USPSA Area representation

[Chuck Anderson]

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....

So how would that work, Area 1's Director lives in Oregon. Would Area 1 need to suddenly elect a new director, would the director live outside the area? This is one of the problems we run into with this and one of the reasons the conversation has stalled before. If someone has a good answer to this let me know.

[rgkeller]

Simple enough.

Grandfather the existing ADs until the next election.

Or keep Oregon and its hundred members in the existing Area until the next election.

[Chuck Anderson]

Simple enough.

Grandfather the existing ADs until the next election.

Or keep Oregon and its hundred members in the existing Area until the next election.

Yes, Oregon and it's lowly 100 members. We have club matches with 80-100 people. I'd be curious how many shooters there actually are in Florida. I know what the numbers say but I'm sure some are Life or 5 year members that retired to Florida to wait to die like half the rest of the state.

You solution would have an AD voting to section off part of his area that he will no longer represent. Additionally some Areas have assets. Whether they are financial, or material. Some Areas retain a fund to help put on their Area match each year. Most will have some props or supplies that are owned by the Area and moved from Area match to Area match. There are issues there. It's not quite as simple as you seem to think.

There seem to be three options proposed so far.

1. Re-draw Area boundaries based on the current population of shooters. Each would have an average of 2200ish members.

2. Add two Area's, splitting Area 4 and 6 into two. This would give USPSA 10 Areas instead of the current 8.

3. Do nothing.

Each of the first two have financial impacts. Some would fall on the Area, some would fall on USPSA. Number 2 would seem the best option to me but would carry a price tag in the low five figures. Without more concrete financial numbers, I'm not willing to make my mind up on this. I highly doubt those figure will be available by the November BOD meeting since most of the Sedro staff that would get them for us are busy with the Nationals for the next two weeks.

[rgkeller]

If the BOD wants to solve the problem, they can.

If the BOD wants to ignore the issue, they can find plenty of details and reasons to punt again.

[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....

So how would that work, Area 1's Director lives in Oregon. Would Area 1 need to suddenly elect a new director, would the director live outside the area? This is one of the problems we run into with this and one of the reasons the conversation has stalled before. If someone has a good answer to this let me know.

Easy enough -- though it might require a bylaws modification: Make the decision for how to do it now. Plan for realigning areas every x years. Make x a multiple of the current AD's terms of office. Modify the bylaws to allow for the election of new directors from the new areas; with the proviso that those directors take office in year one of the realignment. Perhaps incorporate some of the current language -- that if a current director is running unopposed you deal with it without an election, as long as they are running for their future area unopposed. (So, if Chris were to decide not to run, and Oregon moved to Area 2, and you were running unopposed, you'd have a somewhat different territory/area...)

Then schedule the implementation for a reasonable point in the future -- say 2012 at the earliest. That would mean multiple, and probably expensive election in 2011, but it could be done...

[Nik Habicht]

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.

I'm still not seeing the problem -- that happens in the senate all the time. Perhaps it's time for the USPSA BOD to be just that -- Directors at large. Simple solution, every member is represented by every director....

I've provided input on multiple decisions over the years, on some just through my area director, on other occasions by writing the entire BOD. Some directors (outside of A8) were responsive, others not so much.....

I'm not in favor of anything that divides us further.....

[Charles Bond]

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.

I'm still not seeing the problem -- that happens in the senate all the time. Perhaps it's time for the USPSA BOD to be just that -- Directors at large. Simple solution, every member is represented by every director....

The difference is what goes on in the US Senate is balanced by what goes on in the House of Representatives where nothing passes that is not supported by a majority of the elected representatives of a majority of the population. The Senate was created as a check to insure that the rights of the individual states were respected.

Directors at large would result in a majority of the BOD being from California and who would carry out the duties within the areas that ADs do now?

[Flexmoney]

The difference is what goes on in the US Senate is balanced by what goes on in the House of Representatives where nothing passes that is not supported by a majority of the elected representatives of a majority of the population. The Senate was created as a check to insure that the rights of the individual states were respected.

Directors at large would result in a majority of the BOD being from California and who would carry out the duties within the areas that ADs do now?

I've always thought, but never cared to say, that to represent that model, we'd need a House of Section Coordinators.

[vluc]

The difference is what goes on in the US Senate is balanced by what goes on in the House of Representatives where nothing passes that is not supported by a majority of the elected representatives of a majority of the population. The Senate was created as a check to insure that the rights of the individual states were respected.

Directors at large would result in a majority of the BOD being from California and who would carry out the duties within the areas that ADs do now?

I've always thought, but never cared to say, that to represent that model, we'd need a House of Section Coordinators.

Hmmmm.......

[Charles Bond]

I've always thought, but never cared to say, that to represent that model, we'd need a House of Section Coordinators.

In the early days of USPSA that is exactly what we had but the idea of getting 50 or more section coordinators (and several states have more than one....Florida has 3) proved just about impossible. Out of a reorganization the area director system arose.

Frankly I like the idea Nik set forth of adding 2 directors. USPSA has grown and putting on 2 new directors will not be a significant cost. In geography terms, we are still going to end up with some mega areas in terms of land mass out west but it would be better than what we have now. Having more directors should mean that the directors would have less land area to serve and could be more involved with assisting clubs and the members therein.

Making a change like this would also focus on our growth and evidence faith that such growth will continue by assisting that process.

[bgary]

I've always thought, but never cared to say, that to represent that model, we'd need a House of Section Coordinators.

In the early days of USPSA that is exactly what we had but the idea of getting 50 or more section coordinators (and several states have more than one....Florida has 3) proved just about impossible. Out of a reorganization the area director system arose.

That's an interesting bit of historical fiction. Perhaps you mean "in the early days of IPSC, before USPSA existed"?

At the very first USPSA Board meeting (November 1984), the Area Boundaries criteria were decided and the Bylaws (which included the notion of Area boundaries) were pounded out.

At the second USPSA Board meeting (January 1985), the Area boundaries were formally adopted and the process of electing ADs was defined in the new Bylaws.

So... exactly when did the collection of SCs represent USPSA's official governing body?

[Charles Bond]

And Jakers is correct that I was making reference to how IPSC was governed before USPSA was formed to serve to govern this IPSC region. But the point is that we just can not do it with a large group of section coordinators.

[Nik Habicht]

And Jakers is correct that I was making reference to how IPSC was governed before USPSA was formed to serve to govern this IPSC region. But the point is that we just can not do it with a large group of section coordinators.

Really? In the world of online meetings and teleconferences, I have a hard time believing that....

[Charles Bond]

And Jakers is correct that I was making reference to how IPSC was governed before USPSA was formed to serve to govern this IPSC region. But the point is that we just can not do it with a large group of section coordinators.

Really? In the world of online meetings and teleconferences, I have a hard time believing that....

Online meetings and teleconferences in which a large group of people attempt to particiapte in the discussion are just not easily managed. Put more than a dozen people or more than 4 lawyers on one of these and you end up with a rather unique form of confusion and if you have ever done one you know exactly that I mean.

And there are decisions that must be made in person in order to properly address certain matters including employee review and hiring and budget. As small as the BOD is now, there remain decisions that need to be made on at in person meeting. Nik I have little doubt that if you discuss this with your AD that he will echo my observation that you just can not replace the in person meetings with electronics.

[Singlestack]

The company I work for has the majority of it's employees someplace other than the main office. We hold monthly online meetings and they work rather well. If everyone has something to say they can take forever though. Then there are the guys that you want to choke.