USPSA----How much should members know?

[Charles Bond]

One of the age long topics concerning USPSA governance is how much information are the members entitled to receive. On the one hand in any business there need to be some things that are closely held such as employment issues and purchases of land. On the other hand having elected area directors and a president that is elected by the membership tends to be meaningless unless the organization is transparent as to taking care of the business issues of the organization.

This issue arose during the purchase of Steel Challenge by USPSA when the BOD elected to not disclose how much USPSA paid for organization. Seemingly there seems to of late been a host of Executive Sessions including a recent BOD meeting where the entire meeting was held in Executive Session on multiple topics.

My question is exactly how much information do members feel they should have about what is now a $2 million dollar a year operation? Please avoid name calling, naming names or specific references in your response as it is not the intention of this thread to embarrass anyone. It would be nice if some of the BOD members could chime in here as well again without reference to anything specific.

[Sarge]

I do not agree with the way things were handled in the other thread along these lines. I also think the AD mentioned in the thread could have handled things better initially.

Like I said, I have served on some piddly boards and there was always somebody running for a position just because they had a hard on for the way things were done. They thought they could just waltz in and start making things change overnight. WRONG!! Boards just don't work that way. Never have and never will.

Now, as to this thread, those boards I served on were pretty well run and generally had the best interests of the organization in mind. The board made most decisions so no, the members of the organization did not have a lot of say in the matters. But the constitutions/by laws were always set up so that any MAJOR financial issues had to have a certain level of approval from the membership.

Just as an example, take USPSA. If they want to hire somebody or promote somebody or give a raise to somebody, let the board vote on it and either pass it or not. But if they wanted to aquire another shooting sport such as steel challenge and there was huge amounts of money involved or it was going to change the face of USPSA entirely then that should have been subjected to a 2/3rds majority vote by the membership. Think about electronic scoring as another example. It is clear that USPSA is going to go paperless at some point and I could care less, except for the fact that my club will never, ever purchase any of the needed devices to make this happen. I think before the club ever does anything drastic like make paper scoring illegal that should be put to the membership. Board members and AD's may have the best interests of the membership at heart but there is no way than can speak for every club or member of the organization so some things need to be passed on the the membership directly.

Another thing is financial accountability. I suppose I could follow everybody's advice and just go searching for tax forms etc but why not send a quarterly report to ALL members of USPSA. Not doing so makes it look like HQ doesn't care what we think or they are hiding something. Neither is a good thing in my opinion.

Same thing happened with the rules debacles recently. Why didn't USPSA at least reach out to every member with a revo classification on their card and seek some input. Hell, ask all of us what we think. There is no telling how differently it could have turned out. Remember, BE's forums are not the official USPSA forums and believe it or not there are a lot of shooters who don't know this place exists. When we see guys passionately discussing how there MAJOR revo's became obsolete overnight keep in mind how many others are out there that have them and are trying to figure out how to afford another gun to keep up with the jones' s . Not everybody who shoots this game can afford to buy a new competition gun at the drop of a hat. I know I can't.

I think it is quite possible to have civil conversations about our organization. I see nothing wrong with airing a legitimate grievance if we can do it in a respectful manor. I once had the word "tact" defined to me as, telling somebody to go to hell and having them look forward to the trip. Try it, it works.

Board members don't change things, grass roots movements do. Want to make a statement? Write HQ and tell them you are going to let your affiliation lapse so you can keep the money for your own club. Boycott the Nationals. Write your AD and tell him your concerns. If they don't have the decency to reply then forward it to HQ and and let them know you are not being represented by your elected official.

And keep in mind change won't happen in a few weeks, months, or years. It takes forever to effect change in an organization as established as this one. These forums are a great place to get things rolling but the word needs to get out to ALL USPSA shooters. We here are just the tip of the iceberg in my opinion.

[Sarge]

And I just went looking and see the other thread is locked. Yeah, it probably should have long ago. But if we keep this civil then we don't have to hinge our efforts on the whim of a forum moderator who decides to shut down a thread. I think things can start moving in the right direction if we start nudging a little at a time.

