View Full Version : Arnburg out as A3?!!!!!
I heard he got removed from A3 at yesterday’s BOD meeting.
Clusterfrack
Quantrill
12-19-2023, 09:57 PM
Good dude, and he was doing a good job.
Clusterfrack
12-19-2023, 10:00 PM
What the fuck is wrong with those people?
I just looked for the USPSA bylaws, and found this proposed draft from 2021. I found 10.2 dealing with confidentiality of board deliberations, but couldn't find any reference for how to remove a director. In two HOA's I am on the board of, a director must be removed by a vote of the members, not the other directors. I did note that the draft called out being compliant with Delaware law.
https://cdn.uspsa.media/Bylaws/Comparison_of_Current_Bylaws_and_Draft_17DEC2021.p df
Stoeger has a video, must be true then.
How often do they run AD elections? Gotta vote old guard out.
I don't know much about Scott, but he seems respected in his area, and from the brief YT videos I've seen of him, appears to be an intelligent, reasonable person with a background in sound financial management. In other words, a very good AD.
And the USPSA BOD saw fit to relieve him of duty. And this makes sense to them? Like, huh?
Uspsa really needs to stop letting Stoeger and the anti-uspsa people break news and dictate the stories.
If he is releasing confidential emails and isn’t supposed to, then it’s warranted. But innocent until proven guilty. If they don’t have hard evidence it’s a travesty.
Either way I’ve become more and more bothered by the boards actions over the past couple years.
But I don’t know what to do? Money talks, but uspsa is why I train pistols. If I didn’t shoot it I probably wouldn’t train much.
Kicking out two presidents and an area director speaks loudly to the culture of the BOD.
My thoughts have been to vote in new people to change it. But now they are just kicking out those who don’t go with the status quo it seems.
CleverNickname
12-20-2023, 10:21 AM
USPSA's doing their best to take the "firearms organization with the most corrupt leadership" title away from the NRA.
I just went to the uspsa website, looked at the current bylaws, and saw no reference to how a director is removed.
Stoeger Video for reference:
https://youtu.be/Zhe9LnB-sC0?si=4bqCEBnbIk9FanUo
Clusterfrack
12-20-2023, 12:05 PM
Uspsa really needs to stop letting Stoeger and the anti-uspsa people break news and dictate the stories.
If he is releasing confidential emails and isn’t supposed to, then it’s warranted. But innocent until proven guilty. If they don’t have hard evidence it’s a travesty.
Either way I’ve become more and more bothered by the boards actions over the past couple years.
But I don’t know what to do? Money talks, but uspsa is why I train pistols. If I didn’t shoot it I probably wouldn’t train much.
Kicking out two presidents and an area director speaks loudly to the culture of the BOD.
My thoughts have been to vote in new people to change it. But now they are just kicking out those who don’t go with the status quo it seems.
Here are a few suggestions:
Transparency. Suspend all executive session meetings. Make every record in the org public. What is the argument against doing that, unless the BoD is hiding something?
The entire BoD should resign and call a special election so the membership can choose people they trust.
Reinstate all banned members. I'm all for banning cheaters, but I don't have confidence that anyone wasn't banned for political purposes.
Does this sound anti-USPSA? I don't hear Ben or anyone else calling for more radical solutions. What's the problem with members or anyone having an opinion, "breaking news", or whatever? USPSA isn't the USSR.
jetfire
12-20-2023, 12:07 PM
Uspsa really needs to stop letting Stoeger and the anti-uspsa people break news and dictate the stories.
From a PR standpoint you're absolutely correct. They're completely losing the information war against Ben and his cronies. Which, in their defense they're completely outmatched by Ben in this area. Jake, USPSA's alleged head of marketing/PR is completely incompetent when it comes to the PR aspect of his job.
Clusterfrack
12-20-2023, 12:14 PM
From a PR standpoint you're absolutely correct. They're completely losing the information war against Ben and his cronies. Which, in their defense they're completely outmatched by Ben in this area. Jake, USPSA's alleged head of marketing/PR is completely incompetent when it comes to the PR aspect of his job.
As I wrote above, I don't understand this. What information war? USPSA is supposed to be a nonprofit supporting competitive shooting. What's to hide? Who cares if there's disagreement? Embrace the debate. Make it civil. Make it transparent.
jetfire
12-20-2023, 12:25 PM
As I wrote above, I don't understand this. What information war? USPSA is supposed to be a nonprofit supporting competitive shooting. What's to hide? Who cares if there's disagreement? Embrace the debate. Make it civil. Make it transparent.
There's absolutely an information war in place. Only the most smooth-brained uncritical nuthugger would assume that Ben is acting in good faith and with good intentions. Which means that USPSA is competing with Ben on the messaging front, and they're losing because people just genuinely believe whatever things that Ben is saying are true. Assuming the BoD was competent and acting in the best interests of the org, they'd get out in front of stuff like this with tightly written PR statements like "at last night's meeting, the director of Area 3 was removed for cause. It was found that he was sharing confidential information blah blah blah which is a violation of bylaws blah blah blah" and have that statement hit before Ben releases his video which is full of wild speculation.
Clusterfrack
12-20-2023, 12:40 PM
Sorry, I still don’t understand. What exactly are they losing? What confidential information has been released that justifies this pattern of bizarre behavior? What is Ben or anyone else trying to accomplish other than a change in policy and BoD membership?
Hambo
12-20-2023, 12:43 PM
There's absolutely an information war in place. Only the most smooth-brained uncritical nuthugger would assume that Ben is acting in good faith and with good intentions. Which means that USPSA is competing with Ben on the messaging front, and they're losing because people just genuinely believe whatever things that Ben is saying are true. Assuming the BoD was competent and acting in the best interests of the org, they'd get out in front of stuff like this with tightly written PR statements like "at last night's meeting, the director of Area 3 was removed for cause. It was found that he was sharing confidential information blah blah blah which is a violation of bylaws blah blah blah" and have that statement hit before Ben releases his video which is full of wild speculation.
I'm not a Stoeger fan, but there are two sides (or more) to every story. Even if Stoeger is a vindictive douchebag, that doesn't necessarily make what he's saying untrue. If USPSA wants to be credible, they need to do what Clusterfrack says and show members and the public that they're squared away. Instead, the BOD manages to make the organization look like a bunch of monkeys throwing shit.
I hope that someone invested in actual change rather than potshotting helps organize orchestrated campaigns and fields a good candidate to overthrow current BOD members that have been problematic.
With the low vote counts, it wouldn't be hard to influence elections.
I'll bet you could reach out to people with memberships but who aren't particularly active locally and talk with them.
jetfire
12-20-2023, 12:56 PM
Sorry, I still don’t understand. What exactly are they losing? What confidential information has been released that justifies this pattern of bizarre behavior? What is Ben or anyone else trying to accomplish other than a change in policy and BoD membership?
Do you genuinely believe that Ben is acting in the best interests of USPSA as an organization? Because if you do, any attempt at a rational conversation with you about this issue is a waste of my time.
Clusterfrack
12-20-2023, 01:14 PM
Do you genuinely believe that Ben is acting in the best interests of USPSA as an organization? Because if you do, any attempt at a rational conversation with you about this issue is a waste of my time.
I don’t know Ben well enough to have an opinion. But it doesn’t matter. A healthy democratic organization embraces dissent, rather than doing crazy shit like polygraphs and punitive bans to try to stifle it. Transparency not an “information war” solves the problem of claims of corruption.
Is that rational enough for you?
Does anyone have a copy of USPSA Down Range email from last Friday, the 15th?
jetfire
12-20-2023, 02:03 PM
I don’t know Ben well enough to have an opinion. But it doesn’t matter. A healthy democratic organization embraces dissent, rather than doing crazy shit like polygraphs and punitive bans to try to stifle it. Transparency not an “information war” solves the problem of claims of corruption.
Is that rational enough for you?
Artfully dodged.
Have a blessed day
Spartan1980
12-20-2023, 02:06 PM
Does anyone have a copy of USPSA Down Range email from last Friday, the 15th?
Yes. Which part would you like to see?
ETA: It's too big to screenshot all at once.
ETA #2: PM me your email and I can forward the whole thing to you.
Yes. Which part would you like to see?
ETA: It's too big to screenshot all at once.
Did it have anything about Area 1 director resigning?
Spartan1980
12-20-2023, 02:23 PM
Did it have anything about Area 1 director resigning?
Not that I see. Here are the sections:
USA Excels at the 2023 IPSC Shotgun World Shoot in Pattaya, Thailand
2024 IPSC Rifle World Shoot - Apply to be Considered!
Reaffiliation Reminder! (for clubs)
Deadline to Apply for Range Master Program Application is December 31, 2023
USPSA Membership, By The Numbers (Part 2)
NROI Section with question/answers
A USPSA Magazine Article link
Industry News Section
Not that I see. Here are the sections:
USA Excels at the 2023 IPSC Shotgun World Shoot in Pattaya, Thailand
2024 IPSC Rifle World Shoot - Apply to be Considered!
Reaffiliation Reminder! (for clubs)
Deadline to Apply for Range Master Program Application is December 31, 2023
USPSA Membership, By The Numbers (Part 2)
NROI Section with question/answers
A USPSA Magazine Article link
Industry News Section
Thank you! That goes towards information delivery. The only reason I know that Bruce Gary has resigned is because Stoeger has a video on it. There is nothing about it in Dec 8 email either.
GJM: do you know what I'm thinking about?
Spartan1980
12-20-2023, 02:33 PM
Thank you! That goes towards information delivery. The only reason I know that Bruce Gary has resigned is because Stoeger has a video on it. There is nothing about it in Dec 8 email either.
GJM: do you know what I'm thinking about?
I have them going back to 11/17 and didn't see anything.
Here are a few suggestions:
Transparency. Suspend all executive session meetings. Make every record in the org public. What is the argument against doing that, unless the BoD is hiding something?
The entire BoD should resign and call a special election so the membership can choose people they trust.
Reinstate all banned members. I'm all for banning cheaters, but I don't have confidence that anyone wasn't banned for political purposes.
I support this.
I let my USPSA membership lapse year before last because I wanted to shoot 1911s. Last year, I was going to rejoin when they raised the membership fee. Then I started paying attention to all the shenanigans, Joe Rutkowski's lawsuite, etc. etc. and decided to let it ride for a while.
I must admit, I don't understand the concept that the board (ok, well, most of the board, not counting perhaps A3 and A7 directors, who seem like sane, reasonable people) operates under. What is the purpose of not publishing board minutes for a non-profit? I mean, my local HOA is more open than these guys.
As to Stoeger and the so-called Howler Monkeys, I think they're gonna do what they're gonna do. Anyone paying attention has figured that out. Ben does what's best for Ben. What a surprise. Nothing seems to have changed much.
I'm not sure I understand calling this an "information war"; I'd say that was pretty naive, given what's going on. That concept would need "sides", and two competing philosophies, equipped with IT resources and funds to deploy. Comparing a national organization with a vast paid membership and $$$ at their disposal, to a former national champion with a YT channel, is laughable. At the end of the day, it's not about Stoeger; I think most in the USPSA community understand where he is coming from, and that's baked into their feel for the organization.
So Stoeger et al don't really matter. What matters is the current board and their running the organization into the ground. Given what's happened lately, I don't see any scenario in which I pay to join USPSA, barring mass change at the leadership level. It's a shame, really, but I'm not losing too much sleep over it. I keep looking for PCSL matches in Practiscore, there are some getting closer to me (Ocala FL area) every time I look. So it's not like they have a patent on Action Pistol matches. Hell I might even try...*hitches up suspenders*...IDPA...:cool:
jetfire
12-20-2023, 03:09 PM
I support this.
I let my USPSA membership lapse year before last because I wanted to shoot 1911s. Last year, I was going to rejoin when they raised the membership fee. Then I started paying attention to all the shenanigans, Joe Rutkowski's lawsuite, etc. etc. and decided to let it ride for a while.
I must admit, I don't understand the concept that the board (ok, well, most of the board, not counting perhaps A3 and A8 directors, who seem like sane, reasonable people) operates under. What is the purpose of not publishing board minutes for a non-profit? I mean, my local HOA is more open than these guys.
As to Stoeger and the so-called Howler Monkeys, I think they're gonna do what they're gonna do. Anyone paying attention has figured that out. Ben does what's best for Ben. What a surprise. Nothing seems to have changed much.
I'm not sure I understand calling this an "information war"; I'd say that was pretty naive, given what's going on. That concept would need "sides", and two competing philosophies, equipped with IT resources and funds to deploy. Comparing a national organization with a vast paid membership and $$$ at their disposal, to a former national champion with a YT channel, is laughable. At the end of the day, it's not about Stoeger; I think most in the USPSA community understand where he is coming from, and that's baked into their feel for the organization.
So Stoeger et al don't really matter. What matters is the current board and their running the organization into the ground. Given what's happened lately, I don't see any scenario in which I pay to join USPSA, barring mass change at the leadership level. It's a shame, really, but I'm not losing too much sleep over it. I keep looking for PCSL matches in Practiscore, there are some getting closer to me (Ocala FL area) every time I look. So it's not like they have a patent on Action Pistol matches. Hell I might even try...*hitches up suspenders*...IDPA...:cool:
Maybe "information war" was a bit over the top, but anyone who sees this as anything other than a contest to control the narrative of "what's going on with USPSA" is so naive I'm surprised they don't still believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.
Clusterfrack
12-20-2023, 03:16 PM
Artfully dodged.
Have a blessed day
???
I’m not dodging anything.
Here are a few suggestions:
Transparency. Suspend all executive session meetings. Make every record in the org public. What is the argument against doing that, unless the BoD is hiding something?
The entire BoD should resign and call a special election so the membership can choose people they trust.
Reinstate all banned members. I'm all for banning cheaters, but I don't have confidence that anyone wasn't banned for political purposes.
Does this sound anti-USPSA? I don't hear Ben or anyone else calling for more radical solutions. What's the problem with members or anyone having an opinion, "breaking news", or whatever? USPSA isn't the USSR.
I 100% agree on transparency. But how do we as members influence that? Currently, it seems they aren’t going to do it. Short of vote everyone out idk what to do. Even then, I live in A4 and recently got to vote. I could’ve voted in a non conformist, but he didn’t shoot matches. If you don’t shoot the sport or work matches I personally couldn’t give you my vote.
Also who would want to be an AD? I can’t imagine how stressed Scott and Rizzi are being the opposing voice.
It’s a sucky situation.
fly out
12-20-2023, 03:43 PM
If there is no official acknowledgement of Area 1's resignation, it makes me wonder if he was talked into un-resigning?
It's rough when you send your resignation email and Ben reads it over the web before all of your fellow directors have had a chance to open the email. (I don't know that that occurred, but it sure could have.)
Ben may be in it for Ben, but Ben benefits from a cleaned-up organization. What's been going on in the recent past can't continue.
jetfire
12-20-2023, 05:03 PM
A lot of you people weren’t here when Ben was actively trying to destroy Todd’s reputation and it fuckin shows.
Speaking of, it looks like based on the court docket that USPSA's motion to dismiss failed, and Joe Rutkowski's lawsuit is going to mediation. Discovery should be interesting.
112805
Clusterfrack
12-20-2023, 05:49 PM
A lot of you people weren’t here when Ben was actively trying to destroy Todd’s reputation and it fuckin shows.
