Bylaws Changes, WITH NON POLITICAL COMMENTARY

[GrumpyOne]

I think we can allow a discussion thread. Note however, any type of political posting (in the subjective opinion of the moderators) in said thread will be removed without warning, and repeat violators of said rules may be further subject to content moderation. 

[BritinUSA]

Not sure how that will work; I like the idea of being able to highlight some problem/issues, but a lot of it is political by its very nature. Perhaps when a post violates the rules, could the mods say exactly what the issue was to advise future posters?

[shred]

"I think bylaws changes should require more than just a 3/4 vote at a regular board meeting.  They are the org's Constitution."  - OK

 

"The board obviously <loves/hates/is afraid of> <person/thing/org> and this is all a power-grab plot to kick them out and/or score major sponsor cash"  - not OK.

 

"This bylaw is dumb.  This will never work!" - not OK.

 

Comment on the bylaws changes and not on suspected or implied motivations behind them.

 

Yes, maybe you can't make what you think is a perfectly valid point, but them's Brians' rules. Rant elsewhere if you must.

[BritinUSA]

Article 6.1 and 6.2

 

Quote

vi.) Be a Life Member before filing the petition for President,

vi.) Be a Life Member before filing the petition for Area Director

I think that Life membership as a requirement once elected is okay but I think there could be an option added to item (vi) that states that being a member continuously for the past 10 years would also be acceptable. I think this demonstrates the same level of commitment to the sport without the need for a large cash outlay.

[BritinUSA]

The draft bylaws make many references to ‘Front Sight’ magazine but its now just called ‘USPSA’.

[BritinUSA]

Recall: I would like to see an option in the bylaws that empowers the membership to recall an Area Director/President. I would suggest a petition that numbered greater than the total number of votes from their latest election. This would help prevent frivolous recall efforts.

 

So if a total of 2000 votes were cast for the position then that number of signatures from that area/nation would be required to trigger a recall. 
 

The recall would then trigger a special election where the current AD/President would automatically be listed as a candidate along with any other candidates who wanted to run.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by BritinUSA

[BritinUSA]

Original bylaws stipulated that a two thirds (2/3) majority be required for the BOD for certain actions. This has been changed to 3/4 in the draft bylaws.

 

With nine members of the BOD, this is an increase from 6 to 8. If these bylaws are passed and the membership seeks to back some of them out at a later date it would require replacing almost the entire BOD.

 

I think they should retain the original 2/3 majority.

[BritinUSA]

Term Limits: I’d like to see a provision in these bylaws for term limits, perhaps set at two terms (2 x 4 years). 

[Racinready300ex]

I like that they dumped 5.8. If a AD can't make the meeting no one should be proxy voting for them IMO.

 

But dumping the part about members being allowed to attend the meetings (5.10) seems like a wrong move to me. Every other organization I've been in members can attend the BOD meetings if they want to. They're just asked to leave if things come up that they shouldn't hear. When I was on the BOD at one club the only time that came up was discussing the pay of our one employee at the time.

[Racinready300ex]

I'm also not really a fan of the "Membership must be continuous during the one-year period before the election" in order to vote.

 

If I understand that correctly, me forgetting to renew on time and having a month lapse in membership sometime during the offseason, I wont be able to vote? What problem is that trying to fix?

[shred]

Probably to prevent somebody with cash from signing up a thousand spurious members just before the vote, or rounding up and/or paying for lapsed members for the purpose of voting.  Something similar happened at a club I know.  Maybe there's a wording to suggest that works for you but deters the shenanigans.

 

[Racinready300ex]

6 minutes ago, shred said:

Probably to prevent somebody with cash from signing up a thousand spurious members just before the vote, or getting lapsed members renewed for the purpose of voting.  Something similar happened at a club I know.  Maybe there's a wording to suggest that works for you but deters the shenanigans.

 

 

I've heard that's the fear, and I'm skeptical that would happen. You'd spend 40k buying 1k memberships to what end? Get a part time job as the president?

 

I would think we could put checks in place to verify you're a real person when you join the organization. That could stop the potential problem without effecting real members.

[shred]

$25K/1000  Still doesn't stop an old-member roundup either.

