USPSA BOD Meeting Agenda

[BritinUSA]

The lack of details concerning the transfer of IPSC RD to A2D is troubling. 

1. Will the BOD/Members have any day on the decisions he will make?
2. How long will he retain the RD position ?
3. Will there be an election for this position, and if so when, and who is eligible to run ?

All of the above should be detailed in the agenda, but all members get are vague bullet points.

Also, who nominated A2D to hold this position and why ?

[Nolan]

3 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

All of the above should be detailed in the agenda, but all members get are vague bullet points.

Also, who nominated A2D to hold this position and why ?

 

And all of this will be/was decided in 'Executive Session' so we won't even get the vague bullet points.

 

6 hours ago, Darqusoull13 said:

Has a single person in this thread emailed their AD to inquire WHY the board is voting to limit duties (8/26) or requiring reimbursements be pre-approved by the Board of Directors (7/8).

This seems very much like a, "Did you contact the manufacturer?" type scenario where instead of asking the source, everyone just goes straight to the internet to blab. 

 

And yes, I've emailed my AD and have never received a response. 

 

Nolan

[Gunner66]

13 hours ago, 392heminut said:

I don't see it that way! They don't have any issue with having us vote about optics on single stacks and revolvers, but not polling the membership about major decisions about the office of the president isn't just as important? I just don't accept that.

Excellent Point

 

[BritinUSA]

It bothers me that they change the bylaws so frequently, again without any input/approval from the members.

[warpspeed]

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

It bothers me that they change the bylaws so frequently, again without any input/approval from the members.

 

Bothers but doesn't surprise you, right ?

[BritinUSA]

Correct.

[Racinready300ex]

On 9/6/2024 at 5:58 PM, 392heminut said:

I don't see it that way! They don't have any issue with having us vote about optics on single stacks and revolvers, but not polling the membership about major decisions about the office of the president isn't just as important? I just don't accept that.

 

Yeah, optics on revolvers etc don't matter at all. But it's also not crazy to ask the people shooting what they want to shoot. But if the BOD is going to go to the membership for every important decision we probably don't need a BOD at all and could just vote on everything we do. 

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

On 9/6/2024 at 10:48 PM, Nolan said:

 

And all of this will be/was decided in 'Executive Session' so we won't even get the vague bullet points.

 

 

And yes, I've emailed my AD and have never received a response. 

 

Nolan

 

You should probably CC all the AD's and see which ones are willing to respond. In the past I've done that with decent results. 

 

To me, no response says as much as a response could. If that makes sense. 

[BritinUSA]

The bid to make A2D interim RD for IPSC failed to get the necessary vote, in fact quite a few of the BOD voted against the measure.

[BritinUSA]

There was talk of an IPSC Committee but I don't recall an agenda item to actually address the RD roles and responsibility if it was transferred from the President.

The Managing Director is now in charge of Nationals, prior to being hired he had no knowledge of USPSA so I'm not sure how that's going to work out.

[Nolan]

14 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

There was talk of an IPSC Committee but I don't recall an agenda item to actually address the RD roles and responsibility if it was transferred from the President.

The Managing Director is now in charge of Nationals, prior to being hired he had no knowledge of USPSA so I'm not sure how that's going to work out.

 

The Managing Director will sub-contract out to an experienced Match Director to run the Nationals, the same as the current President, who was stripped of that responsibility for doing the same exact thing.

 

So what changed?  Now, an even more highly paid person will pay another person to do the same thing a lower paid person paid to have done.

 

Nolan

[Racinready300ex]

Nationals MD's get paid? That's pretty sweet. 

[Joe4d]

42 minutes ago, Nolan said:

 

The Managing Director will sub-contract out to an experienced Match Director to run the Nationals, the same as the current President, who was stripped of that responsibility for doing the same exact thing.

 

So what changed?  Now, an even more highly paid person will pay another person to do the same thing a lower paid person paid to have done.

 

Nolan

wow,,,, so an org has a president not qualified or willing to run a match, so they hire a guy who cant run a match, to hire another guy to run a match..
And people keep sending these people money.. LOL...   You get what you continue to pay for.

[shred]

On 9/6/2024 at 3:22 PM, Darqusoull13 said:

Has a single person in this thread emailed their AD to inquire WHY the board is voting to limit duties (8/26) or requiring reimbursements be pre-approved by the Board of Directors (7/8).

This seems very much like a, "Did you contact the manufacturer?" type scenario where instead of asking the source, everyone just goes straight to the internet to blab. 

 

I did ask my AD... since he was conveniently available at a match.  Not going to summarize since I've forgotten some of it and could misrepresent the rest but I agree with most of what he's wanting to do, even if it means more committees and less ad-hoc decisions; USPSA is older and much bigger than it was when much of the current structure was developed, so I think it could use some additional process and rigor. 

 

Kind of like a small scrappy start-up company going mainstream if any of y'all have been through that transition.

 

[BritinUSA]

The org does need to be restructured, it’s still operating in 1980’s mode; The question is, can they complete that restructuring before the almost inevitable financial crash that it is heading towards ?

 

They are seeing huge turnovers in membership, declining revenue streams and out-of-control spending. 
 

Many members are refusing to take part in USPSA matches which is hitting activity fees, others have suggested lawsuits against the organization. They are taking these actions because there are no other means of holding the BOD accountable. 