[Jaxshooter]

The financial position of the organization should be totally transparent. Purchases such as the Steel Challenge deal should be disclosed to the members as well. I agree with Sarge that any major purchases i.e. Steel Challenge, paperless scoring systems etc. should be voted on by the membership. If there is nothing to hide then there is absolutely no reason not to disclose these things.

[Jack Suber]

As a Section Coordinator (for 11 years), I was frequently asked: Why did USPSA do this or that; why are the members the last to know? Why are so many decisions made in executive sessions? As the local "grass-roots level" representative of USPSA, I could not provide an answer. I too echo the concerns that were expressed..... I have been a member since the "building purchase" episode, etc. We are a non-profit with membership. In my opinion, the membership is entitled to know what is going on in the organization - except in certain situation as mentioned in previous responses.

I work with non-profits for a living - providing millions in funding and subsequently am responsible for auditing their operations. I have served on the boards of non-profits. A lot of what I see with USPSA troubles me. There may not be actual dishonest practices or conflicts of interest with the BoD, but it is the appearance of such that is poison to the organization. Lack of transparency fuels the suspicion. I truly hope that the BoD sees the frustration of many and moves to address the appearance that they are not being accountable to the membership. There are enough enemies to our sport that we do not need to implode.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Jack Suber

[RadarTech]

Simply put perception is reality to most. If there is a perception that something is wrong it is often very difficult to prove otherwise. Then we get the conspiracy theories. In a sport like this where you have a walks of life and all levels of education many will have issues with being talk down to or treated like a child.

[Aglifter]

In a business, confidentiality makes sense - I'm not sure that it makes much sense in a sport-related charity.

I am aware that there is considerable expense in sending out mailers to all members - perhaps some kind of official forum or email list or announcement section on the website would be more sufficient.

[RadarTech]

There is USPSA forum. But I don't think it is used.

[Sarge]

In a business, confidentiality makes sense - I'm not sure that it makes much sense in a sport-related charity.

I am aware that there is considerable expense in sending out mailers to all members - perhaps some kind of official forum or email list or announcement section on the website would be more sufficient.

Certainly there is an email database....

[Nimitz]

It sounds like most of us here so far are in violent agreement about what should happen ... So has anyone contacted their AD or the BoD and voiced their concerns and have received a response, or lack thereof? If so, maybe posting the actual response here so everyone can see what our elected reps are saying would be a good place to start?

[GrumpyOne]

They need to keep all of these dealings in the dark corners and kep all the members completely blind of everything. ..otherwise, what would USPSA conspiracy theorists do?

[Charles Bond]

What is interesting with this thread to date is that it almost made up exclusively of members of Area 6. During the time I was on the BOD I heard a lot from my members and ADs from other areas would tell me that they seldom if ever heard from a member about anything. Part of that had to do with some areas having a third of the members of Area 6. But on the other hand it is crazy to think that only Area 6 shooters and one shooter from Ohio are making a contribution to this thread.

USPSA is your organization but if you want to keep it so, folks you need to participate a little.

[justaute]

Threads like this are often vitiated by a series of heated he-said/I-infer undertone. It basically just becomes a pissing contest.

Until USPSA is being managed by people who are competent and have pertinent business, professional background, it will continue to meander on the path of regression. I believe there is a cadre of competent professionals within the ranks of USPSA membership. Are they interested in lending a helping hand? Has anyone from USPSA management asked? Will it just be a series of patch-work? Has USPSA considered initiating a complete, strategic review of its operating goals and objectives? There are a myriad of things to consider.

That said, it starts with the management.

Edited May 10, 2014 by justaute

[Charles Bond]

Threads like this are often vitiated by a series of heated he-said/I-infer undertone. It basically just becomes a pissing contest.