At least for me, this has nothing to do with Ben. Maybe he’s the second coming of Christ here to save USPSA, just a troll, or whatever. Ben has helped reveal a serious problem with USPSA leadership, first with Foley and then more broadly in the BoD, NROI, and org staff.
I think we should keep the focus on returning USPSA to functionality, and put some adults in charge.
Eric_L
12-20-2023, 06:14 PM
Maybe "information war" was a bit over the top, but anyone who sees this as anything other than a contest to control the narrative of "what's going on with USPSA" is so naive I'm surprised they don't still believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.
Ad Homineum. That’s a good way to dodge a good conversation which Clusterfrack is having.
When stuff starting to get real back in September, I started a "Name Index" to keep up with all the different roles and personalities in USPSA.
Recent updates are in BOLD. Might be helpful to someone else, so here 'tis. Lemme know if ya'll have comments.
112811
So I just read the minutes from the Dec 18, 2023 BOD meeting.
It clears up some of what has been discussed in this thread.
A1 Director resigned after the Dec 11 BOD meeting, so it wasn’t included in the Dec 11 meeting minutes. A1D was not present in the Dec 18 meeting.
A special election to be held this winter since there was more than 2 years remaining in A1D’s tenure (had it been less I think the bylaws allow the BOD to appoint an interim AD).
YML and A6 Director elect were allowed to join various parts of the meeting, but not the executive sessions or when they discussed the president elect’s salary and compensation package.
A3 Director admitted to sharing a confidential email to an outside party(s) and was subsequently removed under the bylaws.
Area 3 will be added to the special election that is being organized for Area 1.
Production was approved to be 15 rnds, effective Jan 31, 2024 as per the bylaws.
So I just read the minutes from the Dec 18, 2023 BOD meeting.
It clears up some of what has been discussed in this thread.
A1 Director resigned after the Dec 11 BOD meeting, so it wasn’t included in the Dec 11 meeting minutes. A1D was not present in the Dec 18 meeting.
A special election to be held this winter since there was more than 2 years remaining in A1D’s tenure (had it been less I think the bylaws allow the BOD to appoint an interim AD).
YML and A6 Director elect were allowed to join various parts of the meeting, but not the executive sessions or when they discussed the president elect’s salary and compensation package.
A3 Director admitted to sharing a confidential email to an outside party(s) and was subsequently removed under the bylaws.
Area 3 will be added to the special election that is being organized for Area 1.
Production was approved to be 15 rnds, effective Jan 31, 2024 as per the bylaws.
Thanks, that’s helpful. 15 round Production, cool.
Well that means there will be 4 open spots on the board in the next year.
Scott seemed like a great guy and I am bummed he’s gone but if it’s in the bylaws that he can’t share the emails, his dismissal is warranted. Still seems extreme, but I understand it now.
RevolverRob
12-20-2023, 09:31 PM
Well that means there will be 4 open spots on the board in the next year.
Scott seemed like a great guy and I am bummed he’s gone but if it’s in the bylaws that he can’t share the emails, his dismissal is warranted. Still seems extreme, but I understand it now.
No.
There will be two empty slots. There will be a special election for both A1D and A3D. And in this case, the committee to select the candidates will be made up of A2D, A4D, and A8D - who will simply pick the person(s) they want.
Slalom.45
12-20-2023, 09:48 PM
Four to five years ago I though Ben was kinda over the top with complaints about the board. I mean everything seemed fine to me as an average USPSA guy right? Over time it has basically played out to be as he described. You may like him or not, but his criticism has been proved accurate.
This small sport should be so easy to run. Have straightforward and consistent rules. Organize a nationals. How complicated can this be?
Thanks, that’s helpful. 15 round Production, cool.
While I agree that moving Prod to 15 is probably the right move, not sure I’ll shoot it much. Me old eyes have a hard time focusing on iron sights.
No.
There will be two empty slots. There will be a special election for both A1D and A3D. And in this case, the committee to select the candidates will be made up of A2D, A4D, and A8D - who will simply pick the person(s) they want.
I don’t think that’s how it works. I think because of the time remaining in both A1’s and A3’s term before the normal election cycle the bylaws say the org has to do a special election to fill out the remainder of the term -meaning its a real election where they call for nominations by a certain deadline and those are the people that are elected by the area constituents. Similar to the special election where YML was first elected to fill out the remainder of Foley’s term. Somebody copied and pasted A1’s resignation email on Facebook and in his email he said the timing of his resignation was deliberate to force a special election and not a BOD appointed interim AD.
Based on the chart somebody posted above, it looks like A2 and A5’s terms are up in mid-2024, so in the next year we’ll prob have four new ADs on the Board.
jetfire
12-20-2023, 10:46 PM
Ad Homineum. That’s a good way to dodge a good conversation which Clusterfrack is having.
First off, it's "Ad Hominem" not whatever you wrote.
And Clusterfrack has never contributed anything to this board, other than objectively being the worst mod ever and someone Todd would have hated.
First off, it's "Ad Hominem" not whatever you wrote.
And Clusterfrack has never contributed anything to this board, other than objectively being the worst mod ever and someone Todd would have hated.
Sarcasm is hard to detect over the internet, but I sure hope to heck you were kidding about that statement.
Clusterfrack has my respect and loyalty for what he does thanklessly on this forum.
Clusterfrack
12-20-2023, 11:06 PM
First off, it's "Ad Hominem" not whatever you wrote.
And Clusterfrack has never contributed anything to this board, other than objectively being the worst mod ever and someone Todd would have hated.
LOL! Tell me how you really feel.
On second thought please don’t. Let’s keep this thread on topic.
dogcaller
12-20-2023, 11:14 PM
Sarcasm is hard to detect over the internet, but I sure hope to heck you were kidding about that statement.
Clusterfrack has my respect and loyalty for what he does thanklessly on this forum.
Agreed. Way out of line, if serious.
Erick Gelhaus
12-21-2023, 02:19 AM
Hold on for a second, as discussion of the uspsa drama led to the mention of one of the involved parties having stirred up hate & discontent towards TLG, founder of this board. And that leads to Jetfire, aka Caleb, being called overboard?
Uhm, ok, wait, no.
Hambo
12-21-2023, 04:27 AM
Am I reading a thread about USPSA or a tween girl Twitter feed?
While I agree that moving Prod to 15 is probably the right move, not sure I’ll shoot it much. Me old eyes have a hard time focusing on iron sights.
Yeah that makes sense. The Pin Shoot in Central MI next June is stock, .45, iron sights, so having an option to compete in Production with 15 with my P365 Macro Frankengun with Ameriglos is attractive. I'm 64 and headed to having cataract surgery next year. So I have no idea, really, how things are going to go for me. But with the all the USPSA drama, I dunno if I can even summon the interest to go shoot a match.
Sorry, that's all off topic. Back to the subject of this thread:
So the minutes snippet released on PSI shows that Scott apparently admitted to not following procedure / confidentiality and was found to be at fault, and as a result was removed from the board. I can't say this is wrong, on the face of it. Of course it's against the backdrop of all the other shenanigans ongoing with the board.
Speculating, but maybe Scott had had enough, and decided to exit, concluding that the continued effort of fighting for what he thought was right wasn't worth the cost compared to his family or professional life. I would like it if he were to post his thoughts publicly at some point to make a statement, he seems like a stand up guy.
On one hand, most people "quitting USPSA" were quitting anyway, and this is just a convenient reason. On the other hand, the board drama is over the top, and there needs to be fresh leadership to right the ship.
When stuff starting to get real back in September, I started a "Name Index" to keep up with all the different roles and personalities in USPSA...
This is the second half of the Name Index, with the tertiary players and their involvement that I could locate:
112826
I get the sense that they witch hunted Arnburg out like they did with YML.
Arnburg was a very reasonable guy, committed and put the work in.
There are discussions of Area 3 coordinator boycotts in protest.
Arnburg isn't a controversial figure in the least and this move has people seriously pissed.
Member boycotts won't accomplish much...
But get a few coordinators who are the lifeblood of the local clubs on board... and THEN it has some real teeth for change.
Archer1440
12-21-2023, 11:08 AM
I don’t know about your workplace, but if I forwarded confidential company information to third parties, was identified as doing that by the IT department, and admitted to doing it when asked about it, I would expect consequences.
The fact that Scott acknowledged this, gives the narrative of some kind of unfair action rather awkward footing.
theJanitor
12-21-2023, 12:24 PM
I last shot a match in 2013, and joined PF a few months later. I'm not missing the matches and the BS one bit:cool:
I don’t know about your workplace, but if I forwarded confidential company information to third parties, was identified as doing that by the IT department, and admitted to doing it when asked about it, I would expect consequences.
The fact that Scott acknowledged this, gives the narrative of some kind of unfair action rather awkward footing.
Except that other ADs have been doing exactly that for years, and there are email receipts of them including “The Feed Ramp” and other USPSA Board-friendly sources on otherwise internal email chains for PR purposes.
Yet, those guys still have their director positions. They even voted out Scott. A2 and A8, just off memory. Allegedly.
https://youtu.be/7nGkeGwuRto?si=hnMcQabSWgiTjwYk
Cliffs: Stegger’s reaction to minutes, including assertion vote to oust A3 was not legit (lack of. 3/4 of board), torch and pitchfork activity in A3, lawsuit latest, a lack of volunteers for upcoming Nationals, and the MD and her mentioning ‘hostile work environment’. Conclusion: problems for USPSA are accelerating.
miller_man
12-21-2023, 02:49 PM
On one hand, most people "quitting USPSA" were quitting anyway, and this is just a convenient reason. On the other hand, the board drama is over the top, and there needs to be fresh leadership to right the ship.
I am one of the match directors at my club and had to grit my teeth to renew my membership back in Oct. I have shot 3-5 majors for last 3 years. I just withdrew from 2 today that I had signed up for in last 2 weeks.
Our club is discussing running outlaw HF matches or something else. Also starting the idea of talking to other clubs in our section about walking away from USPSA.
I was not “quitting anyway” but this is the final line in the sand for me. I’ll shoot locals and run my club but I’m done supporting the lunacy & dumpster fire that is the current core of the BOD. I think they are going to run it into the ground until there is nothing left to salvage.
I am one of the match directors at my club and had to grit my teeth to renew my membership back in Oct. I have shot 3-5 majors for last 3 years. I just withdrew from 2 today that I had signed up for in last 2 weeks.
Our club is discussing running outlaw HF matches or something else. Also starting the idea of talking to other clubs in our section about walking away from USPSA.
I was not “quitting anyway” but this is the final line in the sand for me. I’ll shoot locals and run my club but I’m done supporting the lunacy & dumpster fire that is the current core of the BOD. I think they are going to run it into the ground until there is nothing left to salvage.
I agree with this.
It's not just pissy members taking their ball and going home.
It's dedicated club leadership like yourself saying, "there are other action pistol rulesets and organizations for us to invest our human capital and dollars into."
Cliffs: Stegger’s reaction to minutes, including assertion vote to oust A3 was not legit (lack of. 3/4 of board), torch and pitchfork activity in A3, lawsuit latest, a lack of volunteers for upcoming Nationals, and the MD and her mentioning ‘hostile work environment’. Conclusion: problems for USPSA are accelerating.
My perennial issue with Stoeger is that he takes glee in others' misery and seems to care more about being "right" than making things better.
He's like the worst ex-girlfriend you have ever had.
If I said "the US Government is full of a bunch of incompetent assholes and they should all quit or be fired and replaced by competent people!!!!!"
I wouldn't be wrong, but it's not realistic nor productive to suggest alternate reality magic scenarios.
The difference with Arnburg was that he was spending hours and hours actively trying to make the organization better and got axed for this.
I'm more pissed at this than I am about random competitors getting banned for being dickheads.
A 'Kelly Christians' is circulating a petition to reinstate Scott to A3:
https://www.change.org/p/reinstate-scott-arnburg-to-the-position-of-area-3-director-immediately
I'm not sure how effective this will be in addressing this individual's grievances, but it does go to show the depth of feeling about this issue by the membership in general, and in Area 3 in particular.
Eric_L
12-22-2023, 06:58 AM
Ad Homineum. That’s a good way to dodge a good conversation which Clusterfrack is having.
Always check spelling of words you do not use commonly……🫤. 😀
Spart
12-29-2023, 03:49 PM
I get the sense that they witch hunted Arnburg out like they did with YML.
Arnburg was a very reasonable guy, committed and put the work in.
There are discussions of Area 3 coordinator boycotts in protest.
Arnburg isn't a controversial figure in the least and this move has people seriously pissed.
Member boycotts won't accomplish much...
But get a few coordinators who are the lifeblood of the local clubs on board... and THEN it has some real teeth for change.
I know Scott Arnburg. His home club is too far away for me to regularly shoot there, but we see each other often enough as staff at various matches. I've worked both with him and under him as staff.
They (it wasn't just him, even though Scott was/is a big part of it) built his home club up from basically nothing about 10 years ago to being host to a really awesome annual sectional championship match that I've shot and staffed for, as well as well-attended club matches.
I voted for him as area director and he won. The guy that came in second place respected him enough to come to an agreement that no matter who won, Scott would be match director of the most recent (2023) Area 3 championship match, so they could get started planning. That should tell you what people around here think of Scott.
I've followed the drama for a while but kept "just shooting" and voting and hoping Scott and others would eventually be in a position to clean up the mess. Now they kick Scott out... The board has absolutely lost the support of the average person volunteering to make USPSA successful here in the Midwest.
To make things even dumber, the email he was accused of leaking was one where other board members were discussing yet another arbitrary ban of a member being critical of them, this time Matt Hopkins. Matt is the former Area 3 director and the one most recently voted into that position by the members of Area 3 before Scott Arnburg was voted in. Hopkins may be disliked by some due to his association with Ben Stoeger, but I voted for him as A3 director and worked for him as staff for the Area 3 match a couple years back he was match director of. I'd work for him again in a heartbeat, he did a great job and kept the staff happy.
This is all so damn tiring. The USPSA board is pushing so many people away right now. The whole mess is just idiotic and everyone involved looks maniacal.
This is all so damn tiring. The USPSA board is pushing so many people away right now. The whole mess is just idiotic and everyone involved looks maniacal.
Well said and I agree.
I think USPSA will fade out as the dominant / premiere action pistol sport organization.
I used to say I loved USPSA.
Now I just say I love the local shooting community.
I’ll keep shooting with my friends but I don’t have any loyalty left to USPSA.
Life’s too short.
I’ve been enjoying IDPA and PCSL 2 gun a lot these days….
Spart
12-29-2023, 06:12 PM
Well said and I agree.
I think USPSA will fade out as the dominant / premiere action pistol sport organization.
I used to say I loved USPSA.
Now I just say I love the local shooting community.
I’ll keep shooting with my friends but I don’t have any loyalty left to USPSA.
I can still recognize that this thing we call USPSA is bigger than the people at the top running it.
There's a ton of history there. One of my mentors is a gentleman that's been shooting since the early 80's. I can't imagine how this feels from his perspective, he's been shooting IPSC/USPSA my entire life.
But I don't know how the hell we get it back at this point. We voted in a reasonably popular and well-liked president (Mike Foley) and the BOD removed him, ostensibly over an interpersonal squabble with another member, and then changed the bylaws to prevent another president from having any kind of real power.
