USPSA BOD Minutes Posted - New BYLAWS are now in effect

[motosapiens]

24 minutes ago, RJH said:

I voting for whoever gets rid of aftermarket hammers, but calls people midpack bitches on the campaign trail. I think a pres that does those 2 things will help clear the snowflakes out of the sport

haha, this is true, especially now that my race cz comes with the hammer I want. No one who bought a cheaper gun a few years ago should be able to have a similar hammer.

 

9 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Did foley ever email you repeatedly making threats to throw you out of the sport, embarrassed you for no reason? If he didn’t you have no idea what he was like.

haha, this is probably also true, although there did seem to be at least *some* basis behind the conflicts that I know anything about. Personally, I got along really well with Mike, because I get along with everyone. wouldn't want to get on his bad side tho.

Edited January 27, 2022 by motosapiens

[warpspeed]

37 minutes ago, Bakerjd said:

A non vote is 100% an endorsement of whome ever gets elected. In essence you are saying you don't care. 

 

The membership only ever got a say at the time of the election. Much the same as our government. We ellect those people in hopes they will do what we think is the right thing. If they do not then next election they dont get reelected. 

 

 

 

 

The membership gets a chance to vote every single weekend - 

[RJH]

15 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Did foley ever email you repeatedly making threats to throw you out of the sport, embarrassed you for no reason? If he didn’t you have no idea what he was like.

 

Never saw or talked to the guy. I don't think he has the power to embarrass me though. And I am only half in the sport, so banning me would have little effect. However, if I did get banned I would damn sure give them a reason lol

[twodownzero]

6 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

the president was never able to change the direction of the organization without the consent/approval of the board. This is how it should be regardless of whether the pres and ED are the same position (as they were under foley) or separate positions (as they were previously, and now will be again). The idea is for the executive director to run the business operations that require expertise and continuity and for the president to lead the board and guide the direction of the organization.

 

It's interesting to me that many of the same people who were screaming about what they perceived as foley's abuses, bullying heavy-handedness, etc.... are now screaming about efforts to prevent a similar concentration of power in the future. I think many people just like to complain.

 

It sounds like you're arguing with a straw man here.  I never complained about Foley or anyone who preceded him, I only watched the aftermath.  I generally do vote in USPSA's elections, though, and I've been here a long time.  I can say this: I'm a one issue voter now.

 

I also don't agree that the presidency should be weak.  He is the one elected official with the input of all of us.

 

City governments work the same way, though.  Some have strong mayors and others rely on a city manager.  Which do you think give the power to politically accountable people to get things done?  There are advantages and disadvantages to any political structure, but what we have in place now is deliberately calculated to create less accountability to the members.  Whatever consequences follow is up to the board and their bureaucrat that they install, who now has tremendous power.

Edited January 27, 2022 by twodownzero

[motosapiens]

9 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

I can say this: I'm a one issue voter now.

 

what issue is this that's so important for you?

 

I care about alot of issues..... but competitive equity, rules stability and member feedback on rule evolution are the biggies, and everything else flows from there.

Quote

 

There are advantages and disadvantages to any political structure, but what we have in place now is deliberately calculated to create less accountability to the members.  

 

That's silly. Every board member is elected by the members of his/her area. I don't see how it could get any MORE accountable.  OTOH, electing a business executive is dumb, and we have years of proof of that. There's a reason that pretty much all executives of pretty much all organizations (corporate *and* non-profit) are chosen by an elected board.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by motosapiens

[Hdiamond]

16 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

what issue is this that's so important for you?

 

I care about alot of issues..... but competitive equity, rules stability and member feedback on rule evolution are the biggies, and everything else flows from there.

That's silly. Every board member is elected by the members of his/her area. I don't see how it could get any MORE accountable.  OTOH, electing a business executive is dumb, and we have years of proof of that. There's a reason that pretty much all executives of pretty much all organizations (corporate *and* non-profit) are chosen by an elected board.

 

 

 

For me, one thing that was (and still is, as far as I saw) missing is the ability for those members to recall said board members prior to the expiration of their term.

The only time we have to provide feedback that cannot be ignored is during the election cycle. Director goes rogue on us 6 months in? Guess we'd better wait another 3.5 years.  New issue comes up that the Area members are not a fan of the AD's actions on? Better wait another 3.5 years if they won't accept our feedback. 

[motosapiens]

2 minutes ago, Hdiamond said:

 

For me, one thing that was (and still is, as far as I saw) missing is the ability for those members to recall said board members prior to the expiration of their term.

The only time we have to provide feedback that cannot be ignored is during the election cycle. Director goes rogue on us 6 months in? Guess we'd better wait another 3.5 years.  New issue comes up that the Area members are not a fan of the AD's actions on? Better wait another 3.5 years if they won't accept our feedback. 

because recall campaigns in government are so efficient? and not a waste of anyone's time? and not just a political weapon for the well-connected to use to harass people? 

 

Tell you what tho, I'll totally vote for you for AD or president if you want to bring more real-time accountability to the board, and if you also have a clear vision of how you want the sport to continue developing.

 

[BritinUSA]

I think there should be a recall provision in the bylaws for all elected officials, it provides not only a method for the members to remove someone who has gone 'rogue' but also acts as a deterrent to anyone thinking of going 'rogue'. But it needs to be a big enough number to prevent trivial harassment.

 

If 50% of the number of people who voted in an election petition for a recall then it would trigger an election where the incumbent could run on the ticket if they so wished. For positions that were appointed (less than 2 years left to serve) then they could set the petition limit to say 10-20% of the number of members in that area (or nationally for the president).

Edited January 27, 2022 by BritinUSA

[outerlimits]

how about term limits on all AD's?  you get one term, then out.  fresh blood is good.  

[BritinUSA]

2 minutes ago, outerlimits said:

how about term limits on all AD's?  you get one term, then out.  fresh blood is good.  

Agreed, too long in a job like that can create an US vs. THEM attitude

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, outerlimits said:

how about term limits on all AD's?  you get one term, then out.  fresh blood is good.  

this is a great idea, we need to make sure there is no institutional knowledge in our organization. In fact, we should only allow people to run for AD if it is their first year in the sport.  As we all know, people are beating down the doors to run for the cushy position of AD, and the only thing stopping them from winning is the huge campaign expenditures of the current board.

 

What other solutions can we create for problems that don't actually exist?

[twodownzero]

10 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

this is a great idea, we need to make sure there is no institutional knowledge in our organization. In fact, we should only allow people to run for AD if it is their first year in the sport.  As we all know, people are beating down the doors to run for the cushy position of AD, and the only thing stopping them from winning is the huge campaign expenditures of the current board.

 

What other solutions can we create for problems that don't actually exist?

 

Personally, I think we should just vest all the power in one unelected bureaucrat that can only be overturned by a unanimous board vote.  That way, whatever accountability remains is extinguished and those in power will remain forever.

[Gary Stevens]

My one and only comment on all of this. I am very disappointed in the process and results. 

 

I dont know who I would have voted for in an upcoming election because I don't know who would  have been running. 

 

My issue is I am being told in essence, you can vote for anyone we approve of, but not this particular person.

 

My ability to exercise my right to vote, as I see fit, has been denied.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Gary Stevens

[BritinUSA]

I think that sums it up perfectly…

[motosapiens]

32 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

My issue is I am being told in essence, you can vote for anyone we approve of, but not this particular person.

 

wait, wut? looks to me like the election is still happening and anyone who meets basic qualfications can declare candidacy. Plenty of time for you to throw your hat in the ring. BritinUSA too should run. Lets see if his ideas are more popular now than last time.

[MikeBurgess]

So if I am reading this correctly the Big issue with the New bylaws is there is no recall provision?  I honestly haven't had the energy to do a side by side analysis of them, did they remove a recall provision or just fail to add one?

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

2 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

So if I am reading this correctly the Big issue with the New bylaws is there is no recall provision?  I honestly haven't had the energy to do a side by side analysis of them, did they remove a recall provision or just fail to add one?

 

 

 

I think there has been more concern about the neutering of the president. Also making it a part time position that most people probably can't do. The new unelected position getting the power taken from the pres. Making future changes to the bylaws will now require 3/4 vote so 7 votes. That'll be tough for any future BOD's to change things if any of this doesn't pan out. 

