October Bod Meeting Minutes - When?

[Jim Norman]

After the fact most all of the information is and/or should be available. Rob, you are correct, we cannot have certain information in the public domain. Some things are on a need to know basis. What to know does not equal need to know.

Chuck, How do we know that you area actually one of us? Maybe you are a plant here to gather information to offer a winning bid for the Nationals for your town? Or maybe you are a member of some anti-group that would like to have inside information on our internal politics?

The above said tongue in cheek, but as you pointed out, membership in USPSA is $40. Anyone can join. But of course no one would ever try that. Chuck is right, let's just post everything out in the open, afterall, the anti's aren't smart enough to read our boards and act against us. Real Estate agents don't research the prices and backgrounds of sellers and buyers. Heck let's just post our lowest acceptable price and the fact that we'd settle for 20% less. Nobody would believe it and they'd all bid up to double our asking price.

Jim

[kimel]

+1 Lawman!

Want to see what a real public open meetings law looks like? Go read Washington RCW 42.30, The Public Open Meetings Act. (Don't miss all the subsections) This is very similar to the same type of act as found in many other states.

You will see a list of reasons for Executive Session which exlude their availability without a formal public records request. Then go read the public records request laws (don't have the citation memorized for that one...use Google) and notice the exclusions listed therein for various activities which are not subject to PRR.

As a city planning & zoning commissioner and a state employee I live far too much of my life in meetings that are held under RCW 42.30. I also lose copious quantities of my life responding to public records requests that are clearly nusiance requests written by some punk who just took the PRR portion of some communications/journalism course or some wanna-be lawyer puke with an axe to grind out on a fishing expedition.

And for the record: Should a meeting ever be held in reasonable driving distance to me I'll be there. For some reason though, these meetings are almost always held some place warm in some cold month.

[Chuck D]

"There are classified meetings of various house and senate committees to hear matters of national security that are better left unheard by our enemies and (even worse) the drive-by media. Do you think THOSE should be open to everyone, as well?"

lets not "simplify" matters to the point of....... before the BOD's start to claim that information can not be revealed due to issues of "National Security.

The issue here is IF the membership has a right to know what the issues are and how solutions are achieved. I couldn't care less where the Nationals are held but what I do care about is a fairly transparent process (in as much as that is possible while protecting the legal aspect of the organization) of detailing the hows and whys of a decision.

When decisions are made...the membership deserves as much of a detailed description of the decision and the decision making process as humanly possible. The current system falls WAY short of doing so.

"Chuck, How do we know that you area actually one of us? Maybe you are a plant here to gather information to offer a winning bid for the Nationals for your town? Or maybe you are a member of some anti-group that would like to have inside information on our internal politics?"

It is no secret that I do not fully trust the BOD's. Rob and I have spoken numerous times, both in person and via e-mail about this and other USPSA related issues. He knows I'm not a "plant"....contact him if you want additional verification. I'm a pain in the ....but I'm no "plant" for a Nationals venue or for anyone else for that matter. As far as being "one of you" my membership number is A-06676. I have yet to renew that membership...pending the decision made on the status of L10 Division. So I guess that I'm really no longer "one of you."

"Real Estate agents don't research the prices and backgrounds of sellers and buyers. Heck let's just post our lowest acceptable price and the fact that we'd settle for 20% less. Nobody would believe it and they'd all bid up to double our asking price."

Funny you should mention "real estate." It was the "swamp land deal" that created the level of distrust I have with the BOD's in the first place but that's an issue for another day and discussion....

If you fully trust...even w/o the appearance of "semi-full disclosure" that my hats off to you...you are a much better person that I.

[Rob Boudrie]

Chuck, How do we know that you area actually one of us? Maybe you are a plant here to gather information to offer a winning bid for the Nationals for your town? Or maybe you are a member of some anti-group that would like to have inside information on our internal politics?

He's one of us, but this brings up an interesting story -

Years ago, a local was trying to put a gun club out of business (he eventually succeeded when the gun club ran out of $ for the lawyer). Before the club ran out of money, the club's attorney asked the other side, during sworn deposition, if he had hired or arranged for an individual to join the club for the purpose of obtaining information from membership meetings. After hearing "you have to answer the question", the plaintiff answered "yes."

[Singlestack Wonder]

Funny you should mention "real estate." It was the "swamp land deal" that created the level of distrust I have with the BOD's in the first place but that's an issue for another day and discussion....