Until USPSA is being managed by people who are competent and have pertinent business, professional background, it will continue to meander on the path of regression. I believe there is a cadre of competent professionals within the ranks of USPSA membership. Are they interested in lending a helping hand? Has anyone from USPSA management asked? Will it just be a series of patch-work? Has USPSA considered initiating a complete, strategic review of its operating goals and objectives? There are a myriad of things to consider.

That said, it starts with the management.

Management is hired by the elected BOD. The BOD and the President are elected by the members. Until and unless the members decide they need competent business people serving on the BOD, problems like those you note will arise. Selection should not be about how well you know the rules, what type of match you run, or how well you shoot or have advanced in the game. Rather what is needed are the type of individuals you want serving on your local bank board such as CPAs, lawyers, business owners, marketing people, managers, administrators, and other business leaders. You need the type of people who in their regular life supervise and direct employees.

There are 2 types people in American society. You have check writers and check cashers. Check writers get to write the checks becasue they have achieved an objective measure of success which gives them skills that transfer to other organizations. If these are the types of people members desire to serve the BOD, they need to seek them out and vote them in.

[PKT1106]

What the membership should know is kind of a complicated topic. Should we be involved with the details of the day-to-day operations of the home office? Probably not. The organization acquiring land somewhere or purchasing the rights to another sport and those details? Yes. Whether or not the home office needs to hire someone else for a role? Maybe.

Ultimately, I think the general membership is in a "we don't know what we don't know" situation that sounds like it needs to be addressed.

Selection should not be about how well you know the rules, what type of match you run, or how well you shoot or have advanced in the game. Rather what is needed are the type of individuals you want serving on your local bank board such as CPAs, lawyers, business owners, marketing people, managers, administrators, and other business leaders. You need the type of people who in their regular life supervise and direct employees.

I say it should be a blend of both, with emphasis on the business background. We need people who have an understanding of the sport side of the organization and can adapt those aspects to help run the business side as efficiently and with the membership's interest in mind.

Business is not a popularity contest, but a hardcore lawyer may not mingle well at the SHOT Show.

Edited May 10, 2014 by PKT1106

[whitedog]

Based on a previous shooting discipline I was very, very involved in. Just my experience.

The previous org was also non profit. Supposedly ran by governors, much like an AD. "Transparent" and "run by members".

Um, no.

The org bought a ton of property out west. Almost zero info was released prior. It has a quite nice house on it...I've heard it's nice inside.

Same org "managed" rules to align with vendors. Vendors that basically paid for buildings on site out west.

USPSA is an org like any other. It's a romantic notion to think a grass roots member will change any thing. Many, many grass roots members stand a shot though....

There will always be " secrets " in any org, it's how many that is sometimes the problem. And the reasons behind them.

I hope some are cleared up...HHF is one.

[Jaxshooter]

There is no need from an organization like ours to keep the membership in the dark regarding major transactions. We do not have anyone competing with us like normal for profit businesses. It is time for the BODs, President, and Executive Director to answer the questions being asked regarding financial transactions like Steel Challenge, paperless scoring systems etc.

An entire Board Meeting held in executive session is unbelievable. Why would this ever be necessary for an organization like ours. I was president of a multi million dollar food distribution company and can only remember one occasion of going into executive session and that was in regard to a specific employee. The food distribution business is as competitive as any business out there.

[ChuckS]

Uh, guys....

Restricted Content
Politics
Policy and political discussions or debates of any kind - even if you consider your opinions to be "facts" - are not welcome anywhere in the forum.
Specifically including (but not limited to):
• USPSA vs IPSC
• IPSC vs IDPA
• STI vs SVI
• Limited 10 vs Limited Division
• This Division vs That Division
• This Government vs That Government
• Gun Control Issues

This is not a free speech issue. As a privately funded and collectively ran "information exchange," we have found that the emotional nature of political discussions weakens the informative impact of the Forum.

And note that your post, avatar, and anything in your signature represent you, and your relationship with the Forum's Guidelines.

[Sarge]

Really? What are we supposed to do go to the USPSA forums and talk with the other two guys that are registered?

USPSA5 does not have a web presence

[ChuckS]

Really? What are we supposed to do go to the USPSA forums and talk with the other two guys that are registered?

USPSA5 does not have a web presence

Just pointing out the forum guidelines according to Brian.

[BritinUSA]

The BOD sets the direction for USPSA and the USPSA HQ staff and the numerous volunteers make that 'direction' happen. It is the BOD that determines what information (if any) is passed to the membership. Our USPSA bylaws should indicate which information should be made available to the members (and by default to the rest of the world as any and all such information would then be disseminated across the internet).

If there are items that the membership thinks they should have access to but the disclosure of such items is not indicated in the bylaws then it is simply a case of contacting your AD and requesting a change to the bylaws. If the majority of a region request such a change and the AD is loathe to support that issue then they can be voted out at the next election.

Knowledge is a double-edged sword, what we learn will also be learnt by those that seek to do us harm by limiting our sport and our rights, so be careful what you wish for.

[PKT1106]

Uh, guys....

Restricted Content

Politics

Policy and political discussions or debates of any kind - even if you consider your opinions to be "facts" - are not welcome anywhere in the forum.

Specifically including (but not limited to):

• USPSA vs IPSC

• IPSC vs IDPA

• STI vs SVI

• Limited 10 vs Limited Division

• This Division vs That Division

• This Government vs That Government

• Gun Control Issues

This is not a free speech issue. As a privately funded and collectively ran "information exchange," we have found that the emotional nature of political discussions weakens the informative impact of the Forum.

And note that your post, avatar, and anything in your signature represent you, and your relationship with the Forum's Guidelines.

Chuck- Thank you for your concern, but I don't think this discussion is "political" as we think about it. This is more about USPSA and the relationship between the BOD and the general membership. We are not comparing anything, we are discussing the impact of the decisions made by the BOD on behalf of the members with/without the member's knowledge.

[whitedog]

I don't believe this thread is " us vs them " in any way. Merely questions asked and statements about those questions. No malice or animosity exists, in my opinion.

And the fact remains those questions are not answered by those with the answers. As well as ignored e mails by those same people. Why?

[Jack Suber]

What the membership should know is kind of a complicated topic. Should we be involved with the details of the day-to-day operations of the home office? Probably not. The organization acquiring land somewhere or purchasing the rights to another sport and those details? Yes. Whether or not the home office needs to hire someone else for a role? Maybe.

Ultimately, I think the general membership is in a "we don't know what we don't know" situation that sounds like it needs to be addressed.

Selection should not be about how well you know the rules, what type of match you run, or how well you shoot or have advanced in the game. Rather what is needed are the type of individuals you want serving on your local bank board such as CPAs, lawyers, business owners, marketing people, managers, administrators, and other business leaders. You need the type of people who in their regular life supervise and direct employees.

I say it should be a blend of both, with emphasis on the business background. We need people who have an understanding of the sport side of the organization and can adapt those aspects to help run the business side as efficiently and with the membership's interest in mind.

Business is not a popularity contest, but a hardcore lawyer may not mingle well at the SHOT Show.

I know someone who meets these qualifications...

Edited May 11, 2014 by Jack Suber

[Sarge]

The BOD sets the direction for USPSA and the USPSA HQ staff and the numerous volunteers make that 'direction' happen. It is the BOD that determines what information (if any) is passed to the membership. Our USPSA bylaws should indicate which information should be made available to the members (and by default to the rest of the world as any and all such information would then be disseminated across the internet).

If there are items that the membership thinks they should have access to but the disclosure of such items is not indicated in the bylaws then it is simply a case of contacting your AD and requesting a change to the bylaws. If the majority of a region request such a change and the AD is loathe to support that issue then they can be voted out at the next election.

Knowledge is a double-edged sword, what we learn will also be learnt by those that seek to do us harm by limiting our sport and our rights, so be careful what you wish for.

I don't think we need to mask the lack of information to paying members with playing up to fears in the "those that would do us harm" political arena.