Mig Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 This was posted in a different thread but thought it should have its own. To the USPSA BOD: I would like to know how a new rifle division was created that will effect the 3G community without prior knowledge or being made public for the membership to provide input or comments? Why was this proposal not shelved until the next meeting to allow time for the members to have some discussion and input? I felt this was done behind our collective backs. It was not listed as one the topics to be discussed and yet without any input, a new division is created that affects all of 3G. Does this mean the BOD could remove a division like Revolver without any input from its members? I don’t believe such an action would be taken but maybe I’m wrong. Your input would greatly be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h4444 Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Well,,,,,,nothing was taken away from shooters as best I can tell. The other divisions are still there,,,,,,, I say,,,,pick a division and have a ball shooting it. H4444 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry White Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 This idea has been kicking around the 3g bunch for some time, I dont think anybody that been listning or talking amoung the shooters at matches was supprised by this and I think it was a good change and overdue. We elect people to serve on the BOD and make changes when they are needed. This one was needed and they did it. Good job. Now lets shoot. More choices is good. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimel Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 I believe that USPSA President Michael Voigt publicly spoke about his desire so see such a division created a number of times. The rumors were flying hot and heavy before the BoD even met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Mig, The proper place to post this would be on the USPSA member’s page. I'm locking this for now until shooter grrl, Vince or Admin can take a look and decide whether or not to delete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Jon did good in flagging this post. I'll open it back up as an information gathering/sharing post. We try to keep the political stuff off of this forum (there are other places that seem to thrive on that). If we can keep this from turning into a political/rules rant, then we can keep it open for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoser Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Tactical rifle just gives our shooters another option. Nothing was taken away, nothing was changed. Now, if the BOD wanted to remove a Division, that would be a different matter to me. I would not vote to cut any Division without input from my Area members. But, having said that, the BOD and the President were, after all, elected to run USPSA. I do not regret my vote, I think Tactial Rifle will be great for the members of USPSA. Arnie Christianson Area 3 Director Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 If/when I get into 3G, it will be in the Tactical Division. With this division offered at non-USPSA 3G matches, and being relatively popular, it only makes sense for the USPSA to recognize a similar division for those of us that shoot Limited handguns and shotguns, but want an optic on a rifle and don't want to be shooting against guys with dotted open guns and Tek-loadable shotguns. Sometimes we agree with the direction the BOD takes and sometimes we don't. We have to have faith in what they're doing as, ultimately, it's their behinds on the line if they screw up. Seems to me they're doing a bang-up job and wouldn't do something as brash as getting rid of a division without consulting the membership that it would affect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling White Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Process, process, process! This was a major rule change for the 3G Community. I don't remember seeing the major change published for a period of 90 days, having a chance to send some kind of input to my area director, or having the ability to vote yes/no. The point that Mig brings out is very valid...were the rules of process followed? My second concern is that the creation of a new division will not add to the core base of shooters within this sport. Is there a unit of measure available to prove my hypothesis wrong? Sterling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoser Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Sterling, You are correct, the BOD voted to approve the new Tactical Division and now this Division will have to be published in Front Sight for 90 days prior to officially becoming a Division. Until then, it is still only a proposal, so feel free to contact your Area Director with suggestions on the Division. Arnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Meek Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Arnie, Help me understand, If the USPSA BOD has voted to create this division and it has to be published in Front Sight for 90 days before it is official, and you therefore state that until it official it is only a proposal, does the BOD take another vote on the item? The way I see it if the BOD does not take another vote it is not a proposal. It has been approved on the first vote, but the Bylaws require the posting of 90 days prior in Front Sight before enactment. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 This could be a tough one. Q: Is there an official process that must be followed when drafting new rules/divisions? Q: If yes, then was it followed? Q: If no, then...should there be a process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling White Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Whats in a process? - hmmmmm A proposal A proposal review and assessment A revision to the proposal A submission of the proposal to the members A preliminary review or answers/questions time period A decision on the proposal A review of the decision Final Decision Damn....that sounds like something the gov't would do Was the process followed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 As far as "taking away" from the 3G community, I think that's a bit of an error, when you consider that this division has been in place at SMM3G for some time and are the rules for Kyle's match. If nothing else, it keeps USPSA on par with other popular 3G matches around the country. As for not drawing additional people, I would beg to differ again. Many folks on other threads have made it very clear that this new division allows them to be competitive again, without having to go to Open division. And, it makes it much more "palatable" for non-USPSA members to enter the match, as there is a division in place which is more in line with other 3G matches and as such they don't need any special equipment investments. Lastly with regards to policy. I, as much as the next person, agree that there is a process/policy in place for things to get done. Lord knows I haven't agreed with everything that USPSA has done over the past couple of years, but the fact is this is a zero negative decision, that frankly was probably overdue. As for 90 days in Front Sight, if that's the rule then so be it. However, for the membership to have needed time to debate the addition of the division is a bit excessive. If the membership doesn't like it, then the membership won't sign up for it. Personally, body count at a match speaks louder than members talking. It was the body count at matches like SMM3G, DPMS, RM3G and the North American, that showed the validity and popularity of this division and why it was instituted. To the BOD, good job. That's my two Lincoln's. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoser Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Gentlemen, This is the appropriate section of the USPSA bylaws concerning rules changes: 5.12 Competition Rules The rules and regulations for the conduct of Practical Shooting events shall be those most recently published and distributed to each current member of the organization. The rules will be the most recent edition of the International Practical Shooting Confederation rules available at the time of printing, published in their entirety. Modifications/clarifications to the International rules for competition in the United States shall be approved by the Board of Directors and published with the International rules. The U.S. modifications/clarifications shall be clearly distinct from the international rules. Changes to the modifications for U.S. competition affecting personal competition equipment must be given a preliminary approval by the Board of directors before publication and those preliminary rule changes must be published in the corporate newsletter three months prior to final adoption. Final changes to U.S. modifications affecting personal competition equipment shall be adopted in final form no more frequently than every two years except as may be required to comply with federal laws. *************************** Since a new Division does indeed affect competion equipment, the second paragraph is the one to look at. So, what the BOD has done is actually approve a *preliminary* new Division. 90 days after the publication in Front Sight, the BOD will give *final* approval/denial/changes to the proposed Division. So, be sure to contact your Area Director with your thoughts on the Tactical Division. Are we all happy and can we agree that the process is still working? Arnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Geez Arnie, you take all the fun out of it when you start posting facts instead of speculation. Thanks for noting the applicable rule. To answer your question; yes I, for one, am content that the established process is being followed. -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I would like to throw in my 2 cents. This was discussed at the General Membership meeting held during the Race Gun Nationals at Bend. This meeting was announced by all CRO's in the morning and afternoon segments and what I heard most from shooters was hell I'm not staying around for that. Maybe that is why we have so many shoot and scoot shooters at the club level because of the lack of involvement. There were about 20-30 people at the General Membership meeting which is also about the number of people that showed up for the Open Shooters meeting. I get extremely upset with people complaining after they have had an opportunity to comment but couldn't be bothered to put forth a little time. If you didn't attend the Race Gun Nationals then I apoligize. "If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem." If we put forth the effort to let our elected officials know what we want done, we can make a difference. Call and write your Senator and Congressman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear1142 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I would like to make some observations. Since when did rumors and kicking around ideas constitute proper notice? I heard some of the rumors myself, but many different ideas and formats were being contemplated and nothing had been presented as the predominant idea. If, as you say, the rumors were flying pretty hot and heavy, then how hard was it to include this on the BOD agenda? I also know the Area 7 & 8 directors were quite surprised and knew nothing about creating the new division prior to the BOD meeting. If the Area directors didn't know, how can the membership have known to contact their Area Directors? Rob Boundrie stated he voted for the new division, in part, because a decision HAD to be made right then, or else the rules wouldn't have made it to the printer in time for the new rulebook. SO WHAT! When the rules were adopted, you put them on the USPSA web page and let people download/print them and put them into the rulebook. Another observation, if this is a "preliminary" division and still subject to rule changes and approval, then why did Rob have to vote immediately? If one rule is changed then the rulebook will be incorrect. If this is "preliminary", why is the division listed on the application for the 2004 Nationals? Will all these crossover shooters flocking to the new divisions get their entry fees refunded if the new division is not approved? Are all of these crossover shooters going to join USPSA? Appendix A of the rulebook states you have to be a member of IPSC to compete in a Level III (Nationals) event. Are we going to give them a waiver on that rule? Will these crossover shooters now let us compete in their matches and create divisions for us to compete in? Will there be reciprocity? Many of you have taken the position that nobody is being hurt or excluded by the new division. I don't think that's entirely accurate. While no one is being excluded, the divisions are being diluted. Please don't misunderstand me, I agree with and support the new idea, but I would have liked to discuss some different formats prior to its creation. I don't think Tactical rifle needs to be a division. I think it should be a sub-division of limited, but if you want to discuss it, start another thread. As Mig pointed out to me this weekend, where is it going to end? How many more divisions are going to be added? What about the He-man division? Or how about a Cowboy Action division? SASS is the biggest and fastest growing shooting sport, why not create a division for them? They use 3 guns at every match. There is a process in place and it was "technically" followed, but the spirit of the process was completely ignored. Would someone please explain to me how the members of USPSA were nothing more than a speed bump in this process when; there was no listing of the topic on the BOD agenda, ALL Area Directors voted unanimously for the division, the new division equipment rules were implemented without discussion, its rules are being submitted to the printer for the new rulebook without approval, and the new division is on the 2004 3 gun application without approval? I'm not seeing how this is anything but a done deal. Let me finish by reiterating my support for the division. I think it is a good idea and it will help USPSA. What I take issue with is the process that brought about its creation. Erik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling White Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Sounds like a good opportunity to crosscut between different 3G disciplines... - HE-MeN - Cowboys - and tactical....wooohooo all coming together at one match. But wait.... - What about rules, equipment, procedures, and process The excitement factor.... - huge! But wait.... - will the overall time period to run a stage increase with so many disciplines involved? The money.... But wait.... - is this the addition of one class only the first step in a long-term goal or vision of uspsa to bring all disciplines together? Something is missing here, I gotta think about this.... Is there a long-term goal at play here? Guess I'll sit in left field and observe! Sterling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Meek Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Graywolf_69, As a shooter that has attended the past nationals and have not attended the most recent I have attended the General Membership meeting, As I recall the meetings that I attended were more of a Q&A session akin to a basic BS session with the Area Directors, The Prez, and the VP of NROI. This general membership meeeting does not provide any minutes or even has a published agenda so the discussions that take place there are just that a discussion no different than discussing with your friends, squad mates, only that you did it with the AD's PREZ and VP of NROI in attendance. (A hall talk is a hall talk and nothing more) Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoser Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 >I would like to make some observations. Since when did rumors and kicking around ideas constitute proper notice? It doesn't. Being published in Front Sight constitutes proper notice. >how hard was it to include this on the BOD agenda? Michael Voigt has stated that the omission of Tactical Rifle on the agenda was an oversight. >I also know the Area 7 & 8 directors were quite surprised and knew nothing about creating the new division prior to the BOD meeting. I will admit that I did not know it was not going to be on the agenda as well. However, I believe Michael when he said it was an oversight. >If the Area directors didn't know, how can the membership have known to contact their Area Directors? You now will have 90 days after being published in Front Sight. >Rob Boundrie stated he voted for the new division, in part, because a decision HAD to be made right then, or else the rules wouldn't have made it to the printer in time for the new rulebook. Well, somewhat. The deadline was actually for printing in Front Sight. The rules are not even close to being at the printer for the rule book. >Another observation, if this is a "preliminary" division and still subject to rule changes and approval, then why did Rob have to vote immediately? As mentioned above, to be able to be published in Front Sight. >If this is "preliminary", why is the division listed on the application for the 2004 Nationals? The person to ask is Michael Voigt. But, I suspect it is listed just in case it is approved, it will save a lot of changes in Division at stats at the match. >Will all these crossover shooters flocking to the new divisions get their entry fees refunded if the new division is not approved? Again, that is up to Michael Voigt, but if they requested a refund in time, I would think they would get a refund of some sort. >Are all of these crossover shooters going to join USPSA? Appendix A of the rulebook states you have to be a member of IPSC to compete in a Level III (Nationals) event. Are we going to give them a waiver on that rule? No waiver, to shoot USPSA 3 Gun Nationals, a competitor must be a USPSA member. >Will these crossover shooters now let us compete in their matches and create divisions for us to compete in? Will there be reciprocity? I guess that would be up to people holding those matches. >Would someone please explain to me how the members of USPSA were nothing more than a speed bump in this process when; there was no listing of the topic on the BOD agenda, ALL Area Directors voted unanimously for the division, the new division equipment rules were implemented without discussion, its rules are being submitted to the printer for the new rulebook without approval, and the new division is on the 2004 3 gun application without approval? Whew! I guess you are correct, this is all a huge conspiracy. Did you know that Gary Stevens, the A5 Director, was seen on the grassy knoll? Arnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Hmm....but are you *really* Arnie? I thought all Internet access was prohibited from within Area 51. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcambre Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 It's not just nonUSPSA members that have been wanting a scoped limited rifle division. I'm a life USPSA member who shoots USPSA matches every month and the lack of the recently announced tactical class was one of the reasons I have not been going to USPSA 3gun matches. I have been shooting the SOF/SWAT match, the latest Rocky Mountain 3 gun and our local 3gun matches, all with a scoped rifle and a limited pistol and shotgun. I shot one USPSA 3gun nationals when it was first shot in Las Vegas in 2000 and the combination of being pushed into open class and the poor stage design has led me to skip the last three. With the Reno match being nearby, having a tactical class and hopefully better stages I am planning to attend the next 3 gun nationals. Louis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Darn it Arnie, I told you that was just between you, me and Connie Chung!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Wow, all this squabling over just a simple rule change makes me want to join USPSA right away! This is the kind of atmospher that realy attracts new comers!! I can immediatly see why USPSA is growing so fast!!!KURT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts