USPSA BOD Minutes Posted - New BYLAWS are now in effect

[deerslayer]

11 hours ago, jester121 said:

How are you so convinced that A3 and A4 members at large agree with you? Couldn't A3 and A4 have just voted their consciences, feedback be damned? At least one of them seemed to have made up his mind months ago. 

 

Very obtuse. 

Pleeease. 
 

The news bylaws were concocted partially out of fear that a certain director may be elected president.  This is not political or opinion—one of the current directors actually wrote it.  

[rowdyb]

I didn't write my AD about this, but I have written him about some things prior. He disagreed with me. That's fine. I told him my opinion, he felt and voted differently. I did my job as a member to make my opinion known and he did his job to communicate with me and then vote.

 

What's funny is other amateur, national level organizations I belong to don't seem to have this drama..... And yet they still have rule books, events local and national......

[BritinUSA]

Perhaps those other organizations that you describe are run by people who are passionate about what they do. Over the past few years I think our org has become ‘all about the money’. Just look at some of the salaries that are being paid, nearly three times higher than the previous president.

 

Salaries need to be set to entice people with skills but not so high that it attracts people that just want the money.

[Racinready300ex]

12 hours ago, jester121 said:

How are you so convinced that A3 and A4 members at large agree with you? Couldn't A3 and A4 have just voted their consciences, feedback be damned? At least one of them seemed to have made up his mind months ago. 

 

Very obtuse. 

 

That's possible, but the exact opposite is also possible. 

[motosapiens]

4 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Perhaps those other organizations that you describe are run by people who are passionate about what they do. Over the past few years I think our org has become ‘all about the money’. Just look at some of the salaries that are being paid, nearly three times higher than the previous president.

 

Salaries need to be set to entice people with skills but not so high that it attracts people that just want the money.

so you agree with the board's decision to reduce the president's salary and make it part-time position again?

[Racinready300ex]

2 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

so you agree with the board's decision to reduce the president's salary and make it part-time position again?

 

With the amount of travel required, I can't see how it's really a part time job. It seems more like a full time job with part time pay that you'll have to some how squeeze in time for your real job. Unless you're retired. 

[motosapiens]

13 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

With the amount of travel required, I can't see how it's really a part time job. It seems more like a full time job with part time pay that you'll have to some how squeeze in time for your real job. Unless you're retired. 

So you agree with having an outsized salary for a full-time president? (one of the things the same troupe of monkeys was bitterly complaining about regarding foley).

[Racinready300ex]

4 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

So you agree with having an outsized salary for a full-time president? (one of the things the same troupe of monkeys was bitterly complaining about regarding foley).

 

I think the BOD decision to go to a full time president after our last part time president had trouble doing the job while working a full time made sense. Just because it's a full time job doesn't mean the pay needs to be crazy high. But what you're willing to pay will certainly effects the quality of the candidates. It should probably be a range based on the individuals qualifications. But I can see a few issues with that idea. 

[motosapiens]

3 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I think the BOD decision to go to a full time president after our last part time president had trouble doing the job while working a full time made sense. Just because it's a full time job doesn't mean the pay needs to be crazy high. But what you're willing to pay will certainly effects the quality of the candidates. It should probably be a range based on the individuals qualifications. But I can see a few issues with that idea. 

 

I assume you have listened to the podcasts on the topic and understand the board's reasoning to return to 2 separate positions of elected president and hired executive director. That reasoning makes sense to me, and I believe the board members are in a better positions to judge that than I am. Do you disagree with their rationale? If so, can you state specifically what you disagree with?

[BritinUSA]

$85k-$110k range for President would be reasonable based on knowledge and experience. The BOD approved a full-time president and they also set his salary. Now when someone they don’t like may win they change the rules.

[motosapiens]

13 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

$85k-$110k range for President would be reasonable based on knowledge and experience. The BOD approved a full-time president and they also set his salary. Now when someone they don’t like may win they change the rules.

The board also got rid of that full-time president when it turned into a dumpster fire.

 

I assume you also listened to the uspsa podcasts on this topic. Do you think the board members are not telling the truth when they explain their reasoning for the desire to return to separate positions? (which long predated the situation you refer to)

Edited January 26, 2022 by motosapiens

[MikeBurgess]

18 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

$85k-$110k range for President would be reasonable based on knowledge and experience. The BOD approved a full-time president and they also set his salary. Now when someone they don’t like may win they change the rules.

when someone announces that they are declaring war on the ORG while not specifying what that actually means or what they would do, this seems like a rational course of action for anyone actually concerned about the ORG. 