If you fully trust...even w/o the appearance of "semi-full disclosure" that my hats off to you...you are a much better person that I.

+1

Many here speak of the "benevolent dictatorship in IDPA" and how members have no choice in IDPA matters. Other than the election (in which very few USPSA members care to vote), no issues are brought before the membership for a vote. Maybe that's why a majority of the members don't vote.................

It does appear suspect when BOD meeting minutes take so long to post. What verification do members have that the minutes are correct? Or, do the minutes just go thru a "spin" process to make the verbiage more palatable when issues such as eliminating Limited 10 are discussed?

Edited November 5, 2006 by Singlestack Wonder

[EricW]

You know, the directors do have these things called jobs and lives. I think some of them actually shoot occasionally as well.

Don't like the way the BOD is run? Then I suggest you pull up your big boy pants and run for election. Once you get elected you can come back here and tell everyone how easy it is to manage a 60 to 80 hour a week job that requires international travel, take care of a marriage, a home, then, put in another 20+ hours a week with even more travel on behalf of USPSA.

Do all of that, then have some internet malcontents rip you a new one over 5000 different isssues, mostly imagined, and see just how much fun you're having.

If USPSA hired a stenographer to completely record every meeting, the usual suspects would be on here bitching over the expense to the membership. So if you're bitching just to bitch (which seems to be the usual case), why not go start a thread and gripe about football or Tom Cruise or whatever and save the feelings of people that you're going be seeing at a match sooner or later.

Thanks for caring.

[Singlestack Wonder]

Once you get elected you can come back here and tell everyone how easy it is to manage a 60 to 80 hour a week job that requires international travel, take care of a marriage, a home, then, put in another 20+ hours a week with even more travel on behalf of USPSA.

Perhaps the BOD members you speak of should not have taken on the challenge of being on the USPSA BOD with such demanding life schedules. Albeit they love the sport and wish to contribute, maybe the organization is secondary to their priorities. Although we applaud them for their efforts, maybe they are not the best choice to focus on the issues at hand. When the campaigning for the next election rolls around, prospective candidates should state the amount of time they will have available to address USPSA issues.

[ipscbob]

Many here speak of the "benevolent dictatorship in IDPA" and how members have no choice in IDPA matters. Other than the election (in which very few USPSA members care to vote), no issues are brought before the membership for a vote. Maybe that's why a majority of the members don't vote.................

Absolutely! Important matters such addition or elimination of a division should be put to a vote of the membership. I would be willing to pay an extra $5-$10 a year in dues if I received Mail proxies and could vote on issues like this. This should more than pay for a direct mail contractor to administer a regular vote of the membership.

[Chuck D]

"Once you get elected you can come back here and tell everyone how easy it is to manage a 60 to 80 hour a week job that requires international travel, take care of a marriage, a home, then, put in another 20+ hours a week with even more travel on behalf of USPSA. "

Two jobs (one full/one part-time), Academy classes, two degrees w/Grad. School starting in January and yup I'm married w/family but who's counting ......

"internet malcontents"

I was a "malcontent" LONG before the advent of the internet...thank you very much.

"So if you're bitching just to bitch (which seems to be the usual case)..."

ah wrong assumption....

"Thanks for caring."

actually....I do care. If I didn't...why waste my time posting my thoughts and opinions that obviouly run contrary to yours and offend you SO deeply.

"Many here speak of the "benevolent dictatorship in IDPA" and how members have no choice in IDPA matters. Other than the election (in which very few USPSA members care to vote), no issues are brought before the membership for a vote. Maybe that's why a majority of the members don't vote................."

+2 ... and I'm really sorry if my agreeing with you places you in my "bad company" and relegates you to having to pull up your "big boy pants."

If you actually read my posts...I accuse no one of anything and I personally insult no one. I state that I really believe that executive session and the inability of a timely release of what I believe are inadequate meeting minutes lead to a basic mistrust of the actions undertaken on behalf of the membership. What I received in return was personal attacks in which I took the time to respond to....

Before you unload both barrels in my direction....think about that for a minute. Regardless of your outcome...don't worry for a second. I can take it.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Chuck D

[Jim Norman]

Absolutely! Important matters such addition or elimination of a division should be put to a vote of the membership. I would be willing to pay an extra $5-$10 a year in dues if I received Mail proxies and could vote on issues like this. This should more than pay for a direct mail contractor to administer a regular vote of the membership.