We in Area 3 voted in a reasonably popular and well-liked area director (Matt Hopkins) and the BOD removed him, ostensibly because he had to relocate to another state due to his job.
The membership as a whole voted in another reasonably popular and well-liked president (Yee Min Lin) and the BOD removed him, ostensibly because of some horseplay at a match on a squad with people he was friendly with.
We in Area 3 voted in a very popular and well-liked area director (Scott Arnburg) and the BOD removed him, ostensibly for leaking confidential material (an email that frankly, every member should have seen.) This has caused a widespread boycott, but the BOD is standing firm.
Yee Min Lin won election for president a second time despite the BODs removal. His term starts in three days. It remains to be seen if they'll seat him or throw him out again.
Voting isn't working. The BOD just gives us the finger every time we vote. What choice do we have but to starve them of membership and match fees, and go after their sponsorship money?
I try not to get too deep into USPSA politics. Life’s too short, I don’t need the aggro, and I’m mainly in it for shooting with my buds. 2-3 monthly local matches, a couple section matches, an Area match… and sometimes I work Nats, better now that they offer staff a chance to shoot in the early match. I would love for a Nats to come back out west.
I’m in Area 1, so my AD position is currently vacant until they hold the special election -the dates I saw indicated this winter. I’m hoping somebody middle-of-the-road-reasonable throws their name in the hat. Right now I don’t need extremism in my life or hobby. I do give props to the out-going A1D for resigning when he did in order to force a special election rather than letting the Board appoint a yes-man. This way it’ll be a member-elected person rather than a Board appointed person.
As far as A3D, I don’t know the guy but have listened to a few podcasts with him. He seemed intelligent and spoke well about his desires to get the org back on solid financial footing. But he made two tactical errors in my mind: 1) He knew the org was actively trying to figure out who was leaking info, and whether or not he’s the main leak, he should have been more circumspect about sharing correspondence and not putting himself in a position where he could be vulnerable. 2) His other tactical error was making his big reform moves too soon. He should have seen the writing on the wall where the Board was 2 v. 7, with only one other AD as his ally. IMO he should have waited until 2024 when the numbers were more in his favor with the return of YML as President and the new in-coming A6D. If nothing else, he could have saved himself from a 7.7 vote going against him.
Reading the tea leaves, we have A2D and A5D up for election in 2024. I highly doubt the two incumbents will be re-elected even if they ran. I think the tide has turned and the 20-25% of the membership that actually votes wants to see new blood in there. We also have A1D and A3D up for special election to fill those two vacancies, so that’s two more opportunities to get new blood in there and hopefully help hit the reset button.
Unless the Board caves to all the pressure and re-instates Arnburg as A3D, I don’t believe the bylaws allow anybody that has been yeeted under 7.7 to run again for a Board position. So it might be time for A3 to elect somebody else. But I will say that the sheer number of Sections/Clubs that are protesting by not re-affiliating or holding back their support is sending a clear message to the org. Be interesting to see what they do in response especially in the new year when there are two new Board members (Pres and A6D).
USPSA is a pretty big part of my life. Or maybe I should say competitive shooting has become a big part of my life as I’ve continued to diversify into other shooting disciplines such as PRS, NRL22, PRS22, and soon NRL Hunter. One way or the other I’ll continue to find ways to burn powder, but I would much prefer it continue to be USPSA.
Voting isn't working.
I wouldn't say it doesn't. YML being voted back into his position worked. I also think that membership's displeasure with BoD's was likely the main reason why he was voted back. Foley did have some anger and interpersonal issues. I don't know much about bylaws to know if Hoppy's moving out was a legit reason.
I think that voting the old guard out and new people in is a path that avoids defunding as means to impose changes. If this all-time high levels of dissatisfaction with current BoD don't lead to strong applicants running for positions, then we deserve what we have.
P.S. Considering current breakdown, A1 is vacant, A3 too - not sure who gets but maybe a decent person again?, A6 is getting Ben Berry who seems OK, A7 dude seems solid, and YML is back and likely hates the old board. Seems like a majority of fresh and good people is already attainable.
I think that voting the old guard out and new people in is a path that avoids defunding as means to impose changes. If this all-time high levels of dissatisfaction with current BoD don't lead to strong applicants running for positions, then we deserve what we have.
Agreed. I would add “or voter turn out” to your last part.
Spart
12-30-2023, 10:45 PM
YML being voted back into his position worked.
As far as I'm aware, YML is still not a RO.
Not too long ago, the board tried a motion to remove the RO requirement for ADs/prez from the bylaws and it failed.
I wouldn't say it's worked yet.
As far as I'm aware, YML is still not a RO.
Not too long ago, the board tried a motion to remove the RO requirement for ADs/prez from the bylaws and it failed.
I wouldn't say it's worked yet.
The Board voted to reinstate his RO credentials. I want to say this was back in Nov. However the meeting minutes say something about he’s not to serve as an RO at any major matches while he’s in office. No real details other than that, but the take home is YML meets the bylaw requirements to serve on the board with regard to his RO creds.
YML shows up in the Dec meeting minutes, listed attending as incoming-Pres, so it appears the Board is moving forward with him taking office on Jan 1.
Spart
12-31-2023, 09:50 PM
The Board voted to reinstate his RO credentials. I want to say this was back in Nov. However the meeting minutes say something about he’s not to serve as an RO at any major matches while he’s in office. No real details other than that, but the take home is YML meets the bylaw requirements to serve on the board with regard to his RO creds.
YML shows up in the Dec meeting minutes, listed attending as incoming-Pres, so it appears the Board is moving forward with him taking office on Jan 1.
And how long until the board just removes him again?
They don't care how bad they look at this point. As the meme goes, they'll fuggin do it again.
And how long until the board just removes him again?
They don't care how bad they look at this point. As the meme goes, they'll fuggin do it again.
I think some of that depends on the individual and whether he gives them a reason to remove him. I listened to a podcast during the presidential election, I believe YML served as a Marine officer. So the concept of “conduct unbecoming” should resonate with him.
Don’t forget, the numbers on the board are slowly changing. In Jan you’ll have A6 and A7 plus the Prez on one-side vs A2, A4, A5, and A8 as the old guard. And to give him the benefit of the doubt, A8 is fairly new to the board and I’ve worked matches with him and think he is a good guy. So if YML and A6 & A7 can form a coalition, maybe bring over A8 to their side, that keeps the other ADs from achieving the numbers to invoke 7.7 one any one of them. A1 & A3 are vacant right now, and if the special election this winter results in getting some new blood that could tip the board in another direction. And then at some point in 2024 A2 and A5 are up for re-election.
I get that you’re pissed off that your last two ADs got yeeted, but from where I sit there’s a glimmer of hope on the horizon.
Spart
12-31-2023, 11:01 PM
And to give him the benefit of the doubt, A8 is fairly new to the board and I’ve worked matches with him and think he is a good guy.
A8D voted to oust Scott Arnburg.
We do not forgive, we do not forget.
It's hard for me to keep all this straight, so I updated my name list with status a/o today, in case it helps anyone else.
113345
@RJ, Are you sure about the interim A3D being selected by committee of other ADs?
I was thinking that bc there is more than 2 years remaining in Arnburg’s term, A3D would be added to the special election they are doing to replace A1D. Dec 18 meeting minutes indicate a cut off date of Feb 20, 2024 for the A1 special election. Cut-off for what, I’m not sure, but guessing it may be for anybody interested to get their nomination with signatures submitted.
Same meeting minutes records that there was a motion which passed to add A3D to the same special election as A1D with the same cut off dates.
My assumption (assuming here) is any potential A3D candidates have until Feb 20 to submit their nomination and signatures.
Provided USPSA board does not decide to do anything different in Jan when they have their in-person meeting with the new members.
Putting my tin foil hat on, I can think of a scenario where Arnburg could say “fuck this shit” and opted to go out on top and be martyred a la YML.
He knew they were witch hunting and then he put himself in the crosshairs….
It could be an effective way to rally the troops.
fatdog
01-01-2024, 12:53 PM
It could be an effective way to rally the troops.
His ouster does seem to have pushed things down to the club level and section level in terms of some seriously pushing back on these fools. Not much else really had done that except when they removed YML, which as far as I know caused no "withholding funds" drama from the clubs or sections.
@RJ, Are you sure about the interim A3D being selected by committee of other ADs?
I was thinking that bc there is more than 2 years remaining in Arnburg’s term, A3D would be added to the special election they are doing to replace A1D. Dec 18 meeting minutes indicate a cut off date of Feb 20, 2024 for the A1 special election. Cut-off for what, I’m not sure, but guessing it may be for anybody interested to get their nomination with signatures submitted.
Same meeting minutes records that there was a motion which passed to add A3D to the same special election as A1D with the same cut off dates.
My assumption (assuming here) is any potential A3D candidates have until Feb 20 to submit their nomination and signatures.
Provided USPSA board does not decide to do anything different in Jan when they have their in-person meeting with the new members.
I got that from the 12/20/23 post in PSI. The BOD passed a motion to that effect, apparently. Dunno for sure tho.
113351
Putting my tin foil hat on, I can think of a scenario where Arnburg could say “fuck this shit” and opted to go out on top and be martyred a la YML.
He knew they were witch hunting and then he put himself in the crosshairs….
It could be an effective way to rally the troops.
Ala William Wallace and Joan of Arc? Effective at catching people’s attention maybe, but kinda sucks the big one for the martyr.
Best scenario I can conceive is the backlash will cause the Board to reconsider and re-instate Scott. Then let the 2 special elections and the normal election cycle in 2024 get new blood in there that is more palatable to the membership.
And then for the love of Christ, maybe we can get back to match shooter and arguing about ways to get gooder.
I got that from the 12/20/23 post in PSI. The BOD passed a motion to that effect, apparently. Dunno for sure tho.
113351
PSI just quoted the same meeting minutes posted on the USPSA website.
Going out on a limb here, I think the committee of 3 ADs is intended to oversee the nomination process for A1 (and now A3) special elections and work with the election company to set up the election, after all somebody has to do it. I don’t think they get to pick the interim A1D or A3D -they would if the remaining amount of time was less than X months. I’m basing that on when Foley was 7.7’ed, there was sufficient time remaining in his tenure that per the bylaws they had to do a special election. That’s how YML got voted in the first time to fill out the remainder of Foley’s term, and was not appointed. Ted was able to be appointed as Pres to replace YML when YML lost his RO cert bc the it was only for X months that remained in Foley/YML’s tenure before the normal election cycle for the Pres was to occur (in 2023).
I don’t have any inside baseball info here, just basing it on what they’ve done in the past and what I think the bylaws require.
I just looked for the USPSA bylaws, and found this proposed draft from 2021. I found 10.2 dealing with confidentiality of board deliberations, but couldn't find any reference for how to remove a director. In two HOA's I am on the board of, a director must be removed by a vote of the members, not the other directors. I did note that the draft called out being compliant with Delaware law.
https://cdn.uspsa.media/Bylaws/Comparison_of_Current_Bylaws_and_Draft_17DEC2021.p df
Apparently, a director must be removed by the members, not the other directors.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C1nx58sM_o2/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=ODhhZWM5NmIwOQ==
DMF13
01-05-2024, 01:10 AM
113556
fatdog
01-05-2024, 11:53 AM
Apparently, a director must be removed by the members, not the other directors.
If the counselor is right, he has never been removed in actuality.
These clowns don't need a shovel do they...digging pretty effectively without one.
PSI just quoted the same meeting minutes posted on the USPSA website.
Going out on a limb here, I think the committee of 3 ADs is intended to oversee the nomination process for A1 (and now A3) special elections and work with the election company to set up the election, after all somebody has to do it. I don’t think they get to pick the interim A1D or A3D -they would if the remaining amount of time was less than X months. I’m basing that on when Foley was 7.7’ed, there was sufficient time remaining in his tenure that per the bylaws they had to do a special election. That’s how YML got voted in the first time to fill out the remainder of Foley’s term, and was not appointed. Ted was able to be appointed as Pres to replace YML when YML lost his RO cert bc the it was only for X months that remained in Foley/YML’s tenure before the normal election cycle for the Pres was to occur (in 2023).
I don’t have any inside baseball info here, just basing it on what they’ve done in the past and what I think the bylaws require.
So I was only half right -or- half wrong. I talked to my Section Coordinator today and he told me that the Board contacted all the Section Coordinators in Area 1 asking them to forward some recommendations for an interim A1D. The idea here is they want somebody to fill the A1D seat during the interim while they organize and carryout the Special Election for A1D. The committee of 3 ADs (A8, A2, and A4) are the ones who will gather names put forth by the A1 SCs. Where I am unclear is if those 3 pick the interim A1D or if it ends up being a matter for the entire board…
Thinking back to when Foley was ousted, they appointed Sherwin Greenfield (A3D) as interim Pres while they organized and held the special election that YML won. When YML took office, Greenfield stepped down. Ditto when YML was yeeted, they appointed Ted as acting Pres to fill out the rest of YML’s term. So the above makes sense from a historical perspective (and probably covered in the bylaws somewhere).
Presumably they are doing the same thing with A3, soliciting names from the A3 SCs for an interim A3D while they organize and conduct the Special Election.
Only one sight picture, but sent two shots…
Spart
01-08-2024, 10:53 PM
It would appear that YML has taken the side of the people who kicked him out the first time.
This is the dumbest movie I've ever seen.
It would appear that YML has taken the side of the people who kicked him out the first time.
This is the dumbest movie I've ever seen.
Source?
Spart
01-09-2024, 11:10 AM
Source?
You've gotta follow a bunch of accounts on Instagram to see posts they make to their "stories" which disappear in 24 hours.
But he's reported to be courting support of the board and contacting MDs and SCs to get them to stay loyal.
You've gotta follow a bunch of accounts on Instagram to see posts they make to their "stories" which disappear in 24 hours.
But he's reported to be courting support of the board and contacting MDs and SCs to get them to stay loyal.
If that's from PSI I have no doubt it's his ongoing CNN spin on it.
I could see YML trying to keep the health of the organization intact like getting MDs and SCs to stick with it so they can make change with new BOD members in the future.
But PSI would spin it as YML being a traitor to the cause. The problem is PSI wants destruction of the org at any cost, really.
Those are just my impressions.
Spart
01-09-2024, 11:25 AM
If that's from PSI I have no doubt it's his ongoing CNN spin on it.
I could see YML trying to keep the health of the organization intact like getting MDs and SCs to stick with it so they can make change with new BOD members in the future.
But PSI would spin it as YML being a traitor to the cause. The problem is PSI wants destruction of the org at any cost, really.
Those are just my impressions.
So the solution is to change nothing and get people sending in match and membership fees again.
Got it. Thanks for playing.
This is REAL easy. YML needs to support reversing A3D's ouster, needs to support financial transparency, needs to support reinstatement of members who were banned for shedding light on USPSA's blatant corruption and mismanagement, and needs to commit to abiding both the bylaws and the state/federal laws which USPSA as an organization is incorporated under.
He is doing none of that.
You've gotta follow a bunch of accounts on Instagram to see posts they make to their "stories" which disappear in 24 hours.
But he's reported to be courting support of the board and contacting MDs and SCs to get them to stay loyal.
The only thing I saw was a video YML put out on Youtube right after the 1st of the year outlining his vision for 2024 -which was IMO a good thing since the Board has been radio silent for a while.
