USPSA Area representation

[rgkeller]

... 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.

Maybe because the ad agency has done little or nothing worthwhile.

[wgnoyes]

No, I can't let that stand. Paul Erhardt busts his ass publicizing USPSA and Steel Challenge to the press and also at the Shot Show, NRA Convention, and other gatherings. Part of the result was all the list of positive local news pieces about practical shooting that WERE available before uspsa.org got revamped a couple of days ago. He would currently be up to his nose right now doing local and regional press releases and similar publicity on the nationals, who's going, etc. He'll be busy at the nationals sending out targeted news flashes on how the match is progressing, who's leading, etc. Additional examples of what he does on the USPSA Facebook Page. Steel Challenge Shooting Association. Women of USPSA. Check the Media Room at uspsa.org. No, he's doing quite a lot, and we will not pretend or accuse otherwise.

[rgkeller]

So it's PR and not advertising.

[wgnoyes]

One and the same.

[Rob Boudrie]

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:

I don't think it's fair to criticize an AD for not voting with the herd. Each of Charles' votes were based on sincerely held opinions, and were motivated by his desire to do the best job he could for the organization. Who knows - there may be some of them where history will prove he was right and I was wrong.

I think heading towards more equal representation is a good idea, however, my concern is that this is something that we need to involve the members in and not "surprise" anyone with. Logically, it could make sense for A7 to pick up NJ and PA - it would give a contiguous block, and put three of the capacity limitied states (MA, NY and NJ) in one area.

The problem is the long established identity of an "area", and the scope of geography of coverage people travel from for an Area Championship. Change will not be welcomed by all, but we can make sure that everyone understands the issue and is given a chance to let their AD know their opinion.

Once every N years (perhaps every 10) would probably make sense, with a report of the proposed area changes to be generated one year before the time for the scheduled updating.

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.

Actually, it's a matter of every member feeling they should have the same voice. The proposal Charles has made is redrawing area boundaries so that each AD represents approximately the same number of people.

USPSA is unique in the action shooting sports - try joining any of the other action sports (IDPA, SASS, TSA, etc.) and ask when you get your ballot The one non-USPSA action shooting organization (other than the NRA via the Bianchi Cup) that does have election only elects representatives who may make non-binding suggestions to the unelected leadership. USPSA has always treated every member's vote as important - which is why we hire a CPA firm to tabulate election results even though we could do it more cheaply in-house.

[bgary]

I don't think it's fair to criticize an AD for not voting with the herd. Each of Charles' votes were based on sincerely held opinions, and were motivated by his desire to do the best job he could for the organization.

Perhaps. But in each of the threads I've seen, the AD in question has proposed a "solution" to something that only he appears to think is a problem, and then argues it with an apprently already-made-up mind (as evidenced by the fact that he doesn't appear to accept any member input that differs from his own conculsion). That's not what comes to mind when I think of a representative government.

I thought our ADs were supposed to speak for us, not tell us what we should think and ignore our rsponse. The irony is this is a thread about how to make sure each area's representation can better serve the members.

[rgkeller]

I don't think it's fair to criticize an AD for not voting with the herd. Each of Charles' votes were based on sincerely held opinions, and were motivated by his desire to do the best job he could for the organization.

Perhaps. But in each of the threads I've seen, the AD in question has proposed a "solution" to something that only he appears to think is a problem, and then argues it with an apprently already-made-up mind (as evidenced by the fact that he doesn't appear to accept any member input that differs from his own conculsion). That's not what comes to mind when I think of a representative government.

I thought our ADs were supposed to speak for us, not tell us what we should think and ignore our rsponse. The irony is this is a thread about how to make sure each area's representation can better serve the members.

You can be assured that Mr. Bond speaks for most Area Six members.

[Nik Habicht]

You can be assured that Mr. Bond speaks for most Area Six members.

Based on ballot returns in Area 6 in the last few elections, I'm not assured that "most Area 6 members" give a hoot about anything Area 6 or USPSA related....

And really, lest you think I'm singling out A6 or Mr. Bond, that statement could apply to all areas and the USPSA as a whole.....

I did get to talk to more than a few A8 members while running for the Board a few years ago -- and there wasn't a whole lot of agreement on anything past "Shooting USPSA is fun...." :D

[Flexmoney]

This thread isn't about Charles.

Please post on topic from here on out.

Thanks,

Kyle F.

