical discussions and comments, facts. As I stated before, show me how an area has been hurt by this difference in membership numbers. Then show me how equal members would fix it. I'd like to see information on actual shooter participation, not raw membership numbers. You can have 3000 members but only a small percentage of them actively shooting.

And I would like to see comments from other Area Directors to see if they see this the same way. They have been remarkably silent.

Well, the FACT is that Areas are unequal in terms of dues paying members and equal in terms of monies given to Areas by USPSA.

And it is a FACT that the Area boundaries were arbitrarily drawn.

Edited September 29, 2010 by ima45dv8

[vluc]

what do you have against redrawing Area lines to achieve equal member numbers?

I have nothing against redrawing Area lines if there is truly a problem that exists throughout USPSA and if equal membership numbers will address whatever this issue(s) is (still don't know what the issue is).

I've yet to see a valid argument made for using numbers as the rationale for it that does not deal with A6 and A8. I hear no solid facts being given for why it needs to be done - or why it should be done for all of USPSA.

I'm not from Missouri, but show me. Facts, not philosophical discussions and comments, facts. As I stated before, show me how an area has been hurt by this difference in membership numbers. Then show me how equal members would fix it. I'd like to see information on actual shooter participation, not raw membership numbers. You can have 3000 members but only a small percentage of them actively shooting.

And I would like to see comments from other Area Directors to see if they see this the same way. They have been remarkably silent.

Well, the FACT is that Areas are unequal in terms of dues paying members and equal in terms of monies given to Areas by USPSA.

And it is a FACT that the Area boundaries were arbitrarily drawn.

And this is a problem how? Due to these "facts" you state, what is your area not getting because A3, 7 and 8 has fewer members? What is your area not getting because 2 has more members?

Would it not be a fact that using "equal numbers of members" is just as arbitrary in deciding boundaries?

C'mon, specifics. Is there a match that you could not put on because you did not get funds for it due to 3/7/8 having fewer members? Is there a club that could not put on an RO Seminar because of lower numbers in other areas? Is there a Junior shooter who could not get a scholarship because your AD spent all of the resources he had on other things and came up short, and that is due to the lower numbers in other areas?

You are wanting to lay blame for whatever on other areas having fewer members and I don't buy it. Those smaller areas may have fewer members but they may shoot 2x as much as another area, pumping revenue into USPSA.

Edited September 29, 2010 by ima45dv8

[JThompson]

I say we table this whole discussion and put forth ways on how to build membership in those Areas that have smaller numbers.

Not a flame, JT.

Smaller numbers of what? Raw membership numbers or active participants? Number of clubs? Number of matches per month? Any one would be an arbitrary choice as the problem has not been identified. Maybe a formula can be developed that takes these and other factors into account.

This thread developed from a comment made by an outgoing AD about voter participation in two areas at the recent elections. No comment about the uncontested candidate in another, and I wonder what the voter participation was in that area. God forbid it be less than 30%.

Regardless, the issue seems to revolve around one area feeling it should have a greater voice due to higher numbers of raw members than another area. No facts and supportive information as to why, or what is happening to that area due directly to another area having smaller membership.

I'm not talking about any "problem" as I said, table that stuff as far as I'm concerned. I'm talking about the number of shooters in each Area. I don't have to quantify what that means. It means what it means. You posted the numbers yourself. What I'm saying is let's leave it alone and bring the numbers up.

This thread has taken on a nasty edge and imo it should be locked down.

JT

Edited September 29, 2010 by JThompson

[rgkeller]

If you do not believe that drastically unequal representation is not an issue in and of itself, then certainly I will not be able to convince you otherwise.

[Flexmoney]

Take a breath, and relax folks.

This is just a discussion forum.

- Admin.

[rgkeller]

BTW, using numbers from the USPSA website, five of the eight areas represent less than half of total area represented USPSA members.

[ima45dv8]

The tone of this thread is getting further and further from the level of civilty required here. I just set a few posts to an invisible state pending some editing.

Descriptions of other participants posts being "whining" are not called for or allowed. If you can't express your differing viewpoint any better than that, don't post.

Attitude

Please be polite. Or if not polite, at least respectful.

No bickering. Regardless of the subject matter.

Antagonistic, offensive, or quarrelsome tones are not acceptable.

[wgnoyes]

Well in terms of promoting outside our own sport (otherwise known as preaching to folks not already in the choir), at the GSSF Annual Match this last weekend, we put on a "taste of IPSC" side match at the shoothouse in bay 9, just as we usually do. You pay your money, we hand you a glock and a full mag of 9mm, and you run the stage. This GSSF match shattered all previous records by getting 744 (SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR!) entries, so if even 10% of those people went through the shoothouse (and I'm guessing it was more), then 75 people who formerly didn't even know how to SPELL "USPSA" now know about it.

[Flexmoney]

Bill, can you get ahold of, and post, the stage description/diagram that you used for USPSA at GSSF ?

Something like that might be handy.

[wgnoyes]

It's based on a lot of semi-permanent walls and doorways that always occupy one entire bay at south river gun club, but I'll see if I can get it from Larry Turner.

[JThompson]

Well in terms of promoting outside our own sport (otherwise known as preaching to folks not already in the choir), at the GSSF Annual Match this last weekend, we put on a "taste of IPSC" side match at the shoothouse in bay 9, just as we usually do. You pay your money, we hand you a glock and a full mag of 9mm, and you run the stage. This GSSF match shattered all previous records by getting 744 (SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR!) entries, so if even 10% of those people went through the shoothouse (and I'm guessing it was more), then 75 people who formerly didn't even know how to SPELL "USPSA" now know about it.

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.... If we get a model that works, we duplicate it across the US. It would be nice if we could get a bit of sponsorship from the USPSA to help with ammo and incidentals.

JT

[wgnoyes]

The separate entry fee paid the expenses. We didn't need sponsorship for this, we just did it.

Edited September 30, 2010 by wgnoyes

[wgnoyes]

Here's the stage. As I said, lots of semi-permanent setup for this one.

[Flexmoney]

The separate entry fee paid the expenses. We didn't need sponsorship for this, we just did it.

Yeah, with a loaner Glock... WWB is around $10 per hundred at Wallyworld?

$3-5 a shooter/run should cover ammo, targets, paint,etc. (Maybe $2 if you are just looking to recover the cost of reloading components for the donor.)

=======

I figured the loaded, table start. Seems prudent.

I like one piece of steel and a swinger. And, no reload.

How did they do on the steel (enough bullets to get through the 15 round cof?) ? Since they all shoot GSSF, I would suppose they'd do OK on the steel (not true newbies).

Thanks, Bill.

[since we are likely drifting the thread...remind me to split this out]

[wgnoyes]

Actually it was one of Cindy's company Gen4 guns. (I keep finding Glocks around here I've never seen before!) The ammo I'm guessing came from Glock and it was probably Atlanta Arms. I don't know how anyone did. I know the makeup of this is they keep score for an hour at a time, and at the end of the hour, high overall for that shift gets a glock merchandise prize. You can re-enter all you want during the hour.

[Charles Bond]

It is because of the extra efforts of folks like Bill and Cindy Noyes and many others just like them who host club matches within Area 6 that our membership keeps growing at a rate well in excess of that in other areas. Giving GSSF shooters an opportunity for "A taste of USPSA" is exactly the type of grass roots marketing that will grow members.

[JThompson]

It is because of the extra efforts of folks like Bill and Cindy Noyes and many others just like them who host club matches within Area 6 that our membership keeps growing at a rate well in excess of that in other areas. Giving GSSF shooters an opportunity for "A taste of USPSA" is exactly the type of grass roots marketing that will grow members.

I agree Charles...