I have reservations about a vote by the membership subjects such as Addition or subtraction of a division. Likewise I would worry about the membership voting for the purchase of a headquarters or other major purchase.

THe US is a representative republic, not a democracy. USPSA is similar. We elect our representatives and trust them or don't rust them as we see fit, to do the job they were elected to do.

Sadly we rarely have a contested election of any real meaning. We also get a poor return on the ballots that are sent out.

Jim

[bgary]

Bruce, if you would be so kind as to hover over the roof here

No problem! In fact, I may be able to make it earlier, and we can spend some time on the USPSA yacht down in the Caribbean, so... go ahead and wait outside now, I'll be right there

And for the record: Should a meeting ever be held in reasonable driving distance to me I'll be there. For some reason though, these meetings are almost always held some place warm in some cold month.

Actually, more accurately, they're generally held at an airport hotel at a major airport hub somewhere near the middle of the country (DFW, ATL, etc) to minimize cost and travel hassle so that we can spend the scarce time meeting instead of waiting for a quorum.

It does appear suspect when BOD meeting minutes take so long to post. What verification do members have that the minutes are correct?

The Board had some "issues" years ago when minutes went out that didn't match various members' recollections. In response, the Board adopted a policy whereby the minutes are "reviewed and approved" by all BOD members before they are released for publication. Whatever the suspicions may be, this is not a "spin cycle" - this is an effort to make sure that the minutes *accurately* reflect the decisions that were made in the meeting. You have 11 strong opinions around the table, 9 of whom have votes, and the conversations sometimes get pretty dynamic. It is not always easy to keep track of which person made which amendment to which motion in which order. All we're trying to do is cut down on the amount of "oh, crap, we published minutes and then found a mistake" stuff.

Bear in mind, too, that what we are talking about are *minutes*, not "transcripts". Minutes of the Board meetings are the official record of decisions made. There is not, and never has been, an effort to capture the ebb and flow of the conversation. The truth is that (in general) the Board gets together for 24 hours a year. 1-1/2 days of meetings, twice a year. The MAIN value of those meetings, in my not-so-humble-opinion, is the dialog, not the decisions. It is, for the most part, the only time that we have to discuss the hard issues, share viewpoints, argue differences, and reach consensus. The "voting" on an issue is easy, and can take place online (as many votes do, and as most of the upcoming rules votes will).

I guess what I'm saying is ... IMHO, the *best* meetings are ones where more discussion took place. Sometimes - as at this most recent meeting - the conversation led in productive directions but was not completed... so, fair warning for you conspiracy theorists, there probably *won't* be information in the upcoming minutes about many of the hot topcs that buzz through this thread, because in point of fact, a lot of *discussion* took place, a lot of constructive thoughts were passed around the table, and now people (individuals and committees) are working to develop language which is sufficiently clear to be able to *vote* on the topics.

I'll add one thought that is sure to throw gas on the fire, but... what the heck. USPSA is a Board-governed, membership organization. It is *not* "owned by the members", as some would like to believe. A membership in the organization imbues a person with certain rights (eg, voting in elections, competing at sanctioned matches) and benefits (Front Sight, classification system, etc). It does *not* convey an ownership stake, or make a person a "shareholder" in the corporation. The Board has a fiduciary responsibility to do things that they believe are in the best long-term interests of the organization. Sometimes that means change. Sometimes that means making decisions that may piss off individual members. BUT, it is NOT the Board's job to address the individual concerns and desires of every single member. It IS the Board's job to make decisions which benefit the membership, the organization, and the sport. Are we accountable to the members? Certainly - there's that whole "election" thing. But if we make a decision that *you* don't like, it doesn't mean we aren't doing our job. In point of fact, it may be the best thing for the organization, whether any individual likes it or not. *That* is the hard part of the job - weighing "what is good for the org" against "what is least likely to piss off the membership", when those two things are in conflict.

I'll wrap by concurring with two other things: one, if you want to know everything the Board talked about during a meeting (excluding executive session matters), come to a meeting and listen in. You may be surprised. And, two, if you really feel strongly about all this, run for a position. I did - largely on a platform of wanting more solutions that "make sense" for the members, and wanting the Board processes to be more transparent to the membership. That was 6 years ago... and no one ran against me in either of the past 2 elections. Most (if not all) of the AD elections in the last couple of years have gone similarly uncontested. I can interpret that in one of two ways... either we're doing a not-entirely-sucky job, or no one else cares enough to throw a hat in the ring. ymmv

B

[bgary]

I state that I really believe that executive session and the inability of a timely release of what I believe are inadequate meeting minutes lead to a basic mistrust of the actions undertaken on behalf of the membership.