 

Some people are concerned that the sitting president during this change wasn't elected to be president he was appointed. And really even those in his area didn't vote for him, I think he ran for AD unopposed. I hadn't considered that, but I can see their concern. 

 

Some of it's really just optics. It may all be great ideas. But the way they're going about doing it along with that email basically saying it needed to happen due to concern a certain person might become president. All that looks bad.

 

There is some good stuff too. I think everyone can probably agree on the part about future rule changes. I think the proxy vote thing makes a lot of sense.

[BMSMB]

Additional problem with the changes to President make it so most people can't meet the obligations of the role. Requiring ~70 days of travel for all national matches while being part time narrows the candidate pool to retirees or people who are independently wealthy. There may also be some industry people that their companies could work with to allow them to commit to that, but that seems ripe for some unethical influence.

Edited January 28, 2022 by BMSMB

[MikeBurgess]

38 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I think there has been more concern about the neutering of the president. Also making it a part time position that most people probably can't do. The new unelected position getting the power taken from the pres. Making future changes to the bylaws will now require 3/4 vote so 7 votes. That'll be tough for any future BOD's to change things if any of this doesn't pan out. 

 

Some people are concerned that the sitting president during this change wasn't elected to be president he was appointed. And really even those in his area didn't vote for him, I think he ran for AD unopposed. I hadn't considered that, but I can see their concern. 

 

Some of it's really just optics. It may all be great ideas. But the way they're going about doing it along with that email basically saying it needed to happen due to concern a certain person might become president. All that looks bad.

 

There is some good stuff too. I think everyone can probably agree on the part about future rule changes. I think the proxy vote thing makes a lot of sense.

thank you, this is probably the best summation I have seen so far.

 

 

[motosapiens]

45 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I think there has been more concern about the neutering of the president. Also making it a part time position that most people probably can't do. The new unelected position getting the power taken from the pres. Making future changes to the bylaws will now require 3/4 vote so 7 votes. That'll be tough for any future BOD's to change things if any of this doesn't pan out. 

 

Some people are concerned that the sitting president during this change wasn't elected to be president he was appointed. And really even those in his area didn't vote for him, I think he ran for AD unopposed. I hadn't considered that, but I can see their concern. 

 

so let me get this straight, we should freak out because the duly elected board, using a legitimate process, is restructuring the organization slightly, and taking some power from the president. Did we freak out when they gave this power to the president just a couple years ago, or was no one paying attention? Are these the same people that freaked out because they thought the last president was abusing his power? or are they different ones? Was there a big push among the freakout people to make the president full time? Or did they oppose it? Or did they not know about it because no one told them to freak out then?

 

Also wondering about the A3 AD thing. Does sherwyn running unopposed mean we need term limits for AD's because there are so many people who want to do it? Does it mean the A3 voter were so disgusted and disenfranchised that they boycotted the vote? What exactly is the reason for the freakout?

 

Quote

But the way they're going about doing it along with that email basically saying it needed to happen due to concern a certain person might become president.

 

are you 100% sure that's what the email really said? Had a certain person announced his candidacy then? Or had he only declared war on the organization?

Edited January 28, 2022 by motosapiens

[Thomas H]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Some people are concerned that the sitting president during this change wasn't elected to be president he was appointed. And really even those in his area didn't vote for him, I think he ran for AD unopposed. I hadn't considered that, but I can see their concern.

 

Anyone who is saying that as a "concern" must either 1) not know anything about what A3 shooters think of Sherwyn, or 2) are deliberately making up something just to create other reasons for people to emotionally react without facts. 

 

28 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

Also wondering about the A3 AD thing. Does sherwyn running unopposed mean we need term limits for AD's because there are so many people who want to do it? Does it mean the A3 voter were so disgusted and disenfranchised that they boycotted the vote? What exactly is the reason for the freakout?

 

Or does Sherwyn running unoppposed mean that literally, no one bothered to run because the vast majority of people in A3 liked Sherwyn as AD, agreed in general with his voting decisions, and he would have won overwhelmingly against anyone else who ran against him?