[Unibrain]

On 12/22/2021 at 11:37 AM, Racinready300ex said:

But dumping the part about members being allowed to attend the meetings (5.10) seems like a wrong move to me.

They’ve moved this to a policy document that is included with the meeting minutes.  In a policy document,  it can be changed without the same burden as changing the bylaws.  I’d rather see this in the bylaws.  
 

The policy is explicitly for in person meetings.  I believe this should be for all meetings to promote transparency.  

[BritinUSA]

I think the USPSA President Election should be held before the proposed bylaw changes are put into effect.
 

The election process could have two parts, the first to pick the President and the second part where the members could vote on each of the proposed changes.

 

[rhett45acp]

Comment or question here.

 

"4.14 Non-Payment of Dues or Fees:
Any member shall be terminated from the membership for non-payment of dues or fees."

 

"4.13......A suspended or terminated member may not participate nor officiate in any USPSA sanctioned events ....."

 

Is the above not in conflict with Appendix 1 for Level 1 matches.  So if I member drops USPSA membership then no participation in Level 1 events?  I get the suspension part, but for terminated member for non-payment? 

 

Or is a level 1 match consider non-sanctioned? 

 

 

 

 

[Bagellord]

7 hours ago, rhett45acp said:

Comment or question here.

 

"4.14 Non-Payment of Dues or Fees:
Any member shall be terminated from the membership for non-payment of dues or fees."

 

"4.13......A suspended or terminated member may not participate nor officiate in any USPSA sanctioned events ....."

 

Is the above not in conflict with Appendix 1 for Level 1 matches.  So if I member drops USPSA membership then no participation in Level 1 events?  I get the suspension part, but for terminated member for non-payment? 

 

Or is a level 1 match consider non-sanctioned? 

 

 

 

 

Look at rule 6.4, referenced in Appendix 1. Specifically, 6.4.1.1 - if you're on the ineligible roster, you can't shoot.

 

However:

 

With all the rest of the changes I did miss this part. There needs to be (probably is and I am unaware of it) a way to terminate your membership without falling into this trap. Otherwise, someone could decide they no longer want to shoot level 2+ events and only shoot local matches, but end up being deemed ineligible if they don't go through the proper process to terminate membership.

[rhett45acp]

2 hours ago, Bagellord said:

Look at rule 6.4, referenced in Appendix 1. Specifically, 6.4.1.1 - if you're on the ineligible roster, you can't shoot.

 

However:

 

With all the rest of the changes I did miss this part. There needs to be (probably is and I am unaware of it) a way to terminate your membership without falling into this trap. Otherwise, someone could decide they no longer want to shoot level 2+ events and only shoot local matches, but end up being deemed ineligible if they don't go through the proper process to terminate membership.

Right, this is what I see.  I just think a clarification is needed.  Unless this is what they want.   I have been on a couple of bylaw committees and I envy this crowd 0.0 .  Its tough taken a working doc and weaving in the changes you want without creating other headaches. 

 

I know many people that have come and gone in USPSA membership only to circle back around years later.  Usually picking up a few matches as a non-member to restart.

 

 

[BritinUSA]

Phil Strader on Ben Stoeger’s podcast talking about bylaws : YouTube

[Robertwil18]

BOD pretty much said, "thanks for your inputs, we got this".   Don't see many edits/changes to the many issues addressed with the new draft bylaws.  

[BritinUSA]

Latest BOD minutes where comments to the proposed bylaws are discussed.
 

Not sure why they state that a ‘consensus’ did not agree, I would have though a roll-call vote would have been more appropriate considering the impact these changes will have.

 

Link to USPSA Minutes

[Unibrain]

21 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Not sure why they state that a ‘consensus’ did not agree, I would have though a roll-call vote would have been more appropriate considering the impact these changes will have.

In the minutes it says

“1.) Discussion of Bylaws
a. As we are working on a draft, on many items a poll of the board is taken as consensus of
direction. These are not votes, but help in the completion of the draft.”
 

Where do you see they state a consensus did not agree?  I may be miss reading but I don’t see that in the minutes. 

[BritinUSA]

Board Consensus: No
 

This statement does not tell us how many BoD members agree with the policy and who they are. Roll call votes should be listed for all of these for transparency. 
 

When these BOD members are next up for an election this information can be used by members to help determine their vote.