Never rec'd Ballot, never had chance to vote

[TRNinTX]

I can tell you from personal experience how you did not recieve a ballot. My oldest son did not report a change of address to Sedro before the deadline of July 1. He never recieved his first ballot and because the same list was used for the second ballot, he did not get it either. If you were not a member in good standing or had an old address in the system on July 1, you would not have recieved a ballot.

Some of the problems were with the members themselves and not USPSA.

[Coolduckboy]

As you have probably read in the USPSA Forums, I didn't Recieve a Ballot either but for a different reason, I was in my Grace period but wasn't able to pay until After that July 1st Deadline, missed it by a couple days.

I believe they should change the structure of the Elections to where they have everyone paid by June 1st, that would include the Grace period and also give notices to people that are in that period that they will not have a chance to vote if they do not pay. Also, include in those notices about address changes and other things that will make them ineligible for voting in a president.

[Jack Suber]

I am confident the BOD will act to fix the voting problems. The current system is antiquated and that is obvious. I realize it will require an amendment of the Bylaws, but it is going to have to be done. Hopefully, that will be on top of the agenda after the Nov meeting. The election is done, so lets help our BOD and President fix the problems. I suggest we all remain in touch with our ADs and Sedro so that this stays at the forefront of their agendas.

[ChrisStock]

never got mine either

ditto

[Charles Bond]

As you have probably read in the USPSA Forums, I didn't Recieve a Ballot either but for a different reason, I was in my Grace period but wasn't able to pay until After that July 1st Deadline, missed it by a couple days.

I believe they should change the structure of the Elections to where they have everyone paid by June 1st, that would include the Grace period and also give notices to people that are in that period that they will not have a chance to vote if they do not pay. Also, include in those notices about address changes and other things that will make them ineligible for voting in a president.

I have seen much in the way of posts about something being broken but little in the way of suggestion as to how to fix it. There has to be a cut off whether it is May 1 or June 1 so if someone is tardy getting their dues in they are not going to get a ballot. If you do not keep the office up to date with a correct address you are not going to get a ballot. Sure we can vote online and given that we have many members with no email address, we are still going to have to send paper ballots or we are going to have an entire portion of the membership with less than an equal opportunity to vote.

I am very aware that the current system is not perfect but I am not at this time willing to have USPSA spend about three times as much each year to run an election where the votes are counted electronically. Having electronic voting does not guarantee any wider participation in the process since the bottom line appears to be that those who are active in the sport vote and those who are not active do not. If someone is not willing to read the Front Sight and gain an understanding of who the candidates are and what are their postions as to the sport, do we really desire these members to vote blindly based on who has the most apppealing name?

Down south we all know you can lead the horse to water but you can not make him drink. This election saw more information than ever before given to the members about the candidates. In addition to the Front Sight articles, the USPSA forum was completely new and added an ongoing dialogue for the members and candidates and there was space allowing each candidate to post unlimited information about themselves and their positions. Despite all of this, we still only had about one third of those eligble to vote to cast a ballot. If however you look at the number of votes compared to active shooters, two thirds of those who are active shooters (having shot a classifier within the last year) voted.

I would welcome any feedback from any member about what USPSA should do regarding elections but let's keep in mind that extra funds spent in the election process are funds that have to come from other programs.

Charles Bond

[sfinney]

I can tell you from personal experience how you did not recieve a ballot. My oldest son did not report a change of address to Sedro before the deadline of July 1. He never recieved his first ballot and because the same list was used for the second ballot, he did not get it either. If you were not a member in good standing or had an old address in the system on July 1, you would not have recieved a ballot.

Some of the problems were with the members themselves and not USPSA.

I've lived at the same address for 5 years and have been paid in full on TY membership for at least that long as well. Still no second ballot arrived.

[Jack Suber]

As you have probably read in the USPSA Forums, I didn't Recieve a Ballot either but for a different reason, I was in my Grace period but wasn't able to pay until After that July 1st Deadline, missed it by a couple days.

I believe they should change the structure of the Elections to where they have everyone paid by June 1st, that would include the Grace period and also give notices to people that are in that period that they will not have a chance to vote if they do not pay. Also, include in those notices about address changes and other things that will make them ineligible for voting in a president.

I have seen much in the way of posts about something being broken but little in the way of suggestion as to how to fix it. There has to be a cut off whether it is May 1 or June 1 so if someone is tardy getting their dues in they are not going to get a ballot. If you do not keep the office up to date with a correct address you are not going to get a ballot. Sure we can vote online and given that we have many members with no email address, we are still going to have to send paper ballots or we are going to have an entire portion of the membership with less than an equal opportunity to vote.