 

[warpspeed]

A couple of things really stood out to me in this whole process that I found odd on a good day.

 

The ignoring of the bylaws that require a special election when the president leaves mid-term was one of them. I'm not sure I really hear a reason why TBH. It just didn't happen.

 

I do appreciate that the BoD that created the dumpster fire tried to fix it. It seems like the were using diesel instead of water to fight it but they did try.

 

The leaked emails were a hoot.  Middle School BS IMHO.

 

As to the salary, I think they are way under the number needed to attract the right person as a full time job. I wouldn't take it for twice that. And think about it like this, we currently have the president come from the membership pool. That is the dumbest thing ever. Now I will grant you that with MV, we had a member that was a leader and understood the org as well as the business side but I don't think we will ever be able to replicate that again. What we need is an org leader to run the place. 

 

This change might accomplish it but was done all wrong. It gave the appearance of trying to hide something and the BoDs response to Ben and some other members only confirmed that.  They didn't just change the leadership structure they made it so that changing it back will be nearly impossible. Presumably so it will have some time to play out and see if it works. 

 

I suspect that when those ADs come up for re-election they will have challengers who will point out these shenanigans or more likely won't run. 

 

Time will tell.

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

43 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

I assume you have listened to the podcasts on the topic and understand the board's reasoning to return to 2 separate positions of elected president and hired executive director. That reasoning makes sense to me, and I believe the board members are in a better positions to judge that than I am. Do you disagree with their rationale? If so, can you state specifically what you disagree with?

 

I haven't listened to their podcast yet. I think I understand the basic idea of what they're going for, it's reasonable. Still not sure how we will get someone who can do a part time job with that amount of travel and time investment. 

 

 

Did you listen to Phil talk about his experience as president and how both his full time job and the BOD felt he wasn't doing his job. This limits our options, and means there's a good chance our next president will be pulled in two directions similar to how Phil was.

 

They could of added the new position and still made the president a full time job. You could probably roll a lot of Jake's job into the new president to help offset the cost of the new ED. You'd end up with the same number of employee's probably save money and the BOD could still make everyone answer to them so we don't get another Foley. 

 

[Darqusoull13]

@jester121 both A3 and A4 voted based on member feedback. This can be found in the notes, copied below: 
Area 4 – based upon member feedback, Area 4 compelled to vote No for this motion 
Area 3 – voted no due to member feedback on submitted comments through USPSA website, emails to  area director email, phone calls, and in person conversations opposing bylaw changes. 

Based on Public Social Media feedback on USPSA's page and several of the Area pages, both before and after the vote, these changes are not being received well. To roughly estimate a percentage, less than 5% support is a very safe bet. As a match director I've heard 0 local support for the new bylaws. 

There are quite a few members making it known that they will be running for AD specifically to undo these bylaws. Some of our local shooters have even sent me messages indicating their memberships will not be renewed because of these changes. In my short history in the sport, not even allowing rifles in pistol matches () caused that level of action. These new bylaws are unfortunately causing tangible harm to the sport. 

So what does this mean for our club? Not much. It's clear to me A4-AD (Chad) followed membership feedback. Chad has also been good to work with in the past with matches and other USPSA business I've needed help with. 

What does this mean for matches in other Areas? I'll will not be attending other area matches, except A3 which I will make a point to try to attend. 

[Racinready300ex]

9 minutes ago, Darqusoull13 said:

There are quite a few members making it known that they will be running for AD specifically to undo these bylaws. 

 

That's going to be tough. Didn't they change it to 3/4 vote to make bylaw changes? That'll take 7 votes. Winning 5 elections will take some time, and that's assuming all those new people can agree on anything. 

[twodownzero]

20 hours ago, motosapiens said:

It doesn't bother me if you believe that, but imho it's totally wrong.  The area directors you say have no regard for the membership are actually elected by the membership. I strongly suggest that if you think your view is popular, you consider running for area director. 

I have a suspicion there's going to be far more interest in the Area Director elections in the near future and I would submit there's a strong possibility that there will be changes in leadership as a result of this stunt.