The thing is, a lot of us give what time we can (and more) and we are still coming up short of where we need to be.... I think we need to look at other ways of getting people to help us. If that requires some sort of stipend, and we can afford it, I say let's look at it. We are already asking a lot from our members as a "volunteer" organization. At what point do we say, hey, let's put some of this cash back out to help take the load off our members/trainers etc. Look at hiring an Ad agency, have the USPSA help with adds in local papers and other media for means of getting more people to come out. Try and pay a couple people in one of the lower membership areas to promote events and coordinate an add campaign etc... I'm just throwing stuff at the wall here, but it seems as if we might be able to do more than we are. Our A5 match sent in around $1200 for one match, how about we look at taking a portion of those fees and allowing us to use it for construction, props etc.. If it's one thing we ALWAYS lack, at matches, it's help. I would have loved to had $600 or so to use contracting someone to build the 160 walls it took us several days to build. I think there is more we can do to help these people that are already busting their ass to help grow the USPSA. At what point is the organization large enough to help take the burden from the membership? There are a lot of people who are already stretched to the limit, be that AD, RMIs, MD, RM... or just getting enough guys to help setup a big match. There are Area's which have a great deal more volunteer help than others, some would say they do a better job of recruiting, while that may be true, does the reason really matter? We need to get butts on the range, however we need to do that. Every club and or Area are not as fortunate to have the help of people like Bill and Cindy... maybe the USPSA needs to look into cloning technology. The bottom line is that we are starved for qualified people who have sufficient time or inclination to help or promote. That is an area that needs to be looked into... hell, I'm sure it is, but the I haven't heard anything thus far.

I don't mind working to help the sport and there are a lot of people who have given more for a lot more years, but I think we could make their jobs a little easier if we put our minds, and perhaps, some USPSA dollars toward our goals.

Respectfully,

JT

Edited October 1, 2010 by JThompson

[Charles Bond]

It is because of the extra efforts of folks like Bill and Cindy Noyes and many others just like them who host club matches within Area 6 that our membership keeps growing at a rate well in excess of that in other areas. Giving GSSF shooters an opportunity for "A taste of USPSA" is exactly the type of grass roots marketing that will grow members.

I agree Charles...

The thing is, a lot of us give what time we can (and more) and we are still coming up short of where we need to be.... I think we need to look at other ways of getting people to help us. If that requires some sort of stipend, and we can afford it, I say let's look at it. We are already asking a lot from our members as a "volunteer" organization. At what point do we say, hey, let's put some of this cash back out to help take the load off our members/trainers etc. Look at hiring an Ad agency, have the USPSA help with adds in local papers and other media for means of getting more people to come out. Try and pay a couple people in one of the lower membership areas to promote events and coordinate an add campaign etc... I'm just throwing stuff at the wall here, but it seems as if we might be able to do more than we are. Our A5 match sent in around $1200 for one match, how about we look at taking a portion of those fees and allowing us to use it for construction, props etc.. If it's one thing we ALWAYS lack, at matches, it's help. I would have loved to had $600 or so to use contracting someone to build the 160 walls it took us several days to build. I think there is more we can do to help these people that are already busting their ass to help grow the USPSA. At what point is the organization large enough to help take the burden from the membership? There are a lot of people who are already stretched to the limit, be that AD, RMIs, MD, RM... or just getting enough guys to help setup a big match. There are Area's which have a great deal more volunteer help than others, some would say they do a better job of recruiting, while that may be true, does the reason really matter? We need to get butts on the range, however we need to do that. Every club and or Area are not as fortunate to have the help of people like Bill and Cindy... maybe the USPSA needs to look into cloning technology. The bottom line is that we are starved for qualified people who have sufficient time or inclination to help or promote. That is an area that needs to be looked into... hell, I'm sure it is, but the I haven't heard anything thus far.

I don't mind working to help the sport and there are a lot of people who have given more for a lot more years, but I think we could make their jobs a little easier if we put our minds, and perhaps, some USPSA dollars toward our goals.

Respectfully,

JT

And all I can say to that is "AMEN"!

I have sat though far too many BOD meetings where we would discuss many of the ideas you set forth here only to be told why we could "not" do something. Sometimes someone wuuld raise a cost objection but would propose something the next meeting which cost much more and I have heard at just about every meeting how dangerous it is to establsh a "precedent" and these ideas hit the skids.

We have some faces changing on the BOD. Call or write or email your AD. Some read and post here but most do not so do not assume you have communicated anything to any decision maker because there is something posted.

And maybe that is the real reason I am such an advocate of equlaization of the areas by membership numbers. I just want every AD to get as many emails as do it.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Charles Bond

[wgnoyes]

... At what point do we say, hey, let's put some of this cash back out to help take the load off our members/trainers etc. Look at hiring an Ad agency, ...

I'm so amazed at how much USPSA does along these lines never gets down to member level awareness simply because of the totally substandard way things are communicated between the Bod, Sedro Woolley, and the customer membership. We've had an ad agency for a couple of years now, and based on JThompson's note (no slam here at all, JT), no one knows it.