I'll answer that as best I can.

1) *every* organization that publishes public minutes has a need to be able to hold some conversations in private. whether it is, as Rob has noted, because of a disciplinary matter on the table, or defining negotiating stances for pending contracts, or performing personnel review and salary discussions.... making those discussions public *harms* the ability of the Board to act in the best interests of the organization... either by "showing all our cards" in public, exposing us to [potentially] actionable claims, or violating employer/employee confidentiality. We have a responsibility to "guide and protect" the organization... and sometimes privacy is needed to protect our interests.

2) having said that, *every* action *taken* by the board, is captured in the minutes. Whatever the discussion may be, votes are *never* taken in executive session - the Board always returns to "regular session" before any votes are cast. So.. separate from the question of missing out on the flavor of the conversation, you're missing out on nothing of substance, because the *decisions* are always on the record.

3) I've already addressed the timing of the minutes in another response. I believe that the delay in the minutes is good and necessary (within reason). If it takes us a few weeks to make sure they are right, that's a *whole* lot better than finding a bunch of factual errors after they are released, and confusing the membership; or, worse, arguing about who did what after they are released. I firmly believe that review of minutes is a *good* thing, in that it cuts down a *huge* amount of turmoil both on the board, and in the membership.

4) I don't know what it is like in other areas, but I don't get the sense there is a huge amount of "mistrust" out there in the membership. The Board is *far* more transparent in its operations now than it was in the past (heck, look - more than half of the Board regularly posts here on the forums). When I travel to matches, I get questions, and I get a lot of input, but I don't generally get a lot of people telling me they don't trust the org. Maybe it is different in different areas... or maybe this is an area for some introspection. I remember about 6 years ago, Chuck, you and I had a *very* long email conversation when you were upset about the decision to make revolver a 6-round division. You comments then were almost identical to your comments now.... that this is an org that you just don't know if you can continue being a member of. My counsel to you now is the same as it was then.... watch what we do, and vote with your feet. If it gets to the point where you just can no longer stand to be a part of USPSA... that's a decision you'll have to make for yourself, just like every other member.

B

[Loves2Shoot]

I'm glad to have Bruce as my Area Director because I know he is a very smart and reasonable guy (those things aren't that common.) He loves shooting and the people that participate in USPSA. I've shot with him a few times over the years and if you don't think you can't trust a guy like Bruce to say it like it is and stick up for the "folks," you better get some meds, tinfoil, and start looking for the little black helicopters...

[NWatHeart]

I am a new member and have been following with some puzzlement this discussion. Having been on boards of several different organizations in the past, I don't find the delay of the minutes to be a reason in and of itself to be alarmed. If there are issues beyond that, historical or otherwise, that I'm not getting, may I suggest contacting your Area Director to air your concerns? But through my own personal experience, a delay in the minutes getting released has nothing to do with nefarious deeds, tweaking, or "spinning," and everything to do with clarity, precision, and accuracy. Surely those are qualities to be encouraged and appreciated, and a little patience would go a long way toward displaying that towards the people working hard on the members' behalf. Just a newbie's opinion, perhaps I'm not entitled to one yet !!

(edited for punctuation )

Edited November 5, 2006 by NWatHeart

[Chuck D]

"I remember about 6 years ago, Chuck, you and I had a *very* long email conversation when you were upset about the decision to make revolver a 6-round division. You comments then were almost identical to your comments now.... that this is an org that you just don't know if you can continue being a member of. My counsel to you now is the same as it was then.... watch what we do, and vote with your feet. If it gets to the point where you just can no longer stand to be a part of USPSA..

That's because in 6 years not much has changed in as far as accountability to the membership regarding making "the best decision on behalf of the organization." As far as your counsel... I "expected" no less..... I do hope you and others realize that I am NOT alone in these beliefs... maybe that accounts for some fraction of the membership retention problem this organization suffers from.

Thanks for your time and willingness to explain your positioning on the "members" role in USPSA.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Chuck D

[SA Friday]

I doubt you can get access to any financial information before the decision has been made. I know the government doesn't post contract bids before the bid period is closed. I also know that there is a LOT of information that never becomes public. I think alot of this information is what Rob is talking about. It's just not feasible for USPSA to post every bit of financial information, or info about member or employee discipline, and could very well leave them open to civil liability. Admittedly, the BOD minutes are very inadequate. It seems unless you specifically talk to your AD you won't know how he feels about an issue. I know that Bruce has been very open, answered every question that I had and I know where he stands on issues that are important to me. We don't always agree but I know that he can back his position with a logical argument. (he's wrong of course but that's his problem)

I think until someone actually goes to a BOD meeting, and tells us how much info is talked about outside of Exec Sesssion, we really need to put a hold on this.

Thank you!!! This is a violation of 18 US Code (287? I think, I could be wrong). It's called bid rigging, and a feloney. Even through neglect, a member could be charged and tried in federal court for this (so can the BoD if they squesk out insider info). That's why the lawyers say no to open meeting for these affairs. Only AFTER the bids have been gone through, and a monetary contract is signed, can the info be released. Even then, the various bids cannot be released as this is considered proprietary information to the different companies that bid on 'whatever'.

You will never see a potentially civilly liable discision be held outside an exec. Nor should we. The liability towards the BoD members and USPSA could quite literally kill USPSA. (We all know not to put a round in the cylinder and spin it..... This is just as dangerous in a different way.)

As for USPSA rule changes etc, that's wide open, and calling for an exec while these discussions are happening would probably be a foul in most people's eyes.

[ipscbob]

I have reservations about a vote by the membership subjects such as Addition or subtraction of a division. Likewise I would worry about the membership voting for the purchase of a headquarters or other major purchase.

Why? The sport should take whatever direction the majority of the members feel it should. This would utlimately be a good thing for all concerned. Are you concerned about the outcome of such a vote? Please enlighten us on how this would be a bad thing.

Sadly we rarely have a contested election of any real meaning. We also get a poor return on the ballots that are sent out.

Poor turnout could be caused by many things. I believe that if the average joe were given a chance to vote on issues, it would result in an increase in ownership, participation, and growth for the organisation.

[Carmoney]

I believe that if the average joe were given a chance to vote on issues, it would result in an increase in ownership, participation, and growth for the organisation.

At the risk of coming across as elitist, do you really think somebody who just joined USPSA and has only shot a couple local club matches should have the same input as a veteran member who has invested years into this sport and has broad match shooting and management experience?

Ever hear of tyranny of the masses? Pure democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner. There's a reason the founding fathers set up this country as a republic. Same goes for USPSA.

[SteveZ]

I have reservations about a vote by the membership subjects such as Addition or subtraction of a division. Likewise I would worry about the membership voting for the purchase of a headquarters or other major purchase.

Why? The sport should take whatever direction the majority of the members feel it should. This would utlimately be a good thing for all concerned. Are you concerned about the outcome of such a vote? Please enlighten us on how this would be a bad thing.

Well here's an example. Lets say the vote for the existance of Limited-10 is put before the membership....and lets say for sake of discussion that 20% of the membership actually shoots L10 and the other 80% doesn't. The people who don't shoot L10 could probably care less about whether it was around or no....so they give it a thumbs down.....loosing L10 is no loss to them....but the people who do shoot L10 obviously have much more to loose.

Putting the addition/subtraction of divisions before the entire membership would be a BIG mistake. Hows that for enlightenment?

Edited November 6, 2006 by SteveZ

[wgnoyes]

Bill, are you equating "who voted for what" and "how much did City X offer us for the Nationals" to NATIONAL SECURITY?

No, ( back at you!) he implied that he could and should be able to get anything he wanted out of the federal government apparently through the Freedom of Information Act, therefore he should be able to get full details of board meetings. I'm simply pointing out that, for the former, this is not the case. But as pointed out on this posting (click here), it could affect USPSA's security if negotiations, deals, and other internal topics were publicized before their completion.

Edited November 6, 2006 by wgnoyes

[Chuck D]

"As for USPSA rule changes etc, that's wide open, and calling for an exec while these discussions are happening would probably be a foul in most people's eyes."

Mine especially....

"At the risk of coming across as elitist, do you really think somebody who just joined USPSA and has only shot a couple local club matches should have the same input as a veteran member who has invested years into this sport and has broad match shooting and management experience?"

Yes I do... every member should have a say and should voice their opinions/concerns, especially those whom look for and expect a "checks and balance" system that will respect and safeguard their interests.

This isn't a hard concept to understand if you've been on the "short end" of some of the BOD's decisions such as declaring Revolver Division an 8 round gig then changing their mind and relegating a 6 round limit or declaring .356 TSW to me Limited Division legal for major scoring then reversing themelves after people sought clairifiaction, received the o.k. and spent their money.

I predict the same "best interest" decisions coming down the pike regarding the Divisions, especially L10 and SS. Whatever way they decide is up to them but I sure would like to see details of the debate and the reasonings behind the decision...either way it is decided.

If I can no longer "do something" ... I sure would appreciate a detailed explaination of why not...not just the words "executive session" and a roll call vote to be the only public record of why I can no longer enjoy what I once could or be told that "this is the way it is...vote with your feet if you don't like it."

Which is exactly what I have done thus far...

"...he implied that he could and should be able to get anything he wanted out of the federal government apparently through the Freedom of Information Act, therefore he should be able to get full details of board meetings. I'm simply pointing out that this is not the case."

No I didn't. Having earned B.A. in Political Science...I can tell you that as part and parcel of many an assignment...I've wasted "countless" hours pawning over Federal and State Legislation as well as State and Local budgets. Data is available to those that seek it for a number of reasons. To compare a "nuts and bolts" issue such as how much money USPSA spent on a plot of land and how much they were to re-coop from selling the unusuable land to an issue of National Security is a stretch....

Edited November 6, 2006 by Chuck D

[wgnoyes]

YOU said:

If I can seek, request, and obtain information from my Local, State, and Federal Governments... I should be able to do the same from USPSA's BOD's meetings regarding details of who is or is not in favor of a particular policy or action and their detailed reasons for their positions.

That to me read that you can get what you want when you want and I was simply pointing out an instance where you could not. That's all. You have since explained further that this is not what you meant, and I accept that. And I think we have also had it sufficiently demonstrated for us now that executive sessions within USPSA BOD meetings are a necessary part of doing business.

As far as details on who is or isn't in favor of whatever, that information is, I'm sure, available. Simply contact your area directors (not just yours, but all 8 of them) and ask them. I'm confident they'll be happy to give you an answer.

Edited November 6, 2006 by wgnoyes

[Chuck D]

"That to me read that you can get what you want when you want and I was simply pointing out an instance where you could not. That's all. You have since explained further that this is not what you meant, and I accept that. And I think we have also had it sufficiently demonstrated for us now that executive sessions within USPSA BOD meetings are a necessary part of doing business."

Nowhere in my statement did it say anything about the Freedom of Information Act or obtaining Classified Information...I did refer to budgetary issues, pending legislation and the outcome and reasonings for those decisions once they are made and in a more detailed form that the issue and a roll call vote.

"You have since explained further that this is not what you meant, and I accept that."

Thank you....

"And I think we have also had it sufficiently demonstrated for us now that executive sessions within USPSA BOD meetings are a necessary part of doing business."

Not for the issues I raise in my statement above...in particular: budgetary issues, pending legislation and the outcome and reasonings for those decisions once they are made and in a more detailed form that the issue and a roll call vote.

[wgnoyes]

Ah, but you ignored or chose not to answer my last paragraph. Again, if you want to know how someone voted on an issue and why, simply ask them. It isn't hard. And from what I've seen, board votes many more times than not are unanimous, so you already know how everyone voted. At any given vote, any participant can call for a rolecall vote and one is immediately taken. Before the days of electronic voting, it worked that way in congress, as well. There was a voice vote of ayes v. nos, and usually the gentleman from so-and-so would rise to call for a rolecall vote.

On the other hand and to play devil's advocate on your behalf for a minute, in 1986 a somewhat shady voice vote in the house was how we got stuck with the new machine gun ban in McClure-Volkmer (Volkner?).

[Chuck D]

"Ah, but you ignored or chose not to answer my last paragraph. Again, if you want to know how someone voted on an issue and why, simply ask them. It isn't hard. And from what I've seen, board votes many more times than not are unanimous, so you already know how everyone voted. At any given vote, any participant can call for a rolecall vote and one is immediately taken."

No I didn't...my issue isn't "how" they voted but "why" they voted in a particular fashion hence the statement: "the outcome and reasonings for those decisions once they are made and in a more detailed form that the issue and a roll call vote."

This debate causes nothing but hard feelings...no real transparency will occur and I've been told to "vote with my feet" if I don't like it. I admire Bruce's tenacity in explaining his opinions and reasonings regardless of the fact that I don't think his position is good for business.

Time will tell if he's correct in his assessment....

Edited November 6, 2006 by Chuck D