Salary of USPSA President

[a matt]

As Sarge pointed out, I shouldn't have used "only" in my wording. It kinda poisons the well, so to speak, and $55,000 is a lot of money.

I did, however, ask for opinions on what the pay should be. Remember, I'm talking about a "position" not a person. With that in mind, I think the position should pay between..........

$80,000 & $100,000.

I figure if it paid that much Phil might be hanging around ?? Just an opinion.

[enroute]

There is way too much emphasis on Nationals for my taste. I think it's a good idea to have articles about matches, including nationals but not every single issue. I would like to see more articles on guns and gear personally. There are enough guns in this game to cover one a month forever. And aside from answering members rules questions I would like to see an article every issue that breaks down a small portion of the rule book and explains exactly what it means, in layman's terms. The stuff from Troy and Kevin is great and more in line with what I think many would like to see.

Also, might throw an article or two a year about traveling to matches as it pertains to gun laws in those states and the ones you might pass through on the way to the match.

Sarge, I agree.

I edited the remainder of my post as it obviously is not well received by those receiving the benefits of my membership dues.

...and so it is.

Edited January 4, 2014 by enroute

[sperman]

I was just thinking about this last night as I read the magazine, which is the last one for my TY membership. There is nothing in the magazine for acclimating new people to exactly what in the hell goes on, how/why/when. With the exception of the reloading which I read religiously, every time. Otherwise, most issues focus on talk about things that are really only concerning folks who were AT a particular match, and then why would they REALLY have a need to read about it?

No offense to those who are pouring their time and effort into the mag. production. However, it needs to change focus or it dies as the miniscule aspect of our membership goes away. Stagnant.

Funny you should mention the magazine. It is afterall a pretty good drift from the topic. BUT, I agree that it is not quite where it needs to be. There is way too much emphasis on Nationals for my taste. I think it's a good idea to have articles about matches, including nationals but not every single issue. I would like to see more articles on guns and gear personally. There are enough guns in this game to cover one a month forever. And aside from answering members rules questions I would like to see an article every issue that breaks down a small portion of the rule book and explains exactly what it means, in layman's terms. The stuff from Troy and Kevin is great and more in line with what I think many would like to see.

Also, might throw an article or two a year about traveling to matches as it pertains to gun laws in those states and the ones you might pass through on the way to the match.

I'm sure the editors review all articles that are submitted. Maybe they could do a better job of requesting articles on a given topic, but if you see a hole in the content, why not write one yourself? Kevin's gun review in every issue.

[Carmoney]

Yes, everybody should be sure to read rgkeller's insightful post. I agree fully.

I will say this--from everything I have seen, I think Phil has done an excellent job during his present tenure as President, and I hope he reconsiders his decision and runs for re-election.

[Steve RA]

Without a lot more information it is rather difficult to say whether or not the salary is good, bad or indifferent. Personally, I'd make it dependent on the sort of job the President was doing. I'd think if doing a good job it would be more than a part time job.

[a matt]

I would not know where to start being pres of the uspsa having a family and another full time job to pay the bills. Scary in my eyes. We are a picky bunch. Lol that's a lot a babysitting. Lol. Good luck with what ever you decide, Phil.

[kneelingatlas]

Some comments above noted USPSA is a for profit organization, does anyone know for sure? If it is, does anyone know who the shareholders are?

[sperman]

USPSA is a 501c non-profit. It's in the second paragraph of the by-laws, and also referenced in this link.

http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-announcements-details.php?USPSA-BOD-Official-Position-104

[warpspeed]

USPSA is a 501c non-profit. It's in the second paragraph of the by-laws, and also referenced in this link.

http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-announcements-details.php?USPSA-BOD-Official-Position-104

Thread Drift - This is why you never see them make a political statement or endorse candidates Under Federal Law, the organization cannot. .

[kneelingatlas]

USPSA is a 501c non-profit.

That's what I suspected, thanks for confirming.

[enroute]

The chances of an ELECTED individual being or becoming an outstanding business leader are minuscule.

The selected position of Executive Director is where USPSA must look for business leadership.

Wow.

Setting the bar this low, in telling your people the only leadership you are looking for is to come from one person? Please clarify your point there.

It is a business, whether it's profit or non-profit is a moot point: if the money in/ money out is not going to account for business longevity and thriving into the future, the future is really dim. I did not, nor has anyone else I've read above state it is a for-profit org.. My comments were to whether there has been a decent business acumen applied or not, and not about tax status.

As I read the opinions so far, the President's position classified advertisement would read like what?

An international organization's President is a role of leadership. If you want to pay them the salary equivalent of a Starbucks Manager, that of course is the prerogative of the membership, and the race to the bottom has reached a new low IMO.

(Not sure where the metaphor of a dedicated and retired State Trooper, losing an election fits in to somebody's debate point either?)

[Carmoney]

enroute, you seem to be struggling with some of the concepts being tossed around in this discussion--maybe I can help:

rgkeller's point is that USPSA could not--should not--rely on the President for consistent business leadership, because Presidents are elected by the membership rather than interviewed, vetted, and hired specifically for their business acumen. That's why we have an Executive Director who leads the business operations of the organization on a full-time basis. The role of President is actually somewhat limited by design, and it was never supposed to be a full-time paid position.

My point regarding the retired state trooper is consistent with rgkeller's comments--you can't rely on the membership to always elect the best candidate for the position. A couple elections ago, we turned down an opportunity to be served by a president who was wiling and able to commit 100% of his energies to USPSA--we went a different route. We currently have a president who is doing an excellent job as president of USPSA, but openly admits to being frazzled by trying to juggle the responsibilities of president with his full-time job and the pressures of raising a young family.