I say give him a chance, and also give USPSA a chance to right the ship. For him (or any leader) to be successful he needs to bring enough of a majority together to have momentum for any meaningful change. Your list of things that you want him to do would tantamount be pulling a pin on a grenade and rolling it into the board room. Nothing good would come of that until the numbers shift. Right now, w/ A1 and A3 vacant, I would put it at best as a 3 vs 4 vote on anything of substantive change from what the old guard pushed thru (Prez, A6 and A8 on one side, A2, A4, A5, and A7 on the other). But if YML can work with some of the OG Gang of 4 and persuade even one of them to vote in a different direction, then the balance shifts to 4 vs 3 or maybe even flip it to 5 vs 2 which is where Scott found himself when he was trying to make reforms (bad timing on his part IMO).
When A1 and A3 interim ADs are in place there is an additional opportunity. And even more opportunity when A2 and A5 elections take place and new ADs are voted in.
“Leadership has been described as the ability to influence others. An effective leader moves followers into action not with coercion but by eliciting their desire and conviction in the vision and goals articulated by the leader. Misused influence can bring about catastrophic results.“
Spart
01-09-2024, 11:48 AM
The only thing I saw was a video YML put out on Youtube right after the 1st of the year outlining his vision for 2024 -which was IMO a good thing since the Board has been radio silent for a while.
You mean the video where he stated he wants member concerns to be heard and addressed? The one where comments from members with concerns that need to be heard and addressed were deleted by YML?
THAT video?
I say again: this is the worst movie I've ever seen.
If that's from PSI I have no doubt it's his ongoing CNN spin on it.
I could see YML trying to keep the health of the organization intact like getting MDs and SCs to stick with it so they can make change with new BOD members in the future.
But PSI would spin it as YML being a traitor to the cause. The problem is PSI wants destruction of the org at any cost, really.
Those are just my impressions.
I would agree with JCN.
The USPSA Board has traditionally been reluctant or slow to put out public statements. What results is a vacuum that gets filled by other people, and guys like PSI and Stoeger control the narrative -saying whatever is on their agenda.
USPSA is a popular gun game with a lot of people who feel passionately about it. I’m one of them, and I for one want to see USPSA survive (albeit quit doing dumb shit) but IMO it has the best ruleset and established match format of any other shooting sport out there. But for it to survive and be viable into the future it needs members and clubs as their customer base. We want it to be solvent, and in order for that to occur there needs to be some change. But IMO the way to bring that about is not to burn it down then try to revive it from the ashes. I think there needs to be some house cleaning in the leadership, some better practices and controls put into place on spending, and more communication. But at the end of the day I just want to go shoot with my friends 2-3 times a month and go to a few majors every year.
You mean the video where he stated he wants member concerns to be heard and addressed? The one where comments from members with concerns that need to be heard and addressed were deleted by YML?
THAT video?
I say again: this is the worst movie I've ever seen.
You’re passionate, I’ll give you that.
But if things suck so bad from your perspective, why are you wasting your time with USPSA politics. Quit, and go do something else that brings you enjoyment and less aggro. I’m at the point in my life where I want less stress and clutter. If something like this vexed me so bad I’d go do something else.
Spart
01-09-2024, 12:05 PM
The USPSA Board has traditionally been reluctant or slow to put out public statements.
They have to get their lies straight.
Spart
01-09-2024, 12:14 PM
You’re passionate, I’ll give you that.
But if things suck so bad from your perspective, why are you wasting your time with USPSA politics. Quit, and go do something else that brings you enjoyment and less aggro. I’m at the point in my life where I want less stress and clutter. If something like this vexed me so bad I’d go do something else.
Because I've got a lot of sweat equity in this sport. Not talking about competing, talking about making matches happen.
Because my mentor has a member number in the triple digits and has been shooting IPSC longer than I've been alive, and I don't want to see him go to his grave after the sport he's spent his life practicing, enjoying, and promoting is destroyed?
If you're of the "shut up and shoot" class, maybe do that and let the rest of us sort out how to keep this organization from being NRA'd.
Because I've got a lot of sweat equity in this sport. Not talking about competing, talking about making matches happen.
Because my mentor has a member number in the triple digits and has been shooting IPSC longer than I've been alive, and I don't want to see him go to his grave after the sport he's spent his life practicing, enjoying, and promoting is destroyed?
If you're of the "shut up and shoot" class, maybe do that and let the rest of us sort out how to keep this organization from being NRA'd.
I get it, you’re pissed off, but don’t direct your anger at me. You know nothing about me or my involvement in this sport (and it exceeds yours).
I’ve stated several times what I think needs done, and it’s not the “shut up and shoot”.
Interesting how people’s anger at an org can devolve into being so pissed off they want to fight everybody.
Good luck with that.
Spart
01-09-2024, 12:29 PM
I get it, you’re pissed off, but don’t direct your anger at me. You know nothing about me or my involvement in this sport (and it exceeds yours).
I’ve stated several times what I think needs done, and it’s not the “shut up and shoot”.
Interesting how people’s anger at an org can devolve into being so pissed off they want to fight everybody.
Good luck with that.
You're suggesting we sit back and vote our way out of this mess and that hasn't been working for the past five years.
Starving them is the only thing that will effect change one way or the other. They can starve to death or they can enact radical reform and win back support.
I hope it's the latter. I won't be renewing my membership, will let my CRO cert go, will not staff for any matches any longer and will not attend any matches that send the org fees.
I'm done until it's fixed.
You're suggesting we sit back and vote our way out of this mess and that hasn't been working for the past five years.
Starving them is the only thing that will effect change one way or the other. They can starve to death or they can enact radical reform and win back support.
I hope it's the latter. I won't be renewing my membership, will let my CRO cert go, will not staff for any matches any longer and will not attend any matches that send the org fees.
I'm done until it's fixed.
What is different about 2024 vs before is the numbers. I’ll explain it again.
In the past we’ve only been able to vote in onesies and twosomes. Never before did we have an opportunity to vote in FOUR new members in one year. Now we do with A1, A2, A3, and A5.
Think about it. 4 new Board members, plus the Prez and A6 & A8. That’s a super majority, and I’ll bet A4 and A7 won’t continue to be the hold outs.
But you won’t be part of any of that since you’re letting your membership lapse or GAF since you’re stepping away, which is what I suggested you do since all this has you so worked up.
Good dog, you get a biscuit.
Clusterfrack
01-09-2024, 12:40 PM
Guys, both of you care about USPSA but have different approaches. That’s ok.
Spart
01-09-2024, 12:43 PM
What is different about 2024 vs before is the numbers. I’ll explain it again.
In the past we’ve only been able to vote in onesies and twosomes. Never before did we have an opportunity to vote in FOUR new members in one year. Now we do with A1, A2, A3, and A5.
Think about it. 4 new Board members, plus the Prez and A6 & A8. That’s a super majority, and I’ll bet A4 and A7 won’t continue to be the hold outs.
But you won’t be part of any of that since you’re letting your membership lapse or GAF since you’re stepping away, which is what I suggested you do since all this has you so worked up.
Good dog, you get a biscuit.
Prez and A8 Rus Fortney are siding with the incumbents.
You don't get to count your elections before they vote.
Board will remove directors and president as they please to get what they want.
But keep voting your way out of it.
I'm not stepping away, I will continue to RO and staff for matches that aren't USPSA. See how that works?
Prez and A8 Rus Fortney are siding with the incumbents.
You don't get to count your elections before they vote.
Board will remove directors and president as they please to get what they want.
But keep voting your way out of it.
I'm not stepping away, I will continue to RO and staff for matches that aren't USPSA. See how that works?
Yep, I do. You’re quitting USPSA which is what I suggested you do.
Spart
01-09-2024, 12:57 PM
I have no suggestions for you. Do whatever you want.
I hope you can find matches to shut up and shoot at.
RevolverRob
01-10-2024, 10:20 AM
Guys, both of you care about USPSA but have different approaches. That’s ok.
They do. And a compelling question is - Why are two dedicated members, passionate about the sport, at odds with one another? A sign of something that is unhealthy is division and infighting among passionate people.
___
I've made my position very clear. I do not buy the narrative that PSI/Stoeger/etc want to destroy USPSA for vendetta reasons or otherwise. But I maybe haven't made it clear why I don't buy that narrative.
It's pretty simple, actually, the facts pretty much speak for themselves. The BOD has consistently made motions/rulings that are in direct violation of their own bylaws, they have shown complete incompetence in managing the organization they were elected to manage (through things like - failing to file their own corporate paperwork for multiple years). The financial obfuscation, combative tone-deaf comments, churlish behavior to people with 'dissenting' opinions, banning people without stating cause, opening the organization up to lawsuits, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, the list goes on...
I cannot look at that preponderance of evidence and conclude, "Stoeger and PSI have made it all up! They are trying to ruin the organization." - No, I look at that preponderance of evidence and conclude, "Some members of the Board of Directors are actively engaging in malfeasance and financial impropriety."
Folks have uncovered the evidence and skeletons and are exposing it - are those same folks effectively using narrative, social media, and deliberately presenting aspects of various things in order to enhance the negativity? Abso-fucking-lutely they are. Are those folks motives purely honest and good? Probably not.
But that does not that change the fact that there are facts you can look up yourself and that you can follow a trail of evidence presented by people NOT Stoeger and PSI and see that things are truly fucked up.
As it is, I came to the conclusion quite a while ago, that the USPSA is basically a mini NRA with less money and less people examining it under a microscope. I'll say it: if proof eventually comes out that exonerates existing and legacy board members and employees of financial impropriety, I'll eat my hat.
Spart
01-10-2024, 01:05 PM
The board is capricious, unbeholden to the membership, and on the path to destroy the war chest that USPSA built up over many years and leave it in financial ruin.
What more needs to be said?
RevolverRob
01-22-2024, 10:28 PM
In tonight's board meeting A7D, Frank Rizzi, was removed from the board. Reason: Three continuous years of membership is required to be a board member, A7D's membership was lapsed for five days before being renewed.
I remind you this is same board that passed a motion to extend A4D Mel Rodero a 6-month grace period to obtain his required RO certification last year. RO Certification is required to be a board member. Rodero was elected in September/October '22, he had multiple opportunities to get his RO Certification before January 1, 2023. He finally became certified as an RO in May of '23.
DMF13
01-22-2024, 10:50 PM
I hate to repeat myself, but: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?59114-Arnburg-out-as-A3-!!!!!&p=1540900&viewfull=1#post1540900
I'm glad I decided not to get a lifetime membership, before the price change. Worries over nonsense like.this are why I chose not to do it.
My club took a survey recently, asking if we wanted to do "hit factor" matches, and stop.sending money to HQ, or if we wanted to keep doing USPSA, and keep.paying the fees. I chose the latter, when I sent my response. However, I will be emailing the officers of the club, and asking to change my response to the former, and recommending we either run "hit factor," with USPSA rules, or.switch to PCSL.
As RevolverRob pointed out, after giving the A4 a break, that the bylaws do not allow, and then rigidly enforcing the "3 continuous years " rule on A7, this is clearly the legacy members of the BOD trying to oust their perceived "enemies."
At this point the members should starve them of funds, either into submission, or to death. I would prefer the former, over the latter, but either way this nonsense needs to end.
CleverNickname
01-22-2024, 10:51 PM
In tonight's board meeting A7D, Frank Rizzi, was removed from the board. Reason: Three continuous years of membership is required to be a board member, A7D's membership was lapsed for five days before being renewed.
6.2 in the bylaws requires that board members be Life members. So the lapse was before he became a board member?
Clusterfrack
01-22-2024, 11:01 PM
In tonight's board meeting A7D, Frank Rizzi, was removed from the board. Reason: Three continuous years of membership is required to be a board member, A7D's membership was lapsed for five days before being renewed.
I remind you this is same board that passed a motion to extend A4D Mel Rodero a 6-month grace period to obtain his required RO certification last year. RO Certification is required to be a board member. Rodero was elected in September/October '22, he had multiple opportunities to get his RO Certification before January 1, 2023. He finally became certified as an RO in May of '23.
That is fucking disgusting.
CleverNickname
01-22-2024, 11:24 PM
114312
It's so ridiculous it's a tiny bit funny, in a very sad sort of way.
I wasn't watching the livestream, who voted for removing A7D and who voted against?
It's so ridiculous it's a tiny bit funny, in a very sad sort of way.
I wasn't watching the livestream, who voted for removing A7D and who voted against?
No idea. I dropped my membership so I can’t watch.
CleverNickname
01-22-2024, 11:43 PM
No idea. I dropped my membership so I can’t watch.
I asked elsewhere and apparently everyone but A6D, A7D (obv) and YML voted for removal. I just emailed my displeasure to A4D, not that it'll do much.
I heard the board is going to hire Wayne LaPierre to root out corruption and reign in the lavish spending.
I think this is up to date, as of last night:
114316
In related news, the court docket for the Rutkowski lawsuit shows that Remediation is set for 1pm for this Thursday, 1/25/24. Should be an interesting week for USPSA.
Spreadsheet with these personalities, for info:
114319
Spart
01-23-2024, 08:21 AM
In the past we’ve only been able to vote in onesies and twosomes. Never before did we have an opportunity to vote in FOUR new members in one year. Now we do with A1, A2, A3, and A5.
Think about it. 4 new Board members, plus the Prez and A6 & A8. That’s a super majority, and I’ll bet A4 and A7 won’t continue to be the hold outs.
I'm sure ECK will be along shortly to explain how we can vote our way out of this if only we keep sending the org membership fees.
CleverNickname
01-23-2024, 09:17 AM
I think this is up to date, as of last night:
114316
I have to wonder what the point of Bruce 1 resigning was, if he's going to jump right back in and take the remainder of his old term.
I have to wonder what the point of Bruce 1 resigning was, if he's going to jump right back in and take the remainder of his old term.
I thought there was supposed to be an election for Area 1, how did that go away?
TCFD273
01-23-2024, 09:27 AM
I thought there was supposed to be an election for Area 1, how did that go away?
The board appointed him, along with Sherwyn for A3
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RevolverRob
01-23-2024, 09:29 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xutI6Vm0PKY
The board appointed him, along with Sherwyn for A3
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do the members get to vote on anything?
RevolverRob
01-23-2024, 09:53 AM
Do the members get to vote on anything?
Members get to pay money to support BOD travel and ammo.
The BOD does not thank you for your support.
Anybody know who Jim Johnson is? Bottom right in the vid posted by RevolverRob.
TCFD273
01-23-2024, 10:39 AM
Anybody know who Jim Johnson is? Bottom right in the vid posted by RevolverRob.
Attorney
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Attorney
Excellent, thanks, I'll add him to my list.
TCFD273
01-23-2024, 10:44 AM
Do the members get to vote on anything?
Nope
I quit USPA over what they were doing a year ago, I still follow everything out of morbid curiosity I suppose.
I wish there were PCSL matches around me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TCFD273
01-23-2024, 10:48 AM
Excellent, thanks, I'll add him to my list.
I’m not an Attorney, but I find it odd A7 was citing Delaware case law, then the DE Attorney (not a board member) requested an executive session
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow, this is hard to keep up. I think this is now up to date, assuming the board installed A1D and A3D last night.
First half, USPSA BOD and related officers etc.:
114323
Second half, Rutkowski lawsuit, Stamper allegation, other personalities in the mix.