 

Members are afraid to criticize the board out of fear of suspension/banning, so dissent is no longer tolerated in USPSA.

 

Once an AD is elected they have the job regardless of their performance, lacking any option to recall a malfunctioning AD leads to boycotts, and the threat of lawsuits.

 

Per Delaware precedents, the members of a non-profit are the shareholders of that organization. The members own the organization, while the BOD are the custodians of it. 
 

The members must have absolute power to recall individual members of the board, and even the whole board if necessary.

[Darqusoull13]

19 hours ago, shred said:

 

I did ask my AD... since he was conveniently available at a match.  Not going to summarize since I've forgotten some of it and could misrepresent the rest but I agree with most of what he's wanting to do, even if it means more committees and less ad-hoc decisions; USPSA is older and much bigger than it was when much of the current structure was developed, so I think it could use some additional process and rigor. 

 

Kind of like a small scrappy start-up company going mainstream if any of y'all have been through that transition.

 

Hopefully that plan includes deliverables. I guess I'll keep reading the minutes and not completely check out myself. 

[Thomas H]

On 9/6/2024 at 6:42 PM, BritinUSA said:

The lack of details concerning the transfer of IPSC RD to A2D is troubling. 

1. Will the BOD/Members have any day on the decisions he will make?
2. How long will he retain the RD position ?
3. Will there be an election for this position, and if so when, and who is eligible to run ?

All of the above should be detailed in the agenda, but all members get are vague bullet points.

Also, who nominated A2D to hold this position and why ?

 

You know, it seems like those questions are things that would get answered over time, considering that this meeting was literally to see if the bylaw change was possible, and THEN if that specific responsibility change should occur, and THEN to possibly place a specific person in that position at the moment.

 

I mean, the answer to your first question would be: more than previously, since previously the position was held by the president and would have been more difficult to rein in, compared to an appointed person subject to the board.

 

And the answers to the others would have been things they would have decided upon later.

 

But then again, some people do really have a tendency to literally make up problems as "possibles" and then use them to detract from what the board is doing on all occasions.

 

....which is pretty interesting, since our current board is mostly composed of people who AREN'T the ones that everyone was originally mad at, and who got put in place to replace those older members.  Perhaps the fact that those new folks are making huge changes according to the original complaints means that many of those complaints didn't actually hold water...?

[Thomas H]

On 9/6/2024 at 3:22 PM, Darqusoull13 said:

Has a single person in this thread emailed their AD to inquire WHY the board is voting to limit duties (8/26) or requiring reimbursements be pre-approved by the Board of Directors (7/8).

This seems very much like a, "Did you contact the manufacturer?" type scenario where instead of asking the source, everyone just goes straight to the internet to blab. 

 

Yep.  The minute I read the agenda, I emailed my AD with my thoughts and some commentary on the situation.  He emailed me back within a couple of hours, thanked me for my thoughts, told me some things he had been thinking, and made clear what his votes on a couple of things would be barring significant new information.

 

I'm pretty sure other folks in my Area also received responses quickly, too.

 

But I'm not in Area 2.

[CHA-LEE]

Doing the exact same thing while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity......

 

USPSA keeps doing the same ineffective stuff which creates the same ineffective results. How is anyone surprised by this?

 

The USPSA ship has sunk to the point of no return. All that is left are the people scampering on the deck literally waiting to drown. Yes, there are very well intentioned people on the BOD who want to make it better and "Fix" things but also completely ignore the reality that the situation has reached the point of no return. 

 

It will take 10x the effort to "Fix" the sinking ship vs letting it sink and starting over fresh with a viable business & management model. I honestly don't know why everyone is resisting the demise of current USPSA model. The sooner it fails, the sooner it gets replaced with an effective model.

 

While the rest of you are whining about how USPSA has screwed up yet again (no surprise there), I have already chosen to let it fail on its own. The sooner the masses jump onboard with letting the monkey show fail on its own, the sooner it will be done.

[MHicks]

I have no idea about the myriad of issues within the USPSA organization.  It seems like a lot of the issues that get discussed have to do with what to do with  low participation in the dying divisions. LO, CO, Open, PCC seem to be pretty happy although LO is still provisional.  Limited and Production  are down but not to the level of the rest.

[BritinUSA]

This is part of the problem, they are working on division changes, rule changes etc.. Meanwhile the org is sailing full-speed toward a significant financial iceberg.

 

The structure of the organization is little changed from its inception in 1984 and therein lies the root cause of many of its issues. Numerous committees have been formed, but progress seems to be painstakingly slow.

 

Some new proposals on the IPSC committee look very promising, and these need to be examined by the members - and voted on by the board - before any changes should be made to the IPSC RD position. The proposals from the last meeting were a clear case of putting the cart before the horse which would have likely led to more issues down the road.

 

Making changes without considering their implications generally leads to more problems.

 

The longer the problems with the org continue, the more fragmented practical shooting will become, PCSL, Hit-Factor, and other outlaw matches are growing. Getting everyone back under the same umbrella might be impossible.

 

The org is likely doomed, and that’s why I would have preferred IPSC to transfer the directorate to a new organization. If that does not happen then the least USPSA can do is ensure that the members have a voice in nominating and electing an RD, and ensuring that they are held to the highest standards.