[BritinUSA]

Exactly; this is why this smells so bad, it was this BOD that gave the President all this power and the salary to match, then new positions were created within the org with very high salaries. 
 

This BOD agreed almost 100% with everything that Foley did, just check the minutes to see how they voted. 
 

With these changes they have effectively neutered the president’s power and then locked the stable doors afterward with the new 3/4 override.

[motosapiens]

23 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

I have a suspicion there's going to be far more interest in the Area Director elections in the near future and I would submit there's a strong possibility that there will be changes in leadership as a result of this stunt.

That's a good thing. Of course a reasonable person would ask some of these far more interested people just what they have done for the organization to deserve consideration: How many matches directed, how many clubs started, how many national and area matches worked, etc....

 

I looked into the position, and it's far more commitment than I was ready to undertake, but perhaps the people upset about this are already giving alot back to the sport.

[BritinUSA]

Everyone is already giving to the sport, some with their time volunteering to setup and/or run matches, serve as section coordinators etc. Others are giving their hard-earned money to the organization in match/classifier fees, membership fees etc.

 

This organization exists ONLY because of the hard work of volunteers, and the money from the membership… The changes to the bylaws specifically change this org from a member-centric one to a business-centric model.

 

The very people that keep USPSA in existent now have a much smaller voice than before. The changes to president’s authority and the 3/4 override rule are counter to the fundamentals on which this organization was founded.

[motosapiens]

9 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Everyone is already giving to the sport,

that is provably false. There are many people (some of them famous) who give literally nothing to the sport.

Quote

 The changes to the bylaws specifically change this org from a member-centric one to a business-centric model.

I don't understand that comment at all. We still elect the board. The board still makes the rules (and gets no pay for their work). The bylaws changes have no effect on that.

Edited January 26, 2022 by motosapiens

[Darqusoull13]

12 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

That's a good thing. Of course a reasonable person would ask some of these far more interested people just what they have done for the organization to deserve consideration: How many matches directed, how many clubs started, how many national and area matches worked, etc....

 

I looked into the position, and it's far more commitment than I was ready to undertake, but perhaps the people upset about this are already giving alot back to the sport.

Please don't assume interested parties in future AD elections do not give back. It's simply not true. There are more ways to give back to the sport than working matches. Just as I would not want a requirement to earn a GM classification placed on these positions, I would not want a requirement to be RO certified or be a club president either. 

I would have run had my current AD not voted against. As it is, I'm happy with my representation and to be honest, I'm already the equivalent to an AD for PRS (Central Rimfire) so I'm glad I don't have to think about all that work.

Our USPSA/SCSA club hosted around 40 matches between USPSA and SCSA last year in addition to the A4 SCSA Championship. We have a TON of phenomenal shooters involved in our club including our SCSA MD's Jason and Josh. I personally shot 66 matches in 2021 between USPSA, SCSA, multigun and PRS. That includes 24 PRS matches we hosted including the Finale. I'm not inexperienced in how shooting sports are run at a club level through a national level. I learned all that from guys with way more experience.

As @BritinUSA indicated, there are many levels of involvement in the sport. I wouldn't wish my level of involvement on anyone. There's been a significant cost. But I disagree that anyone has more or less of a vote when it comes to electing representatives in the sport, as the bylaws clearly indicate. The only qualifier for a vote is membership and every vote is equal. 

[motosapiens]

7 minutes ago, Darqusoull13 said:

Please don't assume interested parties in future AD elections do not give back. It's simply not true.

I certainly made no such assumption. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[Racinready300ex]

12 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

That's a good thing. Of course a reasonable person would ask some of these far more interested people just what they have done for the organization to deserve consideration: How many matches directed, how many clubs started, how many national and area matches worked, etc....

 

I looked into the position, and it's far more commitment than I was ready to undertake, but perhaps the people upset about this are already giving alot back to the sport.

 

 

I think deciding what members deserve based on how we feel about their level of contributions is a recipe for disaster.  

 

[motosapiens]

Just now, Racinready300ex said:

 

 

I think deciding what members deserve based on how we feel about their level of contributions is a recipe for disaster.  

 

wait, wut? there must be some misunderstanding here. I am saying that when someone runs for AD, I'm going to be interested in what they are currently doing for the sport and how long they've been doing it.... their track record, so to speak...