114324
Spart
01-23-2024, 11:08 AM
I’m not an Attorney, but I find it odd A7 was citing Delaware case law, then the DE Attorney (not a board member) requested an executive session
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Even more odd that Jim Johnson is a member of the bar in the state of Alabama, which is not a state that USPSA.org has a legal presence in to my knowledge - having a physical presence in Washington state and being a Delaware corporate entity.
RevolverRob
01-23-2024, 11:25 AM
I’m not an Attorney, but I find it odd A7 was citing Delaware case law, then the DE Attorney (not a board member) requested an executive session
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Even more odd that Jim Johnson is a member of the bar in the state of Alabama, which is not a state that USPSA.org has a legal presence in to my knowledge - having a physical presence in Washington state and being a Delaware corporate entity.
Jim Johnson is not admitted to the Bar in WA or DE. He is - ostensibly - not the Org's Attorney - but that is very unclear. It is obvious he is acting as an attorney and legal counsel for the Org.
At what point does everyone acknowledge that, yeah, maybe Ben can be an obnoxious troll at times.....but he was also pretty much right about everything?
TCFD273
01-23-2024, 11:40 AM
At what point does everyone acknowledge that, yeah, maybe Ben can be an obnoxious troll at times.....but he was also pretty much right about everything?
I’ve been there for awhile now
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RevolverRob
01-23-2024, 11:42 AM
At what point does everyone acknowledge that, yeah, maybe Ben can be an obnoxious troll at times.....but he was also pretty much right about everything?
Look man - Stoeger and Derek (PSI) want to tear the organization down and ruin it for their own personal gain. What those gains are is nebulous. But they are definitely in it for themselves.
At least say the folks who have personal experience with Stoeger and certainly are not letting those experiences bias them in any way.
TCFD273
01-23-2024, 11:44 AM
Jim Johnson is not admitted to the Bar in WA or DE. He is - ostensibly - not the Org's Attorney - but that is very unclear. It is obvious he is acting as an attorney and legal counsel for the Org.
Thank you for the clarification….also I’m dumbfounded.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Clusterfrack
01-23-2024, 11:46 AM
Look man - Stoeger and Derek (PSI) want to tear the organization down and ruin it for their own personal gain. What those gains are is nebulous. But they are definitely in it for themselves.
At least say the folks who have personal experience with Stoeger and certainly are not letting those experiences bias them in any way.
I'm hearing them say they want a major change in the BoD, USPSA staff, and NROI. And rules stability. Not ruin of USPSA. That sounds good to me.
RevolverRob
01-23-2024, 11:52 AM
I'm hearing them say they want a major change in the BoD, USPSA staff, and NROI. And rules stability. Not ruin of USPSA. That sounds good to me.
I'll be honest with you. I suspect given your professional background and mine - we're probably pretty used to people who are bombastic, direct, confrontational, and still want the best for people and an org that is not themselves. Which might be why it's easier for us to ignore the personality quirks and focus on the words and actions of those people.
Simultaneously, we both probably have experiences that exceedingly charming sociopath who absolutely does not give a fuck about anyone or anything else. And the absolute frustration of having to unseat that person from a position of power.
Clusterfrack
01-23-2024, 11:53 AM
I'll be honest with you. I suspect given your professional background and mine - we're probably pretty used to people who are bombastic, direct, confrontational, and still want the best for people and an org that is not themselves. Which might be why it's easier for us to ignore the personality quirks and focus on the words and actions of those people.
Simultaneously, we both probably have experiences that exceedingly charming sociopath who absolutely does not give a fuck about anyone or anything else. And the absolute frustration of having to unseat that person from a position of power.
I would not want Ben S on the BoD or as Pres.
RevolverRob
01-23-2024, 11:58 AM
I would not want Ben S on the BoD or as Pres.
Concur.
Importantly though - Ben S does not want Ben S to be on the BoD or as Pres.
At what point does everyone acknowledge that, yeah, maybe Ben can be an obnoxious troll at times.....but he was also pretty much right about everything?
I watched Ben’s reaction video posted today. At least in this one, he clarified his problem was not with USPSA, but with the board members, specifically. He also confirmed he chooses to be confrontational on purpose.
I don’t get the impression he wants to burn USPSA down, he just wants these board members removed from power so that the org can be run by the members.
Look man - Stoeger and Derek (PSI) want to tear the organization down and ruin it for their own personal gain. What those gains are is nebulous. But they are definitely in it for themselves.
At least say the folks who have personal experience with Stoeger and certainly are not letting those experiences bias them in any way.
I've heard quite a few folks say this, and frankly I find it to be more rhetorical assertion than argument. Left out is how exactly they would stand to gain. Does Stoeger have a financial interest in a competing shooting organization or sport, say something like IDPA or PCSL? It seems not, and he seems resistant to starting something of his own, though many people urge him to do so.
Yeah, I think there's a bit of "Burn it all!" to some of Ben's attitude, especially soon after his ban. But he seems to be pretty openly encouraging people to save the sport by removing these apparently corrupt individuals. And as you noted in your later post, he doesn't want anything to do with an administrative or leadership role in the organization.
I get why Stoeger isn't many folks' cup of tea. And I wish he would learn to communicate criticism and input in a more effective way. He's got a lot to offer the sport, and he often undermines his own messaging with the trolling. But two things can be true at the same time: he's kinda obnoxious, but also right.
TCFD273
01-23-2024, 12:20 PM
Jim Johnson is not admitted to the Bar in WA or DE. He is - ostensibly - not the Org's Attorney - but that is very unclear. It is obvious he is acting as an attorney and legal counsel for the Org.
In the meeting he was referred to as the Org’s legal counsel multiple times
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RevolverRob
01-23-2024, 12:35 PM
In the meeting he was referred to as the Org’s legal counsel multiple times
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is a change from the narrative last year that he was a "Legal Advisor" not retained legal counsel. If he is legal counsel now that demonstrates (yet again) massive failure on the part of Org Leadership. You do not hire an attorney not licensed to practice law in the state(s) you have legal status in. That's organizational best practices 101.
Archer1440
01-23-2024, 01:29 PM
Having watched this train wreck, I honestly have no earthly idea why anyone would want to be part of the board or management of this org.
But that's not much different than my view of most politicians. A thankless job for the committed, a cornucopia of opportunity for those darkly inclined.
DMF13
01-23-2024, 02:14 PM
Even more odd that Jim Johnson is a member of the bar in the state of Alabama, which is not a state that USPSA.org has a legal presence in to my knowledge - having a physical presence in Washington state and being a Delaware corporate entity.
I'm curious what laws WA and DE have regarding practicing law without a license, if he is only a member of the bar in AL, but not DE and WA.
RevolverRob
01-23-2024, 05:14 PM
I'm curious what laws WA and DE have regarding practicing law without a license, if he is only a member of the bar in AL, but not DE and WA.
Couple of folks commented on PSI's Instagram that they have notified the Bars of WA, DE, and AL. Previously, he and managing director Donna Webb had told the WA Bar that his role was limited to providing legal advice on risk mitigation of matches held in Alabama.
This won't be the first time that Jim has been reported to the WA Bar.
steve
01-24-2024, 12:32 AM
USPSA is going to collapse if they keep this up.
konkapot
01-24-2024, 07:35 AM
Listened to some of the BoD meeting while reloading yesterday.
Synopsis:
A7s membership had expired, probably. This made him ineligible to be a candidate for the BoD.
He claimed that it wasn't, or that if it was, he was unaware of it. At the time there was no vetting process.
The BoD had the option of saying "Well he's good now, so all is good."
They chose not to do this. A7 is gone.
Is the above, generally, correct?
RevolverRob
01-24-2024, 08:39 AM
Listened to some of the BoD meeting while reloading yesterday.
Synopsis:
A7s membership had expired, probably. This made him ineligible to be a candidate for the BoD.
He claimed that it wasn't, or that if it was, he was unaware of it. At the time there was no vetting process.
The BoD had the option of saying "Well he's good now, so all is good."
They chose not to do this. A7 is gone.
Is the above, generally, correct?
Yes that's pretty much it.
They argued he was ineligible to run for the BoD, due to the 5-day lapse of membership. He was either unaware of it or it was not lapsed. Regardless, once elected Rizzi became a Life Member as required by Bylaws to serve his term as A7D.
They argued because he was ineligible to run he automatically forfeited his right to be an Area Director and automatically resigned. It is not written in the Bylaws that, "If it is determined after an election that an Area Director elected by popular vote was ineligible to run for the position they are an invalid Area Director."
The Bylaws only state the stipulated requirements to run for Area Director and to serve as Area Director.
The board deliberately conflated the eligibility to run and eligibility to serve to kick Rizzi off the board.
The board had several options. A retroactive "mea culpa" being granted basically saying, "Honest mistake. It won't happen again. Make sure we fix this problem in the future." Or a censure of Rizzi, "Bad boy. You should have known and don't do things like this again." Or they could have straight up ignored it.
What they actually could not do is what they did. Which was violate their own bylaws, break Robert's Rules of Order, and cast a vote in violation of bylaws and procedural rules.
konkapot
01-24-2024, 09:58 AM
That's where I get a little fuzzy. At one point A2 wasn't even sure what he was voting on.
I get the issue with his candidacy, but not his presence on the board.
Is there any way that the BoD thinks it's just cleaning house/turning over a new leaf on this?
Spart
01-24-2024, 10:17 AM
That's where I get a little fuzzy. At one point A2 wasn't even sure what he was voting on.
I get the issue with his candidacy, but not his presence on the board.
Is there any way that the BoD thinks it's just cleaning house/turning over a new leaf on this?
That's 100% it.
I don't know if they believe themselves to be the good guys (the mental gymnastics must be really hard at this point, or maybe they're just dumb) but they think they're winning for sure.
RevolverRob
01-24-2024, 11:18 AM
That's where I get a little fuzzy. At one point A2 wasn't even sure what he was voting on.
I get the issue with his candidacy, but not his presence on the board.
Is there any way that the BoD thinks it's just cleaning house/turning over a new leaf on this?
I think Scott Arnburg is correct in his assessment. These are moves for two main reasons:
1) To get as many people named in the Rutkowski lawsuit back onto the board as possible. This is so they can justify the use of USPSA funds for their legal defense.
2) To get as many people who will look behind the curtain as possible off the board. This is so they can burn and shred as much evidence of their wrong doing as possible.
___
The narrative that Arnburg, Rizzi, and others are "destroying the organization" is sleight of hand. The reason to remove them is they asked hard questions and wanted the data.
My guess and it is merely a guess, is that Leighton, Troy, Bruce Wells, and Bruce Gary, have embezzled a significant amount of money from the organizational coffers. I suspect at this point Donna Webb knows all about it and is an active accomplice in obfuscation in exchange for the 6-figure salary she receives. The org not doing anything to punish Jake Martens for his illegal activities as DME, likely means either Jake has significant dirt on them or is also complicit with their crimes. In doing their dirty dealings, I would guess Greenfield, Cabana, and others named in Rutkowski's lawsuit have, at best, used USPSA funds inappropriately, if not directly pocketed some of it.
Arnburg, Rizzi, YML, and Ben Barry are/were asking HARD questions and demanding access to financial records. The unwillingness of the board and Donna to hand them over and then the Board's blatant disregard for its own rules and procedures, as well as actual lawful activities, to remove the question askers demonstrates their commitment to covering up their crimes.
I can all but guarantee when the dust clears - that it will be revealed at folks named in Rutkowski's lawsuit have committed numerous financial crimes against the organization. Unfortunately, at this point it would take a willing prosecutor to prosecute them. At best a Class Action lawsuit of members vs. BoD and court appointed trustees/mediators to have a full rework of the org is likely the best thing that can happen.
Realistically, I anticipate that when we finally know the depth of what is going on, we will discover that USPSA is flat broke. That at this point credit card balances are keeping the org afloat and part of the scramble going on here is not only to hide the crimes, but also to hide how bad it really is.
konkapot
01-24-2024, 11:33 AM
That's a little dark/grim but I don't dispute any of it. Reminds me of the stereotypical HOA shenanigans that always seem to happen.
Clusterfrack
01-24-2024, 12:13 PM
That sounds about right. Also, who on the BoD is Donna sleeping with?
I think Scott Arnburg is correct in his assessment. These are moves for two main reasons:
1) To get as many people named in the Rutkowski lawsuit back onto the board as possible. This is so they can justify the use of USPSA funds for their legal defense.
2) To get as many people who will look behind the curtain as possible off the board. This is so they can burn and shred as much evidence of their wrong doing as possible.
___
The narrative that Arnburg, Rizzi, and others are "destroying the organization" is sleight of hand. The reason to remove them is they asked hard questions and wanted the data.
My guess and it is merely a guess, is that Leighton, Troy, Bruce Wells, and Bruce Gary, have embezzled a significant amount of money from the organizational coffers. I suspect at this point Donna Webb knows all about it and is an active accomplice in obfuscation in exchange for the 6-figure salary she receives. The org not doing anything to punish Jake Martens for his illegal activities as DME, likely means either Jake has significant dirt on them or is also complicit with their crimes. In doing their dirty dealings, I would guess Greenfield, Cabana, and others named in Rutkowski's lawsuit have, at best, used USPSA funds inappropriately, if not directly pocketed some of it.
Arnburg, Rizzi, YML, and Ben Barry are/were asking HARD questions and demanding access to financial records. The unwillingness of the board and Donna to hand them over and then the Board's blatant disregard for its own rules and procedures, as well as actual lawful activities, to remove the question askers demonstrates their commitment to covering up their crimes.
I can all but guarantee when the dust clears - that it will be revealed at folks named in Rutkowski's lawsuit have committed numerous financial crimes against the organization. Unfortunately, at this point it would take a willing prosecutor to prosecute them. At best a Class Action lawsuit of members vs. BoD and court appointed trustees/mediators to have a full rework of the org is likely the best thing that can happen.
Realistically, I anticipate that when we finally know the depth of what is going on, we will discover that USPSA is flat broke. That at this point credit card balances are keeping the org afloat and part of the scramble going on here is not only to hide the crimes, but also to hide how bad it really is.
steve
01-24-2024, 03:03 PM
That sounds about right. Also, who on the BoD is Donna sleeping with?
Ewwwwwwwwwww.
Clusterfrack
01-24-2024, 03:11 PM
Ewwwwwwwwwww.
Yeah, she’d have to be pretty desperate
Seems weird they didn't just vote in Kevin Collins as A3D. He lost to Scott Arnburg in a runoff. And he's a defendant in the Rutkowski lawsuit.
steve
01-24-2024, 03:39 PM
Seems weird they didn't just vote in Kevin Collins as A3D. He lost to Scott Arnburg in a runoff. And he's a defendant in the Rutkowski lawsuit.
Makes sense, members vote directors in and the board fires them and votes who they want. Sounds like a Democrat wet dream.
feudist
01-24-2024, 04:12 PM
Let me test my understanding.
At best, we have at least two factions splintering the organization over petty personal hatreds and trying to beat each other to death with the rulebook. Now tit for tat plus head has escalated to lawfare and scorched earth.
At worst, we have an ongoing criminal conspiracy of embezzlement fighting a delaying action while they destroy as much evidence as possible and maneuver to drain the legal coffers of the organization in an attempt to make prosecution and civil remedy so expensive/ pointless that they get away with their IGG.
