October Bod Meeting Minutes - When?

[ysued]

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.

Don't forget Production Division!!

What if the BOD changed their Direction and Milled Bomars were deemed Illegal for PD??

I'm against Milled Bomars on PD, but I'm equally against making them illegal now after many members have spent the cash installing them.

But at the same time, I do believe the Executive Session is necessary for the process!!

Could the Minutes be published faster??

Sure, but like they said before, after they have been verified and approved by te BOD!!

The last thing we need is another misunderstanding because some stupid typo!!

[ipscbob]

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?

Oh, lets not mince words shall we, you obviously ARE an elitist . Yes, I think that each and every member that pays their dues should have an EQUAL say in the direction the sport takes. Living in California, I have first hand experience with how a representative system of government can be abused by minority special interest groups.

[warpspeed]

All right, you all have drifted this thread so F-ing far it has become stupid.

Why don't you start another thread bitching and complaining about the President, BOD and anyone else.

EricBudd asked a simple question. It has been answered.

Perhaps the thread should be closed as it no longer serves a purpose.

Unless you all are tryng to get BE and the Mods to delete the Rules Forum altogether, then by all means, keep it up.

[ysued]

All right, you all have drifted this thread so F-ing far it has become stupid.

Why don't you start another thread bitching and complaining about the President, BOD and anyone else.

EricBudd asked a simple question. It has been answered.

Perhaps the thread should be closed as it no longer serves a purpose.

Unless you all are tryng to get BE and the Mods to delete the Rules Forum altogether, then by all means, keep it up.

Has it drifted??

Yes!!

But it still serves a purpose!!

Communication!!

Which is the main purpose of this forum, CIVIL Communication!!

I don't see a reason why this thread should be closed, so far it has bee civilized and most informative, as I didn't know much about how the BOD did their work.

Perhaps you could ease up a little bit and let ignorant folk like me that have been shooting this sport for over 14 years and never knew the Inner workings of the Organizations learn a little!!

BTW, profanity, even disguised is still profanity!!

[EZ Bagger]

BTW, profanity, even disguised is still profanity!!

+1

[TRNinTX]

Perhaps you could ease up a little bit and let ignorant folk like me that have been shooting this sport for over 14 years and never knew the Inner workings of the Organizations learn a little!!

Having served as a Board Member and Officer of several non-profit groups over the past thirty years, therein lies the problem. Most members don't understand the Inner workings and don't take the time to learn or be involved. If they did, then many of the misunderstandings would never occur.

Just my .02

[mactiger]

I'll add a little bit to this fracas.

I've seen several mentions of USPSA's owning "swamp land" (referring to the lot that was purchased several years ago in anticipation of constructing an office building rather than leasing the space). This land was recently sold, so USPSA no longer owns it.

Now for some facts: It's NOT swamp land. I've been there, I've seen it, it's high and dry. In fact, it looks like any other commercial lot set up for small businesses and strip malls. It IS, however, in what is considered to be a 100 year "flood plain", which only means that it has the possibility of being underwater, and the whole drawback to building on that lot was that because of the 100 year flood plain designation, the builder would have had to add several feet of soil to raise the foundation. The lot, as far as I, the realtor, and everyone who lives around there knows, has never been under water. In fact, looking at it, most of the area would be flooded out before this lot was wet. It does appear to be near the bottom of a hill, which might cause heavy runoff to cross the lot. (I live in South Louisiana, so the whole hill concept is kinda foreign to me, but I know swamp when I see it.) This was simply a code issue, not actual wetlands. It was also an instance where a couple of people got some partial information and then ran with it, spreading rumors and half-truths across the internet. Sort of like the whole thing that recently sprang from a mere mention that Single Stack and L-10 divisions were going to be discussed at the BOD meeting. Someone assumed, from a single line item in the agenda, that those divisions were going to be removed. There was no basis for this assumption, just someone's knee jerk reaction, and the subsequent domino effect.

I was on the board when the land was purchased. It seemed to be a sound business decision given the facts that we had when we voted to purchase it. Later information came to light that showed that it would be too costly to build a single building on that property. USPSA has since sold the land: issue over and done with.

As to minutes, Bruce has given you accurate information regarding the process. It takes time to review the minutes and make sure that the information is correct. Not everyone works a 9-5 schedule or lives on the internet, and they don't all agree sometimes. But the minutes are a reflection of the results, not the process. I suggest that if you want to know how a particular decision was arrived at, you ask your BOD member. He should be more than willing to tell you why he voted a certain way, (I was), but he probably won't give you a blow by blow of the proceedings, nor will he disclose information that needs to remain private--nor should he. There are several reasons for that, and others have stated them better than I can.

You want to hear the discussion? Go to the meeting. You'll find there's no secret, "star chamber" stuff going on. I'll also second several others and say that if you don't like what's happening with your BOD, run for office--join the club, learn the secret handshake. At the very least, get more involved at your club level. It is a volunteer organization, and is responsive to the majority of the membership. It's not designed to keep everyone happy, and you don't own stock in it. I can count on both hands the number of members from my area that even bothered to suggest improvements or ask questions about anything regarding USPSA business. The more involved you get, the more informed you will be.