Forum Administrator

[rgkeller]

deleted per instructions

Edited October 3, 2010 by rgkeller

[Charles Bond]

I did get to talk to more than a few A8 members while running for the Board a few years ago -- and there wasn't a whole lot of agreement on anything past "Shooting USPSA is fun...." :D

Hard to disagree with that statement Nik.

Keep in mind that USPSA's membership is one number, it's shooting membership is another. Particiaption in matches depends on a number of factors. While I think that our participation in elections should be much higher, our members are at least 35% more likely to cast a ballot in the area director elections than citizens are for president.

I have been lucky to have during my term as AD the regular advice of a rather gifted group of USPSA leaders from my area as well as volunteers from outside my area. It has been their work and their efforts that has made shooting USPSA so much fun. If we follow the advice of the volunteers in the trenches making USPSA work on redrawing the lines of the areas, we validate their efforts. And while I often hear varied opinions from my area leadership on a number of issues, I have not had a single one offer a discouraging word about the wisdom of redrawing area boundaries.

[Nik Habicht]

I did get to talk to more than a few A8 members while running for the Board a few years ago -- and there wasn't a whole lot of agreement on anything past "Shooting USPSA is fun...." :D

Hard to disagree with that statement Nik.

Keep in mind that USPSA's membership is one number, it's shooting membership is another. Particiaption in matches depends on a number of factors. While I think that our participation in elections should be much higher, our members are at least 35% more likely to cast a ballot in the area director elections than citizens are for president.

I have been lucky to have during my term as AD the regular advice of a rather gifted group of USPSA leaders from my area as well as volunteers from outside my area. It has been their work and their efforts that has made shooting USPSA so much fun. If we follow the advice of the volunteers in the trenches making USPSA work on redrawing the lines of the areas, we validate their efforts. And while I often hear varied opinions from my area leadership on a number of issues, I have not had a single one offer a discouraging word about the wisdom of redrawing area boundaries.

Have they realized that they'd probably be realigned, i.e. that part of the area would join Virginia in Area 8, and that the rest of Area 6 would likely move much farther west? If we determine that realignment by members is the way to go, then the areas would really change.....

[Charles Bond]

Area 6 would and should shrink. NC would move into your 8 and TN into Area 5. I have not heard a single objection to such a move.

Keep in mind that if your from VA and you presently shoot in Area 8 or Area 6 or both, this change would do nothing to change that. It does however change your AD which servies your club and your personal needs with USPSA.

If I were a member in Area 8, I would be rather excited about having match venues further to the south which would allow additional shooting venues for an area championship that could be held in months tradtitionally not choosen in the more northern areas due to climate.

But at the end of the day this is not about what is good for one or two states but rather USPSA overall.

[spanky]

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?

times 2.5. :-O Edited October 6, 2010 by spanky

[Nik Habicht]

Area 6 would and should shrink. NC would move into your 8 and TN into Area 5. I have not heard a single objection to such a move.

Keep in mind that if your from VA and you presently shoot in Area 8 or Area 6 or both, this change would do nothing to change that. It does however change your AD which servies your club and your personal needs with USPSA.

If I were a member in Area 8, I would be rather excited about having match venues further to the south which would allow additional shooting venues for an area championship that could be held in months tradtitionally not choosen in the more northern areas due to climate.

But at the end of the day this is not about what is good for one or two states but rather USPSA overall.

Since we'd also need to deal with shrinking Area 2, and increasing Areas 3,7,and 8 --- it would be a lot more complicated than just moving NC and TN. In the first place, nothing should move to Area 5, as A5 is already within the statistical norm....

I couldn't find membership by state data on USPSA.org -- but I did spend about 20 minutes looking at clubs per state. Those trends seem to (mostly) mirror the population data -- though I'm concerned that the California and Arizona numbers could be seriously skewed. If we reorganized with the goal of leveling out by number of clubs, and if we resist breaking states into 2 or more parts, here's what the new eight areas would look like:

A1 = Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Utah = 46 clubs, the average number

A2 = California, Arizona, Hawaii = 44 clubs

A3 = Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, and Iowa = 47 clubs

A4 = Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma = 48 clubs

A5 = Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan = 46 clubs

A6 = Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas = 46 clubs

A7 = Maine (new Hampshire), Vermont, Massachusetts, (Rhode Island), Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland = 44 clubs

A8 = Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia = 47 clubs

Area 7 would need to become huge -- to get the numbers up. With the realignment, Area 2 might still be too large in membership numbers and Area 3 too small....

Either way, it would require a fundamental shift in area boundaries....

[mikegot38]

I have been watching this discussion and am still not sure what the problem is that needs to be corrected. However, the problem with doing a redistricting by clubs is it fails to take into account the number of USPSA members at any given club ie Guthsville in PA before it folded only had 4 USPSA members while another USPSA club may have 25 members. It also does not take into account that USPSA members such as myself will often belong to more that 1 USPSA club ie Guthsville and Topton in PA. If there is to be redistricting, I would suggest it be done on state USPSA population. I do not know what the "right" answer is or if this even needs to be done but I welcome the discussion and will still shoot larger matches whenever I can regardless of the "Area" in which they are located.

Nik:

Is you email address still the same as it has been for years? I would like to discuss a potential new club with you. Thanks.

Mike

[rgkeller]

Members by state was in the old USPSA website so the info would be available to the Board.

[Nik Habicht]

If there is to be redistricting, I would suggest it be done on state USPSA population. I do not know what the "right" answer is or if this even needs to be done but I welcome the discussion and will still shoot larger matches whenever I can regardless of the "Area" in which they are located.

Mike

I'd support that approach as well, but when I took a quick look I only had club data available by state, not individual member by state data....

I put that together just to get a rough idea of what we'd end up with --- though if California has 10% of USPSA members, then maybe it becomes an area with just Hawaii, or with Hawaii and Oregon....

[Chuck Anderson]

If there is to be redistricting, I would suggest it be done on state USPSA population. I do not know what the "right" answer is or if this even needs to be done but I welcome the discussion and will still shoot larger matches whenever I can regardless of the "Area" in which they are located.

Mike

I'd support that approach as well, but when I took a quick look I only had club data available by state, not individual member by state data....

I put that together just to get a rough idea of what we'd end up with --- though if California has 10% of USPSA members, then maybe it becomes an area with just Hawaii, or with Hawaii and Oregon....

Absolutely not. I've always said Hawaii is more than welcome in Area 1, but California can stay in Area 2.

All kidding aside, this is one of the issues that can come up with re-districting. I live in Oregon, Chris lives in California. If the decision was to make Oregon and California one Area, who would be AD for this Area, who would be AD for the other, leftover states? It's not quite as easy to re-district as it is to come up with the area's in the first place.

I really don't have an opinion on this yet. My area is right in the middle numbers wise and would really effect A1 members that much. I have never had anyone from my area tell me they felt over or under represented and we need to change things. Then again, I haven't been an AD for as long as Charles.

[Charles Bond]

Nik there are lots of ways to do it but doing it by clubs would not work despite all the time you put into that example. I had only addressed the areas you mentioned because effect on your area and mine was all you addressed.

And Area 7 would not be "huge". Drive from Maine to DC and your only half way across Texas.

[Nik Habicht]

And Area 7 would not be "huge". Drive from Maine to DC and your only half way across Texas.

Better check those facts --- it's 600 miles from Augusta in southern Maine to DC....

Texas looks to be ~ 800 miles across, starting from El Paso and heading east....

I get that in the west distances are often considerably longer; while equidistant drives probably take longer on the coasts due to congestion....

[Nik Habicht]

Absolutely not. I've always said Hawaii is more than welcome in Area 1, but California can stay in Area 2.

Ca would stay in A2; but A1 might have to give up Oregon to form the new Area....

All kidding aside, this is one of the issues that can come up with re-districting. I live in Oregon, Chris lives in California. If the decision was to make Oregon and California one Area, who would be AD for this Area, who would be AD for the other, leftover states? It's not quite as easy to re-district as it is to come up with the area's in the first place.

I really don't have an opinion on this yet. My area is right in the middle numbers wise and would really effect A1 members that much. I have never had anyone from my area tell me they felt over or under represented and we need to change things. Then again, I haven't been an AD for as long as Charles.

My take is that if we wanted to really pursue it, we should discuss whether we'd be better off splitting areas -- creating more -- or redistricting. If redistricting, it should probably take place at some point in the future, so that we can plan the election cycles properly....

Would that require a bylaws change?

[Nik Habicht]

Might it be simpler to allocate resources -- or a portion of resources at least -- by area membership?

[rgkeller]

The issue at hand is that five members of the governing board can make binding decisions on the organization while representing less than half of the members.

[Charles Bond]

Nik I am fine with considering alterate proposals including adding more areas. But we are way overdue to make this decision and to be fair to the sitting directors and the ones who will stand election this year, the USPSA BOD needs to make a decision at this meeting before we have a deadline date to qualify to run for AD.