People in A3 actually know the answer to that question.  Matter of fact, the first time Sherwyn was thinking about retiring from the AD position, several people floated the idea of running.  When he decided to run for one more cycle, those folks said "Ok, nope, I was only gonna run if Sherwyn wasn't running again."  (And then later only ran once Sherwyn DID decide to not run again.)

 

Literally, anyone who is talking about how Sherwyn was unopposed at his last election as a "concern" has to be doing it in an attempt to create problems where there is none, as the reality is the literal opposite of the nonsense they are making up.

 

Rather like a lot of what is being said in various "arguments" in places (including here) -- lots of the emotional content that is coming around doesn't seem to match the facts of the actual situation.  It is always instructive to carefully look at who continually pushes to create emotional arguments using loaded language to convince people, I'll note.

[Racinready300ex]

59 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

so let me get this straight, we should freak out because the duly elected board, using a legitimate process, is restructuring the organization slightly, and taking some power from the president. Did we freak out when they gave this power to the president just a couple years ago, or was no one paying attention? Are these the same people that freaked out because they thought the last president was abusing his power? or are they different ones? Was there a big push among the freakout people to make the president full time? Or did they oppose it? Or did they not know about it because no one told them to freak out then?

 

I don't think we should freak out, we're basically going back to the way things used to be. You'll probably need to poll everyone to really know the answers to all those questions. I just tried to sum up what I've seen people have issue with. 

 

59 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

Also wondering about the A3 AD thing. Does sherwyn running unopposed mean we need term limits for AD's because there are so many people who want to do it? Does it mean the A3 voter were so disgusted and disenfranchised that they boycotted the vote? What exactly is the reason for the freakout?

 

To me it's a sign term limits wont help. It seems like a job historically no one wanted, and once this settles down may go back to that. And really just like in politics, we have term limits if we don't like someone we just need to vote them out. 

 

 

59 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

 

are you 100% sure that's what the email really said? Had a certain person announced his candidacy then? Or had he only declared war on the organization?

 

Maybe it wasn't the intent of the email. But that's how it came across. Before Foley was out and before there was any talk about these changes Matt had said openly on podcasts he intended to run against him in the next election. 

[Racinready300ex]

32 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

 

Anyone who is saying that as a "concern" must either 1) not know anything about what A3 shooters think of Sherwyn, or 2) are deliberately making up something just to create other reasons for people to emotionally react without facts. 

 

 

Or does Sherwyn running unoppposed mean that literally, no one bothered to run because the vast majority of people in A3 liked Sherwyn as AD, agreed in general with his voting decisions, and he would have won overwhelmingly against anyone else who ran against him?

People in A3 actually know the answer to that question.  Matter of fact, the first time Sherwyn was thinking about retiring from the AD position, several people floated the idea of running.  When he decided to run for one more cycle, those folks said "Ok, nope, I was only gonna run if Sherwyn wasn't running again."  (And then later only ran once Sherwyn DID decide to not run again.)

 

Literally, anyone who is talking about how Sherwyn was unopposed at his last election as a "concern" has to be doing it in an attempt to create problems where there is none, as the reality is the literal opposite of the nonsense they are making up.

 

Rather like a lot of what is being said in various "arguments" in places (including here) -- lots of the emotional content that is coming around doesn't seem to match the facts of the actual situation.  It is always instructive to carefully look at who continually pushes to create emotional arguments using loaded language to convince people, I'll note.

 

 

I think that's reasonable. I don't know Sherwyn I'm not from A3. I do know our AD here in A8 and would trust him as the interim president. But I could also understand someone from another area who's never heard of him might prefer to get to vote for a new president before we make changes to the bylaws. I don't expect the rest of the country to trust in the guy we picked up here in the north east. We're not know for good decisions up here. 

 

[motosapiens]

9 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Before Foley was out and before there was any talk about these changes Matt had said openly on podcasts he intended to run against him in the next election. 

was not aware of that, i haven't payed much attention to stoeger since he stopped shooting uspsa nats. I have always liked hoppy, personally. squadded with him a few times and found him to be hard-working and helpful.

[vluc]

4 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

I think that sums it up perfectly…

 

 

Gary & Brit summed it up nicely.