Troy

[wgnoyes]

... (I live in South Louisiana, so the whole hill concept is kinda foreign to me, but I know swamp when I see it.) ...

Well said, Troy, thank you. And if anyone's interested further in the now-dead issue of "swamp land", I've got pictures from when I was there of the high and dry so-called "swampland", complete with shots of other businesses and concerns that went ahead and built around it.

Edited November 6, 2006 by wgnoyes

[EricBudd]

Since I started this thread, all I can do is say I'm sorry.

I have my answer that the minutes will be published when they are typed and approved by all the BOD members as accurate. I wasn't aware of the process. Now I am. Thanks.

I'm still curious what will happen with L-10 and Single Stack. What, if any changes are coming to Production, and what the new rule book will look like. I'll just have to wait.

That said, 2007 promises to be a very interesting year with all the changes that will (may?) take place. I just home we come out of this a stronger organization with better and clearer rules and that we don't chase away too many members in the process. Also, once the next rule book is done, can we leave it alone for a few years (or decades)?

Sincerely,

Eric Budd

[SteveZ]

... (I live in South Louisiana, so the whole hill concept is kinda foreign to me, but I know swamp when I see it.) ...

Well said, Troy, thank you. And if anyone's interested further in the now-dead issue of "swamp land", I've got pictures from when I was there of the high and dry so-called "swampland", complete with shots of other businesses and concerns that went ahead and built around it.

Lets put it this way...if the land isn't flooding today...its NEVER going to flood. Washington State in the direct line of a major storm right now....they're talking about record rains (like 10" in the mountains and 6" in the lowlands)....basically one of those "once in a century storms".

[Rob Boudrie]

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.

#1: The revolver rules to which you refer were PROVISIONAL - it was printed right on the rulebook. These rules were represented as PROVISIONAL specifically so that changes could be considered without the implied burden of not changing the way things had "always been."

#2: The .356TSW issue occurred many years ago when a previous USPSA president declared that claiber to be limited legal while he was attending an Area Championship. This statement was made outside of the official process, and should never have been presented as an official USPSA position. USPSA has subsequently tightned up the procedures for issuance of "official rulings" on equipment, and we now have a defined process for "formal rulings". When mistakes are made, we try to learn from them.

[bgary]

if the land isn't flooding today...its NEVER going to flood.

No kidding! My back yard - which is a hill, with well-pitched drainage paths down to the street, is a lake today. I would not have thought it possible, but the rain has been coming down faster than it can drain out to the street. sheesh!

PROVISIONAL - it was printed right on the rulebook.

That's a really good point. The PLAN, at this point, is to release a DRAFT rulebook early in 2007, have a decent period of time for member review and feedback, and then publish an OFFICIAL USPSA rulebook in time for it to be in effect 1/1/2008.

Please do NOT make equipment choices (read: spend a lot of money) based on what you see in the DRAFT rulebook. By definition, it will be subject to change. Changes *will* occur throughout 2007 as errors are found, rules are clarified and equipment rules evolve.

Bruce

[Chuck D]

"I've seen several mentions of USPSA's owning "swamp land"

The term "swamp land" was used by me a play on a phrase...not to actually mean that the property was "swamp land." I did a poor job of communicating my meaning and for that I take responsibility.

"#1: The revolver rules to which you refer were PROVISIONAL - it was printed right on the rulebook. These rules were represented as PROVISIONAL specifically so that changes could be considered without the implied burden of not changing the way things had "always been."

#2: The .356TSW issue occurred many years ago when a previous USPSA president declared that claiber to be limited legal while he was attending an Area Championship. This statement was made outside of the official process, and should never have been presented as an official USPSA position. USPSA has subsequently tightned up the procedures for issuance of "official rulings" on equipment, and we now have a defined process for "formal rulings". When mistakes are made, we try to learn from them."

Calls were made...several of them...to USPSA H.Q. before purchases of above equipment were made. Clarification was sought on numerous occasions from a number of different USPSA officials to do the best job I could have done in assuring equipment purchased was LEGAL for their respective divisions. To now make the accusation that it was I whom didn't understand the term "Provisional" or that my inquiry was made to the wrong person is inaccurate. On one hand it is recommended...even encouraged...to seek clarification from the various sources within the management of USPSA but when you do and the data is incorrect....then I'm still responsible for the outcome? The amount of time passed doesn't make a bit of difference as far as I'm concerned.

These two issues are NOT as easily "explained away" as Rob wishes them to be and if you do a little "research" I was not the only member put off by actions such as these...not by a long shot.

Edited November 6, 2006 by Chuck D

[Flexmoney]

I've been away for most of the weekend. To get caught up, I started on page 3 of this 5 page thread. By the end of page three...this thread reminded me of the IPSC list.

If you guys want to fight this stuff out like you did on the IPSC list...then go do so there...or do it on the USPSA Forum.

This is a SHOOTING Forum, first and foremost. Brian is kind enough to let us talk about some policy stuff here (at my request), lets not abuse that.

CLOSED

This thread started with a simple enough question...when will the minutes be posted. I believe, somewhere in all this was an answer that they would be posted when they got them approved and all that they needed to do to get them posted.

[Shooter Grrl]

Sorry - I hit reply before I got to the closed post!