I am very aware that the current system is not perfect but I am not at this time willing to have USPSA spend about three times as much each year to run an election where the votes are counted electronically. Having electronic voting does not guarantee any wider participation in the process since the bottom line appears to be that those who are active in the sport vote and those who are not active do not. If someone is not willing to read the Front Sight and gain an understanding of who the candidates are and what are their postions as to the sport, do we really desire these members to vote blindly based on who has the most apppealing name?

Down south we all know you can lead the horse to water but you can not make him drink. This election saw more information than ever before given to the members about the candidates. In addition to the Front Sight articles, the USPSA forum was completely new and added an ongoing dialogue for the members and candidates and there was space allowing each candidate to post unlimited information about themselves and their positions. Despite all of this, we still only had about one third of those eligble to vote to cast a ballot. If however you look at the number of votes compared to active shooters, two thirds of those who are active shooters (having shot a classifier within the last year) voted.

I would welcome any feedback from any member about what USPSA should do regarding elections but let's keep in mind that extra funds spent in the election process are funds that have to come from other programs.

Charles Bond

Charles,

Are you saying that the 36% vote participation from our membership is acceptable? I don't. I think if we don't address participation at all levels, our sport is in trouble.

I don't think that apathy towards the apathetic is the answer. I think we need to see this as a wake-up call and address the problem.

I hope the BOD will be proactive in addressing this issue.

[Rob Boudrie]

I am very aware that the current system is not perfect but I am not at this time willing to have USPSA spend about three times as much each year to run an election where the votes are counted electronically.

I have submitted a suggestion to the bylaws committee for a change that would allow, but not require, the use of an independent firm that specializes in elections but is not a"CPA firm" to run our election. My proposal also would allow, but not require, the use of internet and/or telephone voting - but would continue to require first class mail as the method of notification and as one of the voting methods. As a final change, it would remove the requirement of USPSA Logo and 18pt red type on the envelope, since many of these election firms use their own envelopes. I will be discussing this proposal with board members prior to the November meeting. If you don't see the motion in the minutes it means that either (a) the other board members convinced me it was a bad idea or (b ) I was convinced it wouldn't move forward. BOD meetings are short on time, and I won't be spending meeting time on this unless there is a reasonable chance of acceptance.

What I would consider the ideal procedure would be an election process similar to proxy voting in a large publicly held corporation :

• Ballots send by first class mail
  
• Replacement ballots available
  
• Votes accepted by phone, internet or first class mail
  
• Complete auditable independence of the election process
  

I'm not proposing that the bylaws be changed to require this, since I do not have a detailed cost estimate. I do remember looking into this a few years ago - the salesman was calling me every few days to work his pitch. I sent him details on our current costs with an explaination of "very interested if you can do it for a comparable cost; any proposal costing significantly more would be DOA." It was more effective than telling him I was on a do not call list .

BUT......

There are many compromises, and the election process is no exception. First class mail is highly reliable and ballots not delivered due to USPS error are rare. More likely reasons are address problems, etc. If it would cost USPSA $1000 extra to run an election with all of these added features, I'd support it. If it would cost USPSA $100,000 extra, I would conclude the current procedure is the appropriate compromise between features and price. Without knowing the actual price, I am not able to even speculate if this sort of voting procedure would be cost effective for USPSA.

Some things I will not suggest and am not willing to support:

• Internet only voting
  
• USPSA staff or volunteers processing votes
  
• Any vote counting done on the USPSA web server
  

[Charles Bond]

Charles,

Are you saying that the 36% vote participation from our membership is acceptable? I don't. I think if we don't address participation at all levels, our sport is in trouble.

I don't think that apathy towards the apathetic is the answer. I think we need to see this as a wake-up call and address the problem.

I hope the BOD will be proactive in addressing this issue.

Jack:

I would prefer that we have 100% paticipation but that is not realistic. We are mostly selling out all of our Area 6 matches and our membership levels have never been higher. At least in our area, we are doing something right regarding participation. This is in many ways a matter that can be best addressed by clubs. Clubs that are proactive in getting their members to the range are more likely to have their members return a ballot.

The question is not should we ignore members. I am not in favor of that but I am also not in favor of spending the funds of our active shooters to activate those who choose not to shoot club matches, choose not be be involved in the sport, and who choose not to return a ballot. I very much doubt that anyone you and I shoot with wants to see their dues or club fees increase so we can be proactive in trying to get those who choose not to return their ballots to do so.

I understand the problem what I do not have is a solution. I am very open to any proposals from you or any other member as to how to best appproach getting the members to be more involved.

Charles Bond

Charles Bond

[Rob Boudrie]

Are you saying that the 36% vote participation from our membership is acceptable? I don't. I think if we don't address participation at all levels, our sport is in trouble.

The answer may actually be yes

The membership process does not prune people once they stop shooting matches. Life members remain members, even if they don't shoot matches. Ditto for 3 and 5 year members whose personal situation does not leave time for matches. I've seen people leave for a decade to have kids, and them come to the range with the kids 10+ years down the road (sure doesn't do much to make one feel young).

As I mentioned on another thread, my estimate is that our vote participation is probably more like 67% of active members (defining "active" as "shot a classifier since 1/1/06"), however, that is only an estimate based on published election results figures and the classification database.

[rubberneck]

Having electronic voting does not guarantee any wider participation in the process since the bottom line appears to be that those who are active in the sport vote and those who are not active do not.

Don't you mean that those who are active in the sport, and received their second ballot, voted. I would have loved to have voted.....

Edited October 15, 2007 by rubberneck

[Jaxshooter]

It is more convienient for some. You also don't have the problem with our great postal system not delivering the ballot.

[JThompson]

I get my mailings from the USPSA no problem... in fact I just got my class card. I have not moved, nor did I do anything else which could prevent me from getting a ballot. There were many people in this forum that had either no ballot or no second ballot. A great number of USPSA members do not even post here, so the number of members who did not get a chance to vote could be substantial.

I don't appreciate the inference that all of us did something which may have prevented us from getting our ballots.

There was/is a problem... period.

Edited October 15, 2007 by JThompson

[Coolduckboy]

*Soap Box* [edit] *steps down from Soap Box*

Edited October 16, 2007 by Flexmoney
Brian's Forum is not for getting on the soapbox. Let's keep it about the shooting.

[Scott R]

[edit]

Edited October 16, 2007 by Flexmoney
It was a response to the soapbox post.

[Charles Bond]

Deleted

The election is over and whether or not you like the persons elected to office, at least accept that the will of the members has been determined. It appears that we have several new folks posting that either they never recieved a ballot or they never received a second ballot. For anyone here who did not receive a ballot, please contact your area director and Dave Thomas so USPSA can check whether you were listed to receive one and the address to which it would have been mailed.

Charles Bond

Edited October 16, 2007 by ima45dv8
Deleted another "Soap Box" quote

[JFD]

If there was a problem with the ballots, the will of the members may NOT have been determined.

JThompson has identified a problem, and benos members represent only a fraction of USPSA membership.

The list used by the CPA firm should be checked. My wife does mailings for a living and it takes very little to screw up a list, especially by a CPA firm that required two tries just to mail the ballots.

[Charles Bond]

If there was a problem with the ballots, the will of the members may NOT have been determined.

JThompson has identified a problem, and benos members represent only a fraction of USPSA membership.

The list used by the CPA firm should be checked. My wife does mailings for a living and it takes very little to screw up a list, especially by a CPA firm that required two tries just to mail the ballots.

I agree and that is why he needs to contact Dave Thomas. Each ballot was numbered and the numbered ballots correspond to a list maintained by the CPA firm. There are three possibilitiies. One no ballot was mailed and that is very bad and a breakdown. Two ballot was mailed and USPS did not deliver. Also bad but not fault of USPSA. Third possibility is that ballot was mislaid as happened at my house with the first ballot due to my 5 year old helping get the mail each day.

Bottom line is that when Dave gets the information then something can be done. We can not fix it from here and we need to fix it if ballots were not properly delivered.

To date there has not been anything discovered to constitute an error by the CPA firm with the ballots. The second mailing was only necessary because the first set of ballots had incorrect postage applied by the mailing service. The postage order to the CPA firm was correct from USPSA. The postage order to the mailing service from the CPA firm was correct. The entire error was with the mailing company who had an employee who set the postage incorrect.

Charles Bond

Charles

[Jack Suber]

Are you saying that the 36% vote participation from our membership is acceptable? I don't. I think if we don't address participation at all levels, our sport is in trouble.

The answer may actually be yes

The membership process does not prune people once they stop shooting matches. Life members remain members, even if they don't shoot matches. Ditto for 3 and 5 year members whose personal situation does not leave time for matches. I've seen people leave for a decade to have kids, and them come to the range with the kids 10+ years down the road (sure doesn't do much to make one feel young).

As I mentioned on another thread, my estimate is that our vote participation is probably more like 67% of active members (defining "active" as "shot a classifier since 1/1/06"), however, that is only an estimate based on published election results figures and the classification database.

Rob,

You made me feel a little better. 67% of "active" members participating in the election is actually a fairly decent ratio. This is about normal for most elections. However, I think it is prudent to analyze the available data to make sure. This would be a valuable analysis for future marketing. It is Always smart to look at not only the results but the other data behind them. Thanks.

[Jack Suber]

If there was a problem with the ballots, the will of the members may NOT have been determined.

JThompson has identified a problem, and benos members represent only a fraction of USPSA membership.

The list used by the CPA firm should be checked. My wife does mailings for a living and it takes very little to screw up a list, especially by a CPA firm that required two tries just to mail the ballots.

I agree and that is why he needs to contact Dave Thomas. Each ballot was numbered and the numbered ballots correspond to a list maintained by the CPA firm. There are three possibilitiies. One no ballot was mailed and that is very bad and a breakdown. Two ballot was mailed and USPS did not deliver. Also bad but not fault of USPSA. Third possibility is that ballot was mislaid as happened at my house with the first ballot due to my 5 year old helping get the mail each day.

Bottom line is that when Dave gets the information then something can be done. We can not fix it from here and we need to fix it if ballots were not properly delivered.

To date there has not been anything discovered to constitute an error by the CPA firm with the ballots. The second mailing was only necessary because the first set of ballots had incorrect postage applied by the mailing service. The postage order to the CPA firm was correct from USPSA. The postage order to the mailing service from the CPA firm was correct. The entire error was with the mailing company who had an employee who set the postage incorrect.

Charles Bond

Charles

Charles,

If Rob's data of 67% of "Active" members voting is accurate, then that is a little better and makes me feel a little bit better. This is about the norm for Proxy votes of shareholders in corporations.

However, I have to disagree with you regarding the performance of the CPA firm. They contracted the mailing services and did not provide adequate oversight over the mailing. Ultimately, they are responsible - this should have been stipulated in the contract. Accordingly, the continued use of that firm to manage our elections should be questioned.

Again, and I am pleading here, PLEASE ask to analyze the data of the election. Not who voted for who, but who didn't vote. The BOD should compare this with "active members" who are shooting classifiers to determine if there is a discrepancy. The data has already been collected (by the CPA Firm) so it should be just a matter of anlayzing it. What if this data showed a significant number of "Active" members not voting? Wouldn't we want to know why? The data is there. Lets use it. Why waste it?

[Charles Bond]

Jack:

Where you and I part company is the idea of oversight. The mailing company used in this election is the same one used in every election for several years and did it correctly. I do not consider it the responsibility of the CPA firm to send a partner down to the mailing service to watch them put postage on the envelopes. There is also no link in my mind to the error and the number of ballots returned. Frankly, the participation here was slightly higher than in previous elections and USPSA worked hard in this election to encourage participation by the members.

You are correct that the CPA firm knows who voted and who did not. Short of us paying the CPAs to send each person a survey asking why they did not vote, I do not know what USPSA could do to have meaningful data. Of course if they are not going to return a ballot, what makes us think they will return a survey asking why they did not return their ballot? Assuming that we could do it all with the postage for $1.00 each (and there is no way we could do it that cheaply), do you want the BOD spending $12,000.00 on this plus costs of putting together the survey results?

Charles Bond

[Jim Norman]

Perhaps, just perhaps, someone could design a proper set of poll questions and post them on the USPSA forum, (Where this all rightfully belongs) and members only would be able to vote. We could have unique responses, by member pin number and we could post only the raw results, such as the number of poll responses. All visible only to the membership.

Not exactly scientific, but it may give some insight.

Jim

Edited October 18, 2007 by Jim Norman

[Charles Bond]

Perhaps, just perhaps, someone could design a proper set of poll questions and post them on the USPSA forum, (Where this all rightfully belongs) and members only would be able to vote. We could have unique responses, by member oin number and we could post only the raw results, such as the number of poll responses. All visible only to the membership.

Not exactly scientific, but it may give some insight.

Jim

Good idea Jim. I tend to believe that if you care enough to hit the web page you cared enough to vote but maybe we could do it as a poll for members who look up classification data so the poll pops up when you do any inquiry. It would take a couple of months to get meaningful numbers but we might reach some folks who come to the pages irregularly.

Charles

[mpolans]

I never got my second one. I DEFINITELY did not want the winner to be president.

Edited October 17, 2007 by mpolans

[BrianH]

never got mine either

ditto

Double ditto. I changed my address Aug. '06.