Gary Stevens Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 I wish we could webcast the meetings. It would make Al Gore's "An inconvient truth" look like an action thriller Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckbradley Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 You are right i went way off topic. It just struck a nerve. No USPSA isnt broke but its not coming out way in the black over the past several years. There isnt much extra if any. Yes they could afford a webcast but paying for all the SC's to attend the BOD meeting isnt feasible as it is now. Raise fees and it may be. I still think its pointless for them to go as a group with no participation or vote. As long as the option of attending is there for the ones that want to I am happy. Closed session is a necessity. Especially when it comes to legal matters and dealing with private matters such as personal. I didnt like it either before I was actually a member of a city council and saw first hand why it was needed. I can tell you that I wouldnt want a webcast or even a video of the meeting if I was a member. We know how a few frames can be misused. Just as words can be taken out of context so can video bytes. I am happy with the minutes. The members themselves have to vote to approve the minutes before they are made public. There isnt much chance of deception unless the whole BOD is conspiring together. Then it comes back to trusting the guy you put in to represent you. I am not sure if this is done now or not but i would like to see an agenda published so the membership can make their views known to their director before a meeting. And I dont think a decision should be made without a chance for a director to gather feedback from the membership. In other words no ram roding. In our city ordinance it was required to have a first reading of a proposed ordinance at one meeting and a second reading at a second published meeting before it can be voted on. Not to say we need to operate the same. The agenda can serve as the first reading in our case. Although I dont think its required for our BOD to operate in this manner I do think our current BOD tries to implement this principle in their process. At least I know my director does. He is constantly asking for members opinions on such matters, some of it right here on this forum. I think we have a pretty good BOD at the present time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihatepickles Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 There isnt much chance of deception unless the whole BOD is conspiring together. Chuck, Are you aware that the proposed rule banning the DOH in Production and the proposed changes to Appendix D2 & D3 (making bull barrels illegal for Limited guns unless they were install standard by the factory) have no record within the Minutes? I've brought this issue up at the USPSA forums and haven't seen anything approaching a good reason for these changes magically appearing in the proposed rules. This issue, the undercover creation of new rules, bothers me more than any other aspect of the proposed changes. In general, 9 out of 10 proposed rules are horrible ideas taking the USPSA in a bad financial direction and now we have the added suspicion that goes along with mystery rule changes makes the natives restless. Thoughts? P.S. If this is new info for anyone reading this thread, please voice your opinions on the USPSA forums before you even bother to reply here on BE.com. We need our voices heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 There isnt much chance of deception unless the whole BOD is conspiring together. Chuck, Are you aware that the proposed rule banning the DOH in Production and the proposed changes to Appendix D2 & D3 (making bull barrels illegal for Limited guns unless they were install standard by the factory) have no record within the Minutes? I've brought this issue up at the USPSA forums and haven't seen anything approaching a good reason for these changes magically appearing in the proposed rules. This issue, the undercover creation of new rules, bothers me more than any other aspect of the proposed changes. In general, 9 out of 10 proposed rules are horrible ideas taking the USPSA in a bad financial direction and now we have the added suspicion that goes along with mystery rule changes makes the natives restless. Thoughts? P.S. If this is new info for anyone reading this thread, please voice your opinions on the USPSA forums before you even bother to reply here on BE.com. We need our voices heard. Pick, I spent some time talking to my AD about the process used to create and change the new rulebook, because I was curious too, about how some of the proposed changes snuck in there. A fair chunk of this, especially with regard to the division rules, was written and then copied and pasted, occasionally unintentionally. I'm pretty sure from talking to him, that there was no intent to change the currently legal equipment in Limited, and that there may not have even been intent to change the holster/mag pouch rules for all divisions..... There may have been things overlooked ---- but I went bleary eyed just trying to read it once, I wasn't writing, editing or proofing it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted January 18, 2007 Author Share Posted January 18, 2007 There are say 50 SC's? One important point - the advance request Sedro is required since observers are welcomed on a space available basis. That means that we will accomodate as many people as we reasonably can given the room size; we don't take the requests and then rent a room large enough to handle any number of people who submit the request. That being said, we have never run out of observer space and the average number of members taking advantage of this option per-meeting is about 0.25. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihatepickles Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 (edited) Nik, Thanks for understanding my post wasn't a flame, I was worried about getting dogpiled. My comments were in the spirit of discussing why we need better record keeping. I don't feel a transcript is needed (or wanted) but I would call for better minute taking. If the rules are a mistake during cut and paste, fine... but... these were reviewed by 11 members of the BOD twice before being posted. When the next go-around of rules and such occurs, I'd hope more attention would be paid to the prose. No harm - no foul. Edited January 18, 2007 by ihatepickles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 --- snip ---I can tell you that I wouldnt want a webcast or even a video of the meeting if I was a member. We know how a few frames can be misused. Just as words can be taken out of context so can video bytes. I am happy with the minutes. The members themselves have to vote to approve the minutes before they are made public. There isnt much chance of deception unless the whole BOD is conspiring together. Then it comes back to trusting the guy you put in to represent you. --- snip --- Chuck, Concur but eyewitnesses are no better. Hypothetical example: There is a vote on retention of L-10. The result is to keep L-10. The observer reports: "Area 14 begrudgingly went along with the rest and wound up voting to keep L-10". The minutes only report the vote. The minutes neither support or deny this claim. If the session should be closed, so be it. It it can be witnessed in person, a webcast is not real different. Of course, the webcast could be made into a blooper film... Just a thought, Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 "No USPSA isnt broke but its not coming out way in the black over the past several years." That's funny...I'll I've been told from members of the BOD's is that USPSA has the highest number of members in recent history...... "Closed session is a necessity. Especially when it comes to legal matters and dealing with private matters such as personal." We can agree to disagree here... It's relatively easy to claim a "slip-up" in posting some of the '08 draft rule proposals. It's not a stretch to expect that at least some of the 11 BOD's "proof read" the material to assure the accuracy of what's being posted. Afterall...it is the rules by which the game is played. It's not a personal issue...it's an administrative issue that has and will continue to cost this organization support and membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 First, some Administrative chores... Singlestck and ChuckB, if you have anything else to say toward each other, please do so off the forum. I don't want to have to go back through an gut what you've posted so far. It looks like you two are done with that back and forth anyway. So, lets leave it at that. For everybody: - no USPSA vs IPSC vs IDPA - no political posts (like what to vote for) - no old debates (this one is a request, as it is off topic) Further posts on this thread should be about attending the meeting, or the fairly now idea webcast/video recording the meeting. OK...now that that is out of the way... As a member, I think we spend enough on sending the BOD to the face-to-face meetings already. They should be able to get a lot of the grunt work done with emails and Forum postings (which they have a section for that on the USPSA Forums). And, I am sure they do get a lot of stuff in line before the face-to-face meetings. As a Section Coordinator, I think it would be just great for USPSA to fly a bunch of us to these meetings with no responsibilities or powers. Who wouldn't want to go hang out with 50 or so like-minded shooters on somebody else's dime. (Actually, I'm sure the get-together of a group like that would be good for all, but it would be a big chunk of change to do this for every face-to-face meeting of the BOD.) Of course, you could require that the SC would have to sit through the meetings. I think that would take the attendance number down from 50...to around 5. Board meetings are dull. (come on...who sits through every hour of C-span ?) I'm with ChuckB. We have meetings that are open to the membership to attend. We have officials that we have elected. We may not get what we want all the time, but we have a voice. I am all for as much transparency as we can get. But, we need to look at the cost/benefit before we jump right in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 (edited) Paying to fly your SC to watch a meeting? Uh No, are you kidding? Attending a meeting? Sure go for it but I get more thrill out of surfing the USPSA rules forums. And is that ever a boring mess. I believe that we elect our Area Director's and President to represent us and if they start screwing up, well I vote the other way. You can attend a session of Congress too and see how far that gets you. PS Everybody vote the Area 14 Director OUT, He hasn't replied to one of my emails and I am glad ChuckS brought him up Edited January 18, 2007 by BSeevers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseywales Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 i live in the area, so i pinged dave thomas about the possibility of sitting in on the meeting. if schedule permits, i'll get to be a fly on the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckbradley Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 "No USPSA isnt broke but its not coming out way in the black over the past several years."That's funny...I'll I've been told from members of the BOD's is that USPSA has the highest number of members in recent history...... "Closed session is a necessity. Especially when it comes to legal matters and dealing with private matters such as personal." We can agree to disagree here... It's relatively easy to claim a "slip-up" in posting some of the '08 draft rule proposals. It's not a stretch to expect that at least some of the 11 BOD's "proof read" the material to assure the accuracy of what's being posted. Afterall...it is the rules by which the game is played. It's not a personal issue...it's an administrative issue that has and will continue to cost this organization support and membership. I believe the fact they are proposed and we have a chance to look over them and have input shows first hand how the process works and we do have a voice. Now if they had passed the new rules and it was now law then i would agree with you. We also need to remember these are volunteer positions. If you have a real desire to get in there and change things then you have the option to run for the position yourself. Yes we have the highest membership in history but take a look at the financials over the last 10 years and tell me if we are in the black or in the red. From what i remember we are in the red overall. Some expenses have really increased more than what i think was reasonable considering Mission count has been reduced due to the fee increase, it was a wash revenue wise but the number of piece work went down, and the processing has become more automated. So why the increase in expense? Thats a discussion for another thread. Membership doesnt always equate to operating in the black, although we did by a little last year. Also please dont just cut out part of what i said when the following sentence lends credibility to my claim. So I will post it again here. "Closed session is a necessity. Especially when it comes to legal matters and dealing with private matters such as personal. I didnt like it either before I was actually a member of a city council and saw first hand why it was needed." Have you actually occupied a position that required closed session? Employees have the right not to have personal matters made public, officials do not. Sensitive legal matters require closed session. Legal strategy and agreements need confidentiality in order to bring the best outcome for the organization. When i first went into office I thought I was going to not be a part of any closed session. Thats how much I despised it. That was before i was educated on the matter. I did initiate a discussion regarding closed sessions and after the discussion realized the need and changed my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 "Also please dont just cut out part of what i said when the following sentence lends credibility to my claim." We agree to disagree...no problem with your credibility w/me...don't know how I can make that any clearer. "We also need to remember these are volunteer positions." ...and it is a fact that I am most aware of.... "Have you actually occupied a position that required closed session?" Yes I have...and I still am active in such a system. I have no problem with EC if it concerns legal issues pertaining to the organization or personnel issues...but there are issues that effect the membership that are discussed in EC that should be removed from EC and showcased in the "light of day" which makes a webcast of a BOD's meeting an idea worthy of merit. The first step in building trust and confidence in an elected official and/or administrative system is disclosure. It isn't disclosure if you invite someone...at their own expense...to come watch you work...and provide them with a partial view of the decision making process. While we're at it...lets not make the "leap" by comparing USPSA's ability to function with access granted individuals by Governmental agencies. "If you have a real desire to get in there and change things then you have the option to run for the position yourself." This is the "end all to beat all" catch phrase used by people happy with/satisfied with the status quo. More people than I are not happy with this organization's direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckbradley Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Good, then we dont have to disagree. You see the necessity of EC as do I. I also agree that it should be used only in those circumstances and no official action should be discussed or taken other than that. I dont understand why you wrote earlier that we would have to agree to disagree. Was it because I misspelled personnel? I wouldnt say i was completely satisfied with the status quo either. It does remain a fact that you are able to run for the position if you are so unhappy with things as they are. If there are that many that feel as you do then it will be easy getting elected. What issues are discussed in EC/ES/CS that shouldnt be? The use of EC is regulated by law for Governmental Agencies where as USPSA is not. But I consider it very close being its a not for profit membership unlike a for profit private entity. At least thats the way i would like it to be. Also if I remember right we were required to announce why we were going into EC and when we came out we had to announce that no action was taken while in EC. Any action had to be officially done out of closed session in public. I realize this doesnt apply to USPSA Overall I believe the BOD now is allot more open and responsive than BOD's of the past. I know of one director who was ousted because he brought out things that were going in the meeting, to the membership. One matter in particular that cost USPSA a significant amount that was a a result of another directors incompetance or negligence. So in light of that I believe it is moving in the right direction. What specifically is it you think is going in the wrong direction? At first I thought a web cast an idea worth consideration. I considered it and came to the conclusion that I wouldnt want it if I was a director. Open meetings and more detailed minutes are needed but being recorded is going to far. At the end of the day the way they vote is what really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) "Was it because I misspelled personnel?" No..... "It does remain a fact that you are able to run for the position if you are so unhappy with things as they are. If there are that many that feel as you do then it will be easy getting elected." A7 has a great Area Director....my "beef" isn't with him. "What specifically is it you think is going in the wrong direction?" Way too much to go into here...and that isn't what the post was about to begin with. If you really must know...pm me. "At first I thought a web cast an idea worth consideration. I considered it and came to the conclusion that I wouldnt want it if I was a director. Open meetings and more detailed minutes are needed but being recorded is going to far. At the end of the day the way they vote is what really matters." It all goes back to disclosure. If a webcast of a BOD's meeting allows some additional form of disclosure that can only be seen in my opinion as a good thing. "At first I thought a web cast an idea worth consideration. I considered it and came to the conclusion that I wouldnt want it if I was a director." Yea.... I'd bet the directors don't want it either Edited January 19, 2007 by Chuck D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 "If you have a real desire to get in there and change things then you have the option to run for the position yourself." This is the "end all to beat all" catch phrase used by people happy with/satisfied with the status quo. More people than I are not happy with this organization's direction. And some of us are running for office --- either because we're not happy, or because someone who's done a good job has decided to retire...... I would suggest you run for office ---- but that would require you rejoin first, right? Or have you renewed your membership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 "I would suggest you run for office..." See below.... "A7 has a great Area Director....my "beef" isn't with him." "...but that would require you rejoin first, right? Or have you renewed your membership?" The check is written but my overall disgust won't allow me to add postage and toss it in the mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 "I would suggest you run for office..."See below.... "A7 has a great Area Director....my "beef" isn't with him." "...but that would require you rejoin first, right? Or have you renewed your membership?" The check is written but my overall disgust won't allow me to add postage and toss it in the mail. I'll spring for postage if you want. It's much easier to discount your opinion when you're not playing the game..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Thanks for the offer.... Maybe I'll pass on the postage but will settle for a draft next time I'm in your neck of the woods. "It's much easier to discount your opinion when you're not playing the game....." I honestly think this "squeaky wheel" gets more "grease" now as a non-member with an agenda than I ever did since I joined in 1987. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 The whining in this thread makes the baby jesus cry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 This is going no where but further and further toward politics. CLOSED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts