USPSA----How much should members know?

[whitedog]

How would knowing HHF "do us harm"?

How would transparency on members questions " do us harm"?

Really?

[BritinUSA]

How would knowing HHF "do us harm"?

How would transparency on members questions " do us harm"?

Really?

If your questions are directed at me.... I never said that all the information could be used against us, some of it might. Read my post again. If you want HHFs released then petition your AD to request it, of everyone does that and the BOD votes on it then you get to see the HHF. Use the process. If you have not petitioned your AD then don't complain about it. If you have petitioned your AD and gotten nowhere then run for the post yourself or vote for someone who will at the next election.

[Jack Suber]

How would we know whether or not my AD has or has not pushed for these changes or asked for the HHF to be publicized?

Edited May 11, 2014 by Jack Suber

[whitedog]

I agree. Don't complain if you have done nothing about it. I personally have attempted contact...with zero response.

Certain things should be kept in house. Certain things not.

The purpose of executive session? How would I know how my AD stands when minutes not released? How many executive sessions will happen?

Yup, voting helps when multiple elected AD's have held status quo.

Just be dumb, happy, and shoot matches I guess.

Edited May 11, 2014 by whitedog

[wgnoyes]

HHF? Wasn't it already decided a few years ago they would do this?

[Chills1994]

Are the USPSA bylaws up on the USPSA.org website?

Is it possible to record the the open BoD meetings and then to turn it into a podcast that is accessible via the USPSA.org website so the members can actually hear their AD's advocating for them?

In addition to the current HHF's for each classifier stage getting published, it would be nice to have a history on if the HHF for a particular stage was moved up, what was the old HHF, and what was the reason or logic behind bumping it up.

Of course, if there was a records page per each classifier of the best actual real world as shot scores (points time, shooter's name, USPSA member number, club's name) broken out by division, that history section wouldn't be so pressing.

As for how much the membership should know, maybe there needs to be an open process by which members can request such information (via USPSA.org, member log in required???) and the other members can see that member Joe Blow asked for X on February first and the request was handled during the April BoD meeting, and BoD decided to do Y????

[sperman]

HHF? Wasn't it already decided a few years ago they would do this?

from the Nov 2010 BOD Meeting

High Hit Factors

Motion: The High Hit Factors for classifiers will no longer be considered confidential data, and may be released under such terms as the Executive Director deems appropriate.

Moved by A1 Seconded by A2 Passed

[StraightUp_OG]

HHF? Wasn't it already decided a few years ago they would do this?

from the Nov 2010 BOD Meeting

High Hit Factors

Motion: The High Hit Factors for classifiers will no longer be considered confidential data, and may be released under such terms as the Executive Director deems appropriate.

Moved by A1 Seconded by A2 Passed

I could be wrong but this to me seems that the board passed the decision to the ExDir. so they abdicated their responsibility. Now one individual can set whatever criteria they want to justify releasing the data. They could set the bar so high as to never reveal said data. So much for transparency...

Edited May 11, 2014 by StraightUp_OG

[whitedog]

So at this point, based on info provided, the BOD has zero to do with releasing HHF. It's up to the Exec Dir. How in flaming flapjacks is that solving any thing? The board passed the buck and nothing changed. I'm done hoping they are ever released.

Oh well....

[alma]

I tend to assume the best in people until proven otherwise. I am sure that being part of the BOD is a sacrifice. It's one that I would not be willing or able to make for this sport right now so I am grateful for those who do.

[Red Ryder]

I would like the classifiers HHFs published. I would like to see the classifiers updated more frequently than maybe once a month. I would like to see the Nationals come to the East coast in my lifetime too. With all positions of power and money, corruption and incompetence follows sooner or later. Incompetence diverts our attention away from the corruption. I really am hoping for later!

[Red Ryder]

I just tried to register for the USPSA forum. It wants me to answer a random question, "What does the V in DVC stand for?" , or "What is 1 of the only two natural enemies of firearms?" It's not voice, video, or vice, or government etc I am pissed that this random crap is even part of the registration process. What is the answer? This is ReDICulous.

[alma]

Vis

[Strick]

While I agree that transparency on some issues is needed, issue that affect actual shooters. What I am a little lost on is what difference does it make to the membership and the health of USPSA at the club level (where the sport is mostly played) what they paid for SC or some of the other issues that have been raised. For your $40 per year you are getting a classifier data base, a rule book with a mechanism for clarification, and a "newsletter".

I do think there are problems with the direction of USPSA and how the sport is manage I am just a little lost when it comes to the feeling betrayed or kept in the dark. They are not paying a dividend to the members on profits and are not assessing members due to losses........I am not sure my $40/year warrants the amount of angst this issue seems to bring out.

[Charles Bond]

On the topic of the release of the HHFs, that is entirely up to the BOD. All the BOD needs to do is instruct the ED if she did not get the message clear enough at the meeting from which Bill Noyes posted minutes. I do not read that entry as it is up to her as to whether to post it but rather that it is up to her HOW to post it.

Strick is correct that we are not having to assess members due to losses……..yet. But just like counting the number of burgers that get trashed, hit the floor, or go out the back door at the local burger place, unless you manage what you are doing that situation can change overnight. Good management is necessary in good times and in bad since if you do the good times well, you have a reserve and a plan to navigate the bad times.

[BritinUSA]

We have a different Executive Director from when those minutes were recorded. Is it possible that this item just got last in the transition from Dave to Kim ? Has anyone contacted Kim to see if the HHF's can be released ?

Edited May 11, 2014 by BritinUSA

[JakeMartens]

purchase of steel challenge was 7 years ago...let it go.

Maybe the focus should be on how to save it now

Here are the Bylaws

http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-bylaws.php

If you don't like something work to change it or run for the AD position when it is available for your area

[Chills1994]

While I agree that transparency on some issues is needed, issue that affect actual shooters. What I am a little lost on is what difference does it make to the membership and the health of USPSA at the club level (where the sport is mostly played) what they paid for SC or some of the other issues that have been raised. For your $40 per year you are getting a classifier data base, a rule book with a mechanism for clarification, and a "newsletter".

I do think there are problems with the direction of USPSA and how the sport is manage I am just a little lost when it comes to the feeling betrayed or kept in the dark. They are not paying a dividend to the members on profits and are not assessing members due to losses........I am not sure my $40/year warrants the amount of angst this issue seems to bring out.

While I agree that transparency on some issues is needed, issue that affect actual shooters. What I am a little lost on is what difference does it make to the membership and the health of USPSA at the club level (where the sport is mostly played) what they paid for SC or some of the other issues that have been raised. For your $40 per year you are getting a classifier data base, a rule book with a mechanism for clarification, and a "newsletter".

I do think there are problems with the direction of USPSA and how the sport is manage I am just a little lost when it comes to the feeling betrayed or kept in the dark. They are not paying a dividend to the members on profits and are not assessing members due to losses........I am not sure my $40/year warrants the amount of angst this issue seems to bring out.

I looked at your classifier page. In 2013, it appears that you shot 22 classifiers. Looks like a nat's level and an area match were in there. So theoretically...or technically you paid an additional $66 to USPSA HQ, so $106.

Now times that by say 10,000 active members.

But it really isn't all about the money, to me. It's the principle behind it.

I have used this analogy before: let's say want to try your hand at long jumping. I know that Bob Beamon set the record a

29 feet 2.5 inches back in 1968. Mike Powell broke it in 1991. You meet me ar the local high school's track. Right there at thengate, with my hand out I say, "That'll be a dollar fifty please!". You pay and I let you into the track. You're about to complete your first jimp and I go "That will be another buck fifty!". You take off down the runway and jump. The tape measure says 14 feet. This whole time I know what the world record is, but keep it to myself, knowing that you don't know what it is.

Oh, you want to jump again? Another $1.50!

[Chills1994]

I am not going to let anything go. There are other things that have happened that haven't been reconciled and nobody was mature enough to take charge and/or apologize for. Basically, what I think is another loose yarn on a sweater.

They bought it in 2007...what was their strategic long term vision before they bought it?

Or did they even have one?

Obviously, their plan to hook in the youngsters, the kids of regular active USPSA'ers went right out the window when the NSSF pulled the scholastic steel challenge rug out from under them.

Were they already salivating at the prospect of that steel challenge classifier fee/activity fee money?

[ctay]

Conspiracy? Appearance of impropriety? What a lame conspiracy it is to keep the HHF's out of the public eye. Conspiracy to keep Nationals out of the east? Any chance it has to do with logistics at all?

Some people are throwing around some very loaded words with what seems to be very small issues. What in gods name would be the conspiracy to keep nationals out of the east? Conspiracy to hide HHF's? Can you give me some even remotely viable positive that could be associated with these conspiracies?

Maybe take a deep breath fellas. Don't let your personal USPSA politics smear USPSA as a whole.

[Chills1994]

When Single Stack first became a legitimate division, its HHF's were the same as L-10.

Wouldn't you rather be classified as a SS shooter by what had actually been shot by the best with a single stack gun?

Not classified based on a SWAG of "Hmm...yeah, L-10 and single stack are close enough...MEH!"

[Jack Suber]

Christopher Taylor, in some of your posts in the locked thread, you made some definitive statements about how nothing is being done inappropriately by the BoD, etc. In one comment of yours, you state:

"The three issues you mention here either already were in the process of being fixed when you made your posts or were being discussed. That is why I say that your comments were both unproductive and unnecessarily damaging to the organizations image. "

I am curious how you can come to that conclusion? Are you basing your conclusion on the information available in the BoD minutes? Are you privy to information that others here are not?

You are missing the point of the topic. Since you have not been around long enough to know about bad decisions the BoD has made in the past, perhaps you do not understand the concern of member who have. We do not want to see any new wasteful actions by the BoD. We want to know what goes into a new revolver rule. How did it come about? That is the concern. Legitimate concerns by the people who pay the bulk of the operating funds of USPSA. With the ability to reach the members via the internet, email, etc., there is no reason to make decisions that "appear" to an intent to keep members in the dark. In our current political climate, most of us are sick of this type of day to day business in our corporate and government world. We surely do not want our game and fun to be operated similarly.

I made no accusations in my previous posts. I noted that actions the give the "appearance" of impropriety must be avoided by the BoD.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Jack Suber

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

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.

My thoughts on this are, everything that is beneficial or detrimental to the organization.

There should be a notification to all members what the agenda of the board meetings will be so if there is a topic of interest to any member, they have adequate time to contact their AD and make their feelings known.

When a member contacts an AD, that director should take the time post meeting to contact the member/members in some way to advise them of the outcome rather than leaving them guessing what happened.

I am not the most computer literate person in the group. Am I stupid? maybe but don't like to be treated that way If I ask a question, I expect an answer. If I make a suggestion, I expect to be listened to. My thoughts are just as important as any member. There are things I may have information about that you know nothing about (that is the general you not anyone in particular)

The knowledge base of this organization is endless and should be tapped by the BOD rather than treated like they know nothing.

[whitedog]

There is no conspiracy. No cabal. No commitee of malice. That said.

What there is is status quo. Change happens when change is required. Human nature.

The issue is why.

Apparently the release of HHF was discussed at some point. A decision was made. Then nothing.

I believe they are not released so people will strive for something. I also believe HHF is determined using a lot of " Kentucky windage ". Is what it is until change happens.

The rest of people's concerns? I don't know enough to make statements. But based on 4 hours of going through BOD minutes, I believe most things are settled via e mail or phone. That should be changed and discussions documented.

[sperman]

I could care less about having the HHF published. Any 3rd grader with a calculator can figure them out. IMO, they are already published. What is important to me, is how they are calculated. We had some new classifiers published in 13. The HHF were WAY off. A few months later the HHF was changed, but we still don't know how the came up with the original or the revised HHF. There also seems to be some discrepancy in the setup of the stages at Nationals where (I assume) the HHF were set, and the stages published for use in the classifier system. It has been brought to the attention of the BOD, but we have had zero communication on the issue.

I would also like to see some info on the contract to write the new USPSA web site. If I understand correctly, that work is being done by NiftyBytes. Every time someone complains about practiscore, all we here is that this is "free" software being written by volunteers. That "free" software may be the smartest investment Ken ever made. Why is a company with $2M in revenue not pro-actively hiring a company to write software to be exactly what they want, instead of waiting for volunteers to do that for them?