The involved parties are so determined to not lose the overarching personality conflict that the good of the sport is irrelevant to their behavior, regardless of any wrongdoing or criminality.
The cancerous squamosity of social media is fanning the flames of secession for "better rules" "stability" "getting our money's worth" among local affiliate clubs.
Of the Players, the BOD is flailing like a panicked drowning man, and, whatever his original intentions(or how right he is) Stoeger's worst instincts and traits of trollery and predatory smartassery are in full sprint.
Sigh.
I’m not sure I agree 100% with feudist but damn that’s a good rant.
I had to look up ‘squamosity’. Bravo.
Re: Being on the board to get legal fees covered, I just looked, and it appears 4 people are named defendants but not currently (as of today) on the BOD (Murphy, Collins, Stanton, Cabana). So, I dunno.
I don't see it as two factions bickering over personality conflict at all.
To my knowledge every accusation Ben Stoeger made about them has proven to be correct. Ben gives his opinion about whats happening. Anyone has the right to do that, and plenty of folks care what he thinks. Plus, he still is advocating for trying to save the org.
More to the point, he isn't even a USPSA member. So not really a "personality" clash that you can blame on the guy. It won't impact him if the BOD run it in the ground or don't. His buisness will sell stuff to whatever practical shooting sport replaces it. And by the way, he seems determined not to chair or be a president in any other disipline.
I get people don't like the guy. Lately any update videos he has done have been about whats going on. Facts about the BOD actions. Not trolling. Rated PG, no. But if you can't call a spade a spade, I don't know what to tell you. At this point it's glaringly obvious.
The BOD have run themselves in the ground, and made themselves look like incompetent idiots at best. Thieving, coniving, duplicitous, sonsabitches at worst. And it aint Ben Stoeger even calling out most of them, its PSI. I've never bought from his store, bought 1 book on amazon, and was gifted a few others by a member here. Not a patreon member of his, never had a class with him, never met the guy. But the idea he is an asshole and bad guy for his take on this is egregious.
The schism is really between long time board members who have operated a financially unsound sport, with constant changes, and others who want a financially sound sport with consistent rules and enforcement that make the local matches better for shooters.
I don't see USPSA, in it's current form, making it through another 2 years. Maybe 1. I don't plan to rejoin.
Spart
01-24-2024, 08:08 PM
Seems weird they didn't just vote in Kevin Collins as A3D. He lost to Scott Arnburg in a runoff.
That's not correct. He came in third, behind Luke Faust.
Scott defeated Luke in the runoff, and it seemed that most of the vote that went to Kevin Collins in the first election all went to Scott, as Faust's total number of votes didn't increase much.
Faust was nominated by the section coordinators to replace Scott as interim director, but the board ignored their nomination.
RevolverRob
01-24-2024, 09:49 PM
Updates: Ongoing Livestream of Member's Meeting tonight.
Frank Rizzi has been reinstated as A7D. He appealed the decision to Yee Min Lee and presented the evidence. They concluded that the bylaws do not state the continuity thing prevented him from serving as an elected director.
The vote to reinstate: Leighton No, Russell Fortney No, Rick Steel Yes, Ben Berry Yes, Yen Min Lee Yes, Frank Rizzi Yes. Mel Rodero Abstain.
-
Mel Rodero has resigned from the board.
-
Vote by board to delay appointing Sherwyn Greenfield to the board passed. So Sherwyn will not be returning to the board at this time.
-
Some important updates. Yesterday a Level 1 match to be hosted at the Sig Sauer Academy was converted to a Hit Factor match with no USPSA classifier. They have dropped all USPSA matches down.
Trident Armory has hosted an annual USPSA match to support veterans for 6 years. It has raised 250k+ for veterans charities. They announced they are converting that match to a PCSL match, today.
Outdoor Dynamics, a long time sponsor of USPSA regional and national matches, who specializes in production of match ammunition has dropped their sponsorship of USPSA.
-
RevolverRob
01-24-2024, 10:07 PM
Another hit for USPSA:
Davinci Machining (PCC builder) - drops sponsorship of Nationals and pulls advertisements from USPSA magazine.
---
In letter to USPSA owner of Davinci stated the actions of the board at the January 2024 Board Meeting were the final straw.
--
That seems to be a common theme. I suspect the reinstatement of Frank Rizzi is too little, too late. I also suspect the loss of Mel Rodero and the flipping of the script against Leighton may well spell the end. The board as currently constituted is going to have Leighton and Russell Fortney against Rizzi and Berry - with YML and Rick Steele as the tie breakers/swing votes. If the vote to reinstate Frank is any indicator - folks are siding against Leighton.
Clusterfrack
01-24-2024, 10:11 PM
This sounds like good progress on the BoD, and clear evidence of the negative financial effects of the BS they pulled.
Reflecting yesterday's updates from the 1/24/24 members meeting.
114390
I split the Rutkowski lawsuit section into plaintiff and defendant, and for completeness added all the defendants in the suit (less "USPSA", which is the corporate entity also named in the suit).
Out of interest, today (1/25/24) at 1pm is the day/time set by Judge Farmer for Remediation. Trial date is listed as 8/24/24.
114391
steve
01-25-2024, 10:14 AM
With all this going on, who are the problem children? Is there a way for membership to remove directors? Did the resignation of Rodero tilt the votes in a good way?
Spart
01-25-2024, 10:28 AM
I split the Rutkowski lawsuit section into plaintiff and defendant, and for completeness added all the defendants in the suit (less "USPSA", which is the corporate entity also named in the suit).
Out of interest, today (1/25/24) at 1pm is the day/time set by Judge Farmer for Remediation. Trial date is listed as 8/24/24.
114391
Just some notes on this.
Kevin Collins was appointed as interim Area 3 director after Matt Hopkins (who was elected) was forced to resign from the position.
Sherwyn Greenfield was the longtime Area 3 director before vacating the position to serve as interim president after Mike Foley was removed from the board.
Ted Murphy was formerly the Area 8 director before he was appointed as interim president to replace Yee-Min Lin after Troy McManus yanked his RO cert, after which the board unseated him as President.
DMF13
01-25-2024, 11:14 AM
Kevin Collins was appointed as interim Area 3 director after Matt Hopkins (who was elected) was forced to resign from the position.
For anyone who isn't familiar, that "forced" resignation was proper (although I'm sure the legacy board members were very happy about that, as some were openly hostile to Hopkins), as Hopkins had moved out of Area 3, and was no longer eligible to hold the position. The "forced" resignation was due to Hopkins taking a job, and moving.
DMF13
01-25-2024, 11:16 AM
Did the resignation of Rodero tilt the votes in a good way?Most likely yes, as seen by the vote to reinstate Rizzi. Rodero has consistently sided with the "legacy" board members.
DMF13
01-25-2024, 11:25 AM
Mel Rodero has resigned from the board.I was in A4 at the time of the election, and voted for him. However, based on his voting record, since becoming a director I'm glad he has resigned. Hopefully, someone who cares about the long term viability of the sport will replace him.
Some important updates. Yesterday a Level 1 match to be hosted at the Sig Sauer Academy was converted to a Hit Factor match with no USPSA classifier. They have dropped all USPSA matches down.
Trident Armory has hosted an annual USPSA match to support veterans for 6 years. It has raised 250k+ for veterans charities. They announced they are converting that match to a PCSL match, today.
Outdoor Dynamics, a long time sponsor of USPSA regional and national matches, who specializes in production of match ammunition has dropped their sponsorship of USPSA.
This is a huge hit to USPSA, and while I'm glad it happened, and seems to be helping to drive change, I hope the momentum of this does not become a fatal blow to USPSA. I would rather the leadership of USPSA seek to reform the organization, and survive, than to crash and burn, but if it does crash and burn, I will find another way to continue practical shooting. PCSL has not caught on in my area. I haven't seen a single match within 2 hours of where I live. That might force into shooting IDPA again.
IDPA is better than nothing, but I much prefer USPSA, and based on what I know about PCSL, that also seems better. Hopefully PCSL will develop a classification system like USPSA, as trying to achieve the next level in classification is a big motivator for me, and I'm sure it is with others too. I'm in my 50s, I have no hope of crushing the competition at big matches, but I can work toward the objective measure of reaching a higher classification, and while not my only motivation to train, it does help, a great deal.
RevolverRob
01-25-2024, 11:31 AM
PCSL Classification System either is dropping Q1 of 2024 or already is out (I haven't been following it super close).
Spart
01-26-2024, 04:02 PM
For anyone who isn't familiar, that "forced" resignation was proper (although I'm sure the legacy board members were very happy about that, as some were openly hostile to Hopkins), as Hopkins had moved out of Area 3, and was no longer eligible to hold the position. The "forced" resignation was due to Hopkins taking a job, and moving.
Hopkins was blackmailed into resigning, they threatened to pull his world shoot slot.
These guys are awful.
fatdog
01-26-2024, 05:32 PM
Strader's full post from his facebook page
Like many of you, I've watched USPSA's development with much interest since 2016. From 2010-2016, I was a BOD member as the Area 4 Director and President. It was a great experience and I developed a much deeper appreciation and love for the organization, the people behind the scenes, and especially the active membership. Granted, there were challenges with opinions and personalities both on and off the board, but that never became an obstacle to our duties to best represent the ACTUAL owners of the org...the members.
After my term was up in 2016, many changes happened that concerned me, but I still kept faith that the entire BOD and org leadership would always put the future and health of USPSA first. I'm saddened to say that is no longer the case. Either through arrogance, incompetence, pride, or power, there have been public decisions made over the last several years that have been detrimental to our sport. I'm proud of our membership who have recently recognized these actions and voiced their concerns loud and clear.
This is a message to the representatives that run MY/OUR organization: You are on notice. Put your personal agendas and motivations aside and listen to your members...NOT just in your Area, but all of them. With the power of social media exploding, you now have more resources than ever to promote your ideas that will make USPSA better while getting feedback from your membership. I know that you will never make everyone happy, but putting personal or deceptive agendas first will make plenty of members angry enough to take drastic actions.
With all of that said, I will continue to support my USPSA Area Director, Frank Rizzi and the organization as a whole. I agreed to host the Area 7 Championship here at the Sig Sauer Academy, and I will make good on my word, provided that the nonsense stops. I understand the motivations by some to not attend, but I have faith that many share my hopeful optimism for the sport. This is our first major USPSA match here in a decade, and it will be a great one. Registration opens up THIS Sunday Jan 28th at 6:00pm EST. https://practiscore.com/2024-sig-sauer-uspsa.../register
Hope to see you all on the range!
DMF13
01-26-2024, 10:20 PM
Hopkins was blackmailed into resigning, they threatened to pull his world shoot slot.
These guys are awful.
Until your post, I had not heard any allegations of blackmailing Hopkins, in relation to his eligibility to be the Area 3 Director. Regardless, the fact is Hopkins no longer met the requirement established in the bylaws to remain the A3 Director. The Bylaws of The United States Practical Shooting Association/IPSC clearly state, in Article 6, section 6.2 v.), “Each Area Director shall, be a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Area from which they are nominated and elected.” https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://uspsa.org/documents/bylaws/Current.pdf
Hopkins chose to accept a new job, and no longer reside in Area 3, and was therefore no longer eligible to hold that position.
It’s dishonest to demand the BOD be ethical, and follow the law/rules, and then decry the application of the actual rules to that situation. I also find it odd that anyone would feel the need to blackmail Hopkins, as he was clearly in violation of the bylaws, and any vote to remove him would have been clearly justified based on the plain text of the bylaws. There is no ambiguity at all in that part of the bylaws, and what was going on with Hopkins.
Anyone who has read my comments here on this thread, and others, can see I think the BOD has behaved horribly. However, if we’re going to criticize them, that criticism should be honest. The truth is, Hopkins made a choice that led to him being ineligible to hold that position.
Without acting like a range lawyer, "resident of an area" can mean different things. Residency is pretty complicated. Here is Alaska's requirements, as an example.
415(a): "resident" means a person (including an alien) who is physically present in Alaska with the intent to remain indefinitely and make a home here, has maintained that person's domicile in Alaska for the 12 consecutive months immediately preceding this application for a license, and is not claiming residency or ...
So if Matt moved to SC on July 15, for example, he might not be legally a SC resident until Jan 1 the following year, or even later. Nebraska, or wherever he lived, would want state income tax through Dec 31, even if he moved in July.
joshs
01-27-2024, 12:38 AM
Without acting like a range lawyer, "resident of an area" can mean different things. Residency is pretty complicated. Here is Alaska's requirements, as an example.
415(a): "resident" means a person (including an alien) who is physically present in Alaska with the intent to remain indefinitely and make a home here, has maintained that person's domicile in Alaska for the 12 consecutive months immediately preceding this application for a license, and is not claiming residency or ...
So if Matt moved to SC on July 15, for example, he might not be legally a SC resident until Jan 1 the following year, or even later. Nebraska, or wherever he lived, would want state income tax through Dec 31, even if he moved in July.
That’s the term for a specific purpose where the state is opting out of the general definition of the term. It doesn’t make sense to apply that type of definition to a general term in a set of bylaws.
That’s the term for a specific purpose where the state is opting out of the general definition of the term. It doesn’t make sense to apply that type of definition to a general term in a set of bylaws.
So exactly how would you define resident, as used in the USPSA bylaw.
I was watching Stoeger's reaction video discussion posted last night, the one with Austin Leffler and Bill Godbold.
They were saying that there would be special elections this year for the recent kerfuffle in three areas, namely Area 1 (Gary resignation/reinstatement), Area 3 (Arnburg et al), and Area 4 (Rodero resignation)? Is that correct? In other words, these three areas would have interim directors but there would be a members (of the area, presumably) later this year as to the AD going forward?
Stoeger mentioned that with these three, and the two AD's terms that were expiring in 2024 (Oosthuisenm, Steele), there was a chance for a 5 vote swing away from the legacy board members this year.
joshs
01-27-2024, 09:39 AM
So exactly how would you define resident, as used in the USPSA bylaw.
That the member lives in the area with the intent to remain.
That the member lives in the area with the intent to remain.
I still think it is fact intensive, and the actual "day" he no longer was a resident is complicated and subject to different interpretations based on a number of factors. Also, if the board threatened to pull a slot on a world team based on resigning, that is a bad fact.
With all this going on, who are the problem children? Is there a way for membership to remove directors? Did the resignation of Rodero tilt the votes in a good way?
In an earlier version of my spreadsheet, I had a column that contained a subjective index number as to "Good" or "Bad", in terms of what I thought about who was on which side. I called it the "HM Index". Good was a plus number, Bad was a minus number, the degrees of which were estimated by the value, which ranged from 10 to 100 to 1000. Maybe I should bring that back. It did help me figure out who was who, which was the principle reason I stated to build this name index.
Lately the term I seem bandied about is "Legacy Board Members" being equated to "Bad".
* HM = Howler Monkey :cool:
With Strader's letter, it feels like it has reached a tipping point and the old board's days are numbered.
Does anyone know:
Who the current (or interim?) Area 4 Director is, with the resignation of Mel Rodero a couple days ago?
Has USPSA BOD approved a plan to conduct a Special Area Director Election in 2024 to fill the roles of A1, A3 and A4 Directors?
Archer1440
01-27-2024, 10:33 AM
With Strader's letter, it feels like it has reached a tipping point and the old board's days are numbered.
It seems to me that it’s trendy to respond to social media posts on the subject with declarations of dropping membership.
People who are interested in fixing the situation are the very last people who should be allowing their membership to lapse as a “message”. They are the very people who should be preserving their voting rights, particularly given historical precedent in terms of vote margins.
steve
01-27-2024, 10:53 AM
It seems to me that it’s trendy to respond to social media posts on the subject with declarations of dropping membership.
People who are interested in fixing the situation are the very last people who should be allowing their membership to lapse as a “message”. They are the very people who should be preserving their voting rights, particularly given historical precedent in terms of vote margins.
While I agree with what you are saying what good does voting do if the BOD's can vote out who you voted in? The bylaws need to change. It should take a membership vote to remove someone and the life membership criteria to keep the good old boys as the only ones running should drop. They insulated themselves from the membership for a reason.
joshs
01-27-2024, 11:23 AM
I still think it is fact intensive, and the actual "day" he no longer was a resident is complicated and subject to different interpretations based on a number of factors. Also, if the board threatened to pull a slot on a world team based on resigning, that is a bad fact.
Sure, but I would resign as soon as I knew I was moving out of the area. That seems to be the purpose of the bylaw provision.
DMF13
01-27-2024, 11:30 AM
I still think it is fact intensive, and the actual "day" he no longer was a resident is complicated and subject to different interpretations based on a number of factors. Also, if the board threatened to pull a slot on a world team based on resigning, that is a bad fact.Sorry, but you're unnecessarily splitting hairs. Hopkins did in fact take up residency in another state, and whether its an issue of 3 days, 30 days, or 6 months, time has shown (well over a year, and approaching two years) Hopkins did in fact leave his residence in Area 3, and establish a new residence outside Area 3.
Further, until this thread, I haven't seen a claim, let alone, any actual evidence, that Hopkins was blackmailed. Again, what would be the motive? They could have simply voted him out based on the bylaws, and been easily justified based on the facts.
Its my recollection that Hopkins resigned, knowing the Board was planning to discuss, and then vote, on his eligibility to be the A3 Director, based on his change of residency.
However, both scenarios are irrelevant. Hopkins had clearly demonstrated he was no longer intending to be a resident of Area 3, by actually establishing a new domicile, outside Area 3. I can't fault the guy for.choosing his actual income generating career, over an unpaid job as a Director in USPSA. However, he made a choice that made him ineligible to be the A3 Director, and its simple as that.
While I agree with what you are saying what good does voting do if the BOD's can vote out who you voted in?
If we hadn't voted good people in, the BoD wouldn't have needed to lift a finger to oust them. I think we all can agree that legacy board members trying to destroy the opposition by any means is what's breaking the camel's back. So, yeah, people who voted YML, Arnburg, Rizzi etc in effectively enacted whatever the change is happening, with huge kudos to Scott and Frank keeping their integrity and staying principled. People who will keep their voting rights will continue to have a chance on influencing the future of this organization. Nonmembers will not.
steve
01-27-2024, 02:55 PM
If we hadn't voted good people in, the BoD wouldn't have needed to lift a finger to oust them. I think we all can agree that legacy board members trying to destroy the opposition by any means is what's breaking the camel's back. So, yeah, people who voted YML, Arnburg, Rizzi etc in effectively enacted whatever the change is happening, with huge kudos to Scott and Frank keeping their integrity and staying principled. People who will keep their voting rights will continue to have a chance on influencing the future of this organization. Nonmembers will not.
I agree 100%. They worked real hard to keep YML out because in my opinion they had a lot to hide. It will be interesting to see what is uncovered and where all the finger pointing goes. People like Ben Stoeger kept the pressure on and that really helped.
Sorry, but you're unnecessarily splitting hairs. Hopkins did in fact take up residency in another state, and whether its an issue of 3 days, 30 days, or 6 months, time has shown (well over a year, and approaching two years) Hopkins did in fact leave his residence in Area 3, and establish a new residence outside Area 3.
Further, until this thread, I haven't seen a claim, let alone, any actual evidence, that Hopkins was blackmailed. Again, what would be the motive? They could have simply voted him out based on the bylaws, and been easily justified based on the facts.
Its my recollection that Hopkins resigned, knowing the Board was planning to discuss, and then vote, on his eligibility to be the A3 Director, based on his change of residency.
However, both scenarios are irrelevant. Hopkins had clearly demonstrated he was no longer intending to be a resident of Area 3, by actually establishing a new domicile, outside Area 3. I can't fault the guy for.choosing his actual income generating career, over an unpaid job as a Director in USPSA. However, he made a choice that made him ineligible to be the A3 Director, and its simple as that.
As someone that splits their time between multiple states, I can assure you that splitting hairs is how residency works. I don't know the specific facts around Matt. What I do know is the Area 3 director was voted in by the members of Area 3 to represent their interests. Lately, some legacy board members have taken to filling open Area board seats with other legacy former board members. If I was Matt, I would want to see that the members of Area 3 got a replacement board member that they want, as opposed to the board member some legacy board members wanted in there. Depending upon the specific facts of his situation, and how a replacement board member is put in place, that could results in different actions.
Spart
01-27-2024, 07:47 PM
Sorry, but you're unnecessarily splitting hairs. Hopkins did in fact take up residency in another state, and whether its an issue of 3 days, 30 days, or 6 months, time has shown (well over a year, and approaching two years)
Regardless of when he actually changed residence (taking job doesn't imply an immediate relocation, and I doubt you can give me a date that Hopkins' residence legally changed) can you articulate why the board would have to blackmail him into resigning rather than simply vote him out as they did Scott?
The fact of the blackmail is one I've been told by multiple people, and it has been public knowledge for a long time (since at least when Stoeger mentioned it on his podcast, if not before.)
Why is it okay for the board to blackmail members into resigning for ANY reason? It's worth noting that he withdrew candidacy from the USPSA President election at the same time, which has no residency requirement.
DMF13
01-27-2024, 11:12 PM
. . . can you articulate why the board would have to blackmail him into resigning rather than simply vote him out as they did Scott?I can't articulate that because despite you repeatedly making the claim, there is no proof that happened.
Why is it okay for the board to blackmail members into resigning for ANY reason?I never said it was "okay." It's not "okay" for anyone to blackmail a a person. I said it was irrelevant, because Hopkins clearly moved out of Area 3, and no longer met the criteria to be the A3 Director. The exact date of that move is also irrelevant, as he acknowledged he moved for the new job.
It's worth noting that he withdrew candidacy from the USPSA President election at the same time, which has no residency requirement.Hopkins stated reason for that was that he didn't have time to devote the President position because of the new job.
We get it, you hacked off at the legacy members of the board. So am I.* However, let's stick to facts, not baseless speculation/accusations.
*Some of my previous posts expressing my very negative opinion of USPSA leadership:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?59114-Arnburg-out-as-A3-!!!!!&p=1547290#post1547290
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?59114-Arnburg-out-as-A3-!!!!!&p=1540900#post1540900
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?53655-Stoeger-suspended-from-USPSA&p=1523755#post1523755
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?58174-USPSA-21-22-financials&p=1508692#post1508692
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?58174-USPSA-21-22-financials&p=1508367#post1508367
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?53655-Stoeger-suspended-from-USPSA&p=1414839#post1414839
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?37330-The-Shit-Storm-that-is-the-NRA-Today-amp-How-We-Got-Here&p=1547314#post1547314
DMF13
01-27-2024, 11:27 PM
As someone that splits their time between multiple states, I can assure you that splitting hairs is how residency works. I don't know the specific facts around Matt. What I do know is the Area 3 director was voted in by the members of Area 3 to represent their interests. Lately, some legacy board members have taken to filling open Area board seats with other legacy former board members. If I was Matt, I would want to see that the members of Area 3 got a replacement board member that they want, as opposed to the board member some legacy board members wanted in there. Depending upon the specific facts of his situation, and how a replacement board member is put in place, that could results in different actions.Come on, lets be serious about this. We aren't talking about Hopkins living in East St Louis Illinois (just inside Area 5), and commuting to a job in St Louis, MO (Area 3), where it's a 10 minute drive, and less than 5 miles between the two, and straddling the line. The dude moved completely out of Area 3, and did so nearly 2 years ago.
I have no love for the legacy Board members (see my previous post if you need proof), but this attempt to paint Hopkins as still being eligible for the A3 Director spot, despite what is clearly in the bylaws, is ridiculous.
Why not stick to the actual, and numerous, bad acts by the BOD, over the last several years?
Spart
01-28-2024, 09:06 PM
Why is it okay for the board to blackmail members into resigning for ANY reason? It's worth noting that he withdrew candidacy from the USPSA President election at the same time, which has no residency requirement.
Hopkins stated reason for that was that he didn't have time to devote the President position because of the new job.
Do you not understand how blackmail works? Did you expect him to state that he was being blackmailed instead of giving a lame, forced excuse?
114528
https://youtu.be/OHZwCrGR1nQ?si=-aaAFzBlDxyiH3A1
Clusterfrack
01-29-2024, 09:12 PM
https://youtu.be/OHZwCrGR1nQ?si=-aaAFzBlDxyiH3A1
All this sounds like good news. And I really wish Ben wouldn't use stupid and derogatory names, and otherwise act like a 14 year old on 4Chan.
bofe954
01-29-2024, 09:44 PM
All this sounds like good news. And I really wish Ben wouldn't use stupid and derogatory names, and otherwise act like a 14 year old on 4Chan.
(or a US president)
(or a US president)
My reaction was, after listening to Trump, that Ben seems like a gracious, thoughtful commentator.
RevolverRob
01-29-2024, 11:18 PM
I would say - viewing the situation over the past week, Stoeger is right.
Leighton went too far last week. This week, Mel is gone, Bruce1 has withdrawn his name from nomination as interim A1D, Sherwyn Greenfield has withdrawn from interim A3D, and Jake Martens is changing his tune - and trying to walk it back saying he has only been "gaslighting the board" and toeing the party line, not that he is a true believer.
The rats are abandoning ship.
The next couple of months are pivotal for USPSA, but Leighton has to know his days are numbered. He's looking for a way to deflect it away, but it won't happen. A smart man would resign, quit USPSA, change his phone number, and hire a good attorney. Leighton Ootheusian is not a smart man.
Does anyone know:
Who the current (or interim?) Area 4 Director is, with the resignation of Mel Rodero a couple days ago?
Has USPSA BOD approved a plan to conduct a Special Area Director Election in 2024 to fill the roles of A1, A3 and A4 Directors?
Name index updated with my assumptions, reflecting what I believe is the current situation. Let me know if I missed something. I did end up adding the concept of "Legacy Board Members".
114588
feudist
01-30-2024, 03:22 PM
All this sounds like good news. And I really wish Ben wouldn't use stupid and derogatory names, and otherwise act like a 14 year old on 4Chan.
Then we'd know it was a deep fake...
Looks like mediation was not successful in the Rutkowski lawsuit, according the court docket update just posted.
114603
steve
01-31-2024, 09:07 AM
All this sounds like good news. And I really wish Ben wouldn't use stupid and derogatory names, and otherwise act like a 14 year old on 4Chan.
Meh, the world is evil and assholes only understand other assholes. Nice guys finish last and get walked over by wolves in sheep's clothing.
Clusterfrack
01-31-2024, 11:32 AM
Meh, the world is evil and assholes only understand other assholes. Nice guys finish last and get walked over by wolves in sheep's clothing.
I don’t disagree. But there are more effective ways to be an asshole.
So I'll come out and say it, USPSA is over.
Too many clubs have disassociated, or are withholding funds. Too many members have left because of the turmoil related to the board of directors. In order to vote for your area director you must be a USPSA member. The number of eligible members who actually vote has always been small, and now the number of members is smaller still. I don't know that the sport will be able to truly recover. In fact, I kind of doubt it.
-History of poor BOD behavior. (Booting elected directors)
-Directly encouraging illegal member activity. (Colorado mag laws)
-Bylaws of questionable legality. (Removing directors, 501C3 issues I believe?)
-Errors in legal entity status (The corporation ceased to exist legally, didn't it?)
-Lawsuits against organization. (Rutkowski).
-Banning of top sport performers (The round of bans that included Stoeger)
-Consistent Fiscal Loss (or just not even discussing it)
-Little to no membership influence over full time staff or their actions. (Jake and Donna)
-Large number of clubs withholding funds
-Member loss
-Loss of major sponsors
-Competing orgs picking up steam
While problematic board members resigning, or being removed for cause, or being out voted on the board will help... I think it's too far gone. Other than the classification system I don't see what USPSA has to offer to the shooter, the club, or at this point the sponsors. The name has been heavily sullied. The shooters can go enjoy IDPA, PCSL, or another sport. The clubs can pick up a new org, or just run outlaw matches. USPSA itself is losing it's draw and the club doesn't get much from it. The sponsors can associate themselves with other organizations that are less problematic, less drama filled, and with growing numbers.
I know guys like Stoeger and others are trying to say that it's not to late for USPSA, but I think it is. PSI is calling for many to not drop their membership so they can vote. But many are going to drop membership anyway. Why work on fixing the org, when they can toss it in the trash and go to a new org? That's kind of the way of the world at this point isn't it? I like USPSA, and if it gets some kind of revitalization and comes back as a solid sport I'll be happy. But I doubt it. At this point I haven't shot a match in well over a year, maybe longer. Mostly due to other commitments, but I really don't feel compelled to either.
Clusterfrack
01-31-2024, 01:20 PM
I’m in for the long term. USPSA is my focus for competitive shooting, and I don’t see that changing. I’m cautiously optimistic about the future.
If you want to create change, you have to be a member.
Rizzi and Scott said as much. The board doesn’t care about your opinion if you’re not a member.
Hope is on the horizon.
steve
01-31-2024, 04:29 PM
If you want to create change, you have to be a member.
Rizzi and Scott said as much. The board doesn’t care about your opinion if you’re not a member.
Hope is on the horizon.
Exactly! Keep up your memberships and vote. The worst thing is not voting, imagine if all the Republicans in blue states voted and the popular vote was red.
Quantrill
01-31-2024, 05:35 PM
USPSA isn’t done.
It is the standard for competitive practical pistol shooting in the US.
The reason that Hit Factor matches are being held is because everyone wants USPSA without the A-holes. When they took out Scott, that was the final straw. When the corrupt people are gone, fees for matches and classifiers will be paid again.
I am up to 80/20 USPSA gets through this, ditches bad board members, and ends up stronger as a result.
Glenn E. Meyer
01-31-2024, 06:40 PM
USPSA isn’t done.
It is the standard for competitive practical pistol shooting in the US.
The reason that Hit Factor matches are being held is because everyone wants USPSA without the A-holes. When they took out Scott, that was the final straw. When the corrupt people are gone, fees for matches and classifiers will be paid again.
We did a hit factor this weekend for these reasons.
Clusterfrack
01-31-2024, 08:24 PM
I am up to 80/20 USPSA gets through this, ditches bad board members, and ends up stronger as a result.
I think it's going to require some changes in staff as well.
I think it's going to require some changes in staff as well.
I wonder what dirt Donna has on them.
Clusterfrack
01-31-2024, 09:16 PM
I wonder what dirt Donna has on them.
A long time ago, my professional scientific organization voted in a new president, a close colleague of mine. The new pres asked to review the books, and the managing director told him that no one bothered with that. He responded that he still wanted to, and insisted. There was a bunch of excuse making and foot dragging, and finally it came to light that this woman had embezzled over $750k from the org. It turned out that numerous other staffers knew or should have known what was going on. It required a nearly full purge of staff, and a major rewrite of procedures to fix, and the org still nearly went under.
I'm pretty sure USPSA needs a full reset, with new staff. Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
RevolverRob
02-01-2024, 09:41 AM
I wonder what dirt Donna has on them.
Whatever she has, she has been around now long enough to become complicit with it. Her actions and behaviors clearly indicate that while she may have dirt on folks, she is also dirty.
A long time ago, my professional scientific organization voted in a new president, a close colleague of mine. The new pres asked to review the books, and the managing director told him that no one bothered with that. He responded that he still wanted to, and insisted. There was a bunch of excuse making and foot dragging, and finally it came to light that this woman had embezzled over $750k from the org. It turned out that numerous other staffers knew or should have known what was going on. It required a nearly full purge of staff, and a major rewrite of procedures to fix, and the org still nearly went under.
I'm pretty sure USPSA needs a full reset, with new staff. Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Ultimately, this is where we're going with USPSA. The question is - how bad the grift is - is it so bad it's not recoverable or is it not quite that bad?
I think folks do need to understand - the sponsorship pulling, the clubs disassociating, etc - That's driven by the recognition that current leadership is abject failure. New leadership that conducts forensic audits, opens everything up, purges the staff, and gets things back to where it should be - will bring those relationships back. Section Coordinators are helping bring this about, through their concentrated efforts and the "list of demands" to return sponsorship and association is not actually unreasonable. It will take some time to accomplish, but is not unreasonable.
steve
02-01-2024, 10:16 AM
Take away financial incentive for the Board. Memorialize the meeting into written form word for word that the membership can view at any time. 100 % public meeting without executive sessions. Get back to basics.
DMF13
02-01-2024, 05:14 PM
Do you not understand how blackmail works?I sure do, but you clearly don't understand two things, 1- it's irrelevant because Hopkins no longer met the criteria in the bylaws to be an AD, and 2- accusations without proof are meaningless.
Did you expect him to state that he was being blackmailed instead of giving a lame, forced excuse?Not only does he need to state it, but also offer some proof, or is it your theory that proof isn't needed to support an accusation of wrong doing. :rolleyes:
Spart
02-01-2024, 05:55 PM
I sure do, but you clearly don't understand two things, 1- it's irrelevant because Hopkins no longer met the criteria in the bylaws to be an AD
He withdrew candidacy from president at the same time, which you conveniently ignore. At the time, I fully intended to vote for him. I was denied that opportunity.
and 2- accusations without proof are meaningless. Not only does he need to state it, but also offer some proof, or is it your theory that proof isn't needed to support an accusation of wrong doing. :rolleyes:
You've setup a goalpost that's impossible to hit. According to the minutes, they were in executive session before Hopkins made his statement and resigned. So there's no record of what you're asking for.
I've met Matt several times, worked under him when he was a MD, and I think highly of him. Based on the character of the people involved, find it highly likely that Matt is telling the truth about what went down. Matt is a good dude.
You can believe what you want to believe.
Take away financial incentive for the Board. Memorialize the meeting into written form word for word that the membership can view at any time. 100 % public meeting without executive sessions. Get back to basics.
What financial incentives do they currently have?
What financial incentives do they currently have?
There is speculation, but I haven't seen confirmation, that board members are reimbursed expenses for traveling to matches. I would like to see an itemization of any reimbursed expenses for each board member. An area director gets comp'd to shoot their area match I am fine with, if they are being reimbursed to shoot other matches, I have a problem with this -- especially given the deficit USPSA is running at.
steve
02-02-2024, 09:56 AM
What financial incentives do they currently have?
Bylaws that list a $ amount for travel and expenses. If the limit is set I am sure it will be reached. I read somewhere the limit was up to $11,000 but I can only find $6000 a year with the Managing Director having the authority to approve more. ($15,000 for the President) A requirement that all BOD's attend the national matches should be dropped. The place is bleeding money and most USPSA members just want to shoot locally. Instead of raising member rates cut back on spending.
When organizations or Government do not treat money as if it were their own they are far willing to spend more and spend foolishly.
Bylaws that list a $ amount for travel and expenses. If the limit is set I am sure it will be reached. I read somewhere the limit was up to $11,000 but I can only find $6000 a year with the Managing Director having the authority to approve more. ($15,000 for the President) A requirement that all BOD's attend the national matches should be dropped. The place is bleeding money and most USPSA members just want to shoot locally. Instead of raising member rates cut back on spending.
When organizations or Government do not treat money as if it were their own they are far willing to spend more and spend foolishly.
I don’t disagree with you. I work in Govt. and see that all the time.
Personally, I’m ok with them having some reimbursement. They spend a lot of their own time and I don’t think they should have to spend their own money to do the job (like travel and expenses for required matches). But I don’t think the members should be footing the bill for them to go to any matches outside of their area match and one national match.
From what I understand the nationals matches are bleeding money at a rate that can only be sustained for a few years. There are too many nationals. I’d like to see them limit the number of nationals and get rid of the magazine.
CleverNickname
02-02-2024, 12:16 PM
get rid of the magazine.
Does the magazine lose money? The 2022 financial statement (https://uspsa-docs.b-cdn.net/finances/USPSA%20-%20Final%202022%20Audit.pdf) shows that Front Sight advertising brought in $311,112, and "Printing, postage and mailing" cost $262,560. I would assume that most but not all of the printing, postage and mailing cost is for Front Sight. So the magazine appears to make money. I guess some money could be saved by going to all-electronic distribution, but would that affect the ad rates?
Does the magazine lose money? The 2022 financial statement (https://uspsa-docs.b-cdn.net/finances/USPSA%20-%20Final%202022%20Audit.pdf) shows that Front Sight advertising brought in $311,112, and "Printing, postage and mailing" cost $262,560. I would assume that most but not all of the printing, postage and mailing cost is for Front Sight. So the magazine appears to make money. I guess some money could be saved by going to all-electronic distribution, but would that affect the ad rates?
Here is their form 990:
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/united-states-practical-shooting-association,911325053/
Clusterfrack
02-02-2024, 04:46 PM
The Down Range newsletter arrived in my emailbox, with the following information:
"2024 Nationals Section and Performance Earned Slot Codes, Pre-Registration, and Open Registration
Nationals match fee will be $400 to account for ri sing costs and combined with cost cutting measures to run a quality and fiscally disciplined champio nship series.
Carry Optics Nationals June 26-30th"
I read the bolded text a few times, and still can't figure out what they're trying to say.
https://youtu.be/r4Q88T7AkSI?si=_W_rGGJJGKyk5vqR
Clusterfrack
02-02-2024, 06:05 PM
https://youtu.be/r4Q88T7AkSI?si=_W_rGGJJGKyk5vqR
That was a good podcast.
That was a good podcast.
I thought so. Good message by A7D and Arnburg for those that care to listen.
CleverNickname
02-02-2024, 06:29 PM
The Down Range newsletter arrived in my emailbox, with the following information:
"2024 Nationals Section and Performance Earned Slot Codes, Pre-Registration, and Open Registration
Nationals match fee will be $400 to account for ri sing costs and combined with cost cutting measures to run a quality and fiscally disciplined champio nship series.
Carry Optics Nationals June 26-30th"
I just got an email from DNROI saying 2024 Nationals RO signups are open. The $375 travel reimbursement, free hotel, (some) free food, and $25 per diem has to come from somewhere. It was only a $300 travel reimbursement when I was a Nationals RO last year, so I wonder what those "cost cutting measures" amount to.
$300, are you sure? I wasn’t able to work any Nats last year, but travel stipend has been $375 for as long as I can remember, going back to the first Nats I worked in 2014 when it was in southern Utah.
CleverNickname
02-02-2024, 07:29 PM
You're right, I misremembered with A4 RO reimbursement.
Does the magazine lose money? The 2022 financial statement (https://uspsa-docs.b-cdn.net/finances/USPSA%20-%20Final%202022%20Audit.pdf) shows that Front Sight advertising brought in $311,112, and "Printing, postage and mailing" cost $262,560. I would assume that most but not all of the printing, postage and mailing cost is for Front Sight. So the magazine appears to make money. I guess some money could be saved by going to all-electronic distribution, but would that affect the ad rates?
Thanks for that. Of that’s the case I’m fine with the magazine. I was under the assumption it was a loss or break even deal.
Updated name index, cleared up a few things. I'm not sure about the concept of a future "special election" for the vacant BOD members, so I took that out.
114759
DMF13
02-03-2024, 12:56 PM
Because its a hilarious metaphorical description of the Board's recent behavior in general, and specifically during the recent live streamed meeting, I''ll quote the guys from the Not Another Shooting Show Podcast: "They decided to get drunk, and pull their **** out, at a kindergarten."
DMF13
02-03-2024, 01:05 PM
Thanks for that. Of that’s the case I’m fine with the magazine. I was under the assumption it was a loss or break even deal.The real question isn't whether, or not, the print magazine generates income. The real question is whether, or not, it would generate more net revenue, by eliminating the costs associated with a print version, and going to an online version. The online version would likely be much less.expensive, and so much so that even if gross revenues were reduced, the net revenue would be greater than with the print version.
Frankly, I'm surprised companies advertising in the magazine buy into the fiction that most who receive the magazine actually look at it. I don't know a single USPSA member who does anything other than treat it like junk mail, and just trash it as soon as it arrives.
Spart
02-03-2024, 05:21 PM
Are Prez, DME, MD, and DRNOI salaries figured into the cost of the magazine? Because they definitely spend a bunch of org time writing articles for it, particularly Jake.
CleverNickname
02-03-2024, 06:35 PM
Are Prez, DME, MD, and DRNOI salaries figured into the cost of the magazine? Because they definitely spend a bunch of org time writing articles for it, particularly Jake.
No, that'd be under the "Salaries, taxes, and benefits" section.
bofe954
02-03-2024, 06:49 PM
https://youtu.be/r4Q88T7AkSI?si=_W_rGGJJGKyk5vqR
That was a good podcast.
That got me from not really giving a shit because I basically just shoot my local, to emailing the board. I'm an A3'er. Might try and take a few days off in August and shoot A3, maybe dust off the CRO card. Nice to hear from a few guys trying to fix things.
If you aren't renewing out of protest, maybe give it a listen.
The real question isn't whether, or not, the print magazine generates income. The real question is whether, or not, it would generate more net revenue, by eliminating the costs associated with a print version, and going to an online version. The online version would likely be much less.expensive, and so much so that even if gross revenues were reduced, the net revenue would be greater than with the print version.
Frankly, I'm surprised companies advertising in the magazine buy into the fiction that most who receive the magazine actually look at it. I don't know a single USPSA member who does anything other than treat it like junk mail, and just trash it as soon as it arrives.
I read it for one thing, the gear survey. Just my opinion but it doesn’t interest me outside of that.
DMF13
02-03-2024, 08:19 PM
That got me from not really giving a shit because I basically just shoot my local, to emailing the board. I'm an A3'er. Might try and take a few days off in August and shoot A3, maybe dust off the CRO card. Nice to hear from a few guys trying to fix things.
If you aren't renewing out of protest, maybe give it a listen.
I too was glad to hear they are trying to "fight the good fight."
My membership will expire in late 2025. I will be able to vote on an Area Director in that time, and I hope some meaningful changes are made in that time.
Three things NEED to happen right away:
1. Arnburg needs to be reinstated.
2. Arnburg needs to be put back on the finance committee.
3. ALL board members need access to every bit of the historical financial records.
RevolverRob
02-03-2024, 09:36 PM
I don’t disagree with you. I work in Govt. and see that all the time.
Personally, I’m ok with them having some reimbursement. They spend a lot of their own time and I don’t think they should have to spend their own money to do the job (like travel and expenses for required matches). But I don’t think the members should be footing the bill for them to go to any matches outside of their area match and one national match.
From what I understand the nationals matches are bleeding money at a rate that can only be sustained for a few years. There are too many nationals. I’d like to see them limit the number of nationals and get rid of the magazine.
I have put in thousands of hours over the last 10 years at both elected and appointed positions in multiple 501(c)(3) organizations. Reimbursement/stipends for volunteer positions are not normal. The only compensation I have received in 10 years is one time I received discounted annual membership rate (20%) and the occasional catered lunch (working lunch).
Even attendance to mandatory meetings is not covered or reimbursed. The only time I'm aware of reimbursement is when out-of-pocket cash went to supplies/materials and we once reimbursed travel for two board members to travel to meet with a donor. That trip was the President and Chair of our Development Committee (which ultimately brought about a ~$15 million donation). If you volunteer - you volunteer. No one forces you to volunteer or hold the position and you accept the financial responsibility of doing so.
USPSA BoD are not fund raising. Hell, they don't sell advertisement or generate revenue for the organization in what seems to be any discernible way. As a result - no - no reimbursement. Change the By-Laws so ADs only have to attend a Nationals event annually, instead of all of them.
This sort of should go without saying - but a sign of incompetent management is a need to have meetings all the damn time. The orgs I've worked with have had virtual meetings quarterly and in person meetings annually. And those are orgs which are managing about 10-20x the cash resources of USPSA.
The BoD is doubling down on stupid. Filed for trademark on HIT FACTOR.
114848
Spart
02-06-2024, 01:06 PM
The BoD is doubling down on stupid. Filed for trademark on HIT FACTOR.
What's next, are they going to trademark "freestyle"? "Practical Shooting"? "Power Factor"? "Fault Line"?
:rolleyes:
The BoD is doubling down on stupid. Filed for trademark on HIT FACTOR.
With all the financial challenges the organization is facing, this is what the BOD is focusing on?
Surely you can't be serious.
DMF13
02-06-2024, 01:36 PM
The BoD is doubling down on stupid. Filed for trademark on HIT FACTOR.
114848The application was filed January 17,2023. IIRC, a trademark application challenge must done within 30 days of when the application was filed. I know very little about this, but it's my understanding it's much easier (and therefore less expensive) to challenge an application, than to challenge a trademark that has been granted.
There is a good case to be made that even if USPSA had a claim to that trademark at some point in the past, that trademark has been diluted. It's my understanding "Comstock" calculations to determine a "hit factor" have been used by IPSC for decades, and USPSA has not challenged the use of "hit factor" by IPSC. Several matches, including matches attended by a sitting USPSA Board member have used the trademark "hit factor," outside of USPSA sanctioned activity, for many years, and the use of the trademark has not been challenged by USPSA. There is a long running podcast, primarily dedicated to discussion of competitive shooting, called the"Hit Factor," and USPSA has not challenged their use of the trademark. USPSA was aware of the entities using the trademark for many years, in areas not affiliated with USPSA, but focused on competitive shooting, and did not file for trademark protection until it was in common use by those other entities.
I really wish PCSL had used "hit factor," rather than "points per second," as that too would be an example of more than two years of an entity using the trademark, without challenge by USPSA.
DMF13
02-06-2024, 02:51 PM
[QUOTE=DMF13;1551955]The application was filed January 17,2023. /QUOTE]Sorry, that's a typo. It should be 2024.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.