USPSA Now Being Sued - Allegedly Not a Valid Corporation

[JCS]

Is it reasonable to ask, who elected this "professional council"? And who decides who is "competent management"?

Am I out of line questioning this?

"We're going to sue you and make you change your bylaws, get new management and new lawyers"

I'm sorry I don't understand what they are suing USPSA for.

[JCN]

https://uspsa.org/documents/minutes/20230918.pdf

[Archer1440]

"We're going to sue you and make you change your bylaws, get new management and new lawyers"

I'm sorry I don't understand what they are suing USPSA for.

The goals seem clear. The question is, who elected these people to unilaterally depose people who were either elected, or who were appointed by people who were elected, with a lawsuit that will cost the members a considerable sum? And how do they have any right to dictate to the membership what they define as "competent management"?

Is that either an unreasonable question, or position? I'm more than willing to be educated on this.

I get it, in the view of some, including a person I respect who is not tied to this, there are some very troublesome people who were elected to the board, the board needs fixing, some of the employees seem to suck at their jobs, whatever.

But, I note that the board was elected by the membership, and it would appear- forgive my deliberate choice of words here- that we have a cabal of unelected dissenters and non members, using the legal system, and costing the organization (and therefore the paying members) in an attempt to change the will of the voting membership. It sure smells like that from here.

Unless I have that wrong, and I hope someone can correct me, that doesn't sit all that well with me as a paying member of the organization. I would prefer that if there are people who are a problem, (and a few people have gone well out of their way to convince me that there are) that the voting membership solve that problem.

[CleverNickname]

https://uspsa.org/documents/minutes/20230918.pdf

So A3 has questions/issues/something(?) about question 11(a) "Other revenue" on the annual form 990, A3 tries to get a vote to remove the president (which gets called out of order) and then A3 gets removed from the Finance committee and replaced by A8 on a 4-3 vote.

[YVK]

So A3 has questions/issues/something(?) about question 11(a) "Other revenue" on the annual form 990, A3 tries to get a vote to remove the president (which gets called out of order) and then A3 gets removed from the Finance committee and replaced by A8 on a 4-3 vote.

Possible, I could not really understand what that meant when I read it yesterday.

[JCS]

Why do they go in and out of executive session so much?

Is that normal?

[GJM]

Why do they go in and out of executive session so much?

Is that normal?

It is normal if you want to discuss things you don't want others to know. This board apparently has a lot of things they want to discuss privately.

[jetfire]

I think he just pushing for a better USPSA, because most of his training classes are full and I think he just wanted to complete.

If Ben "just wanted to compete" he probably would have shot matches in the three years where he was largely inactive in USPSA but before he got banned. Or he'd go shoot PCSL or IDPA now that he's banned from USPSA. In the over a decade that I've known Ben, I have never known him to take an action that wasn't in what he thought his own best interests were, often without regard for the consequences to others.

As far as what Clusterfrack said about industry influence in USPSA, this is a pretty great example of Ben not knowing what the fuck he's talking about. "Industry influence" in USPSA is minimal at best. Most of the big companies are also very aware that if we lost every single USPSA member as a customer, the difference in our bottom line would be so small that it would be a rounding error.

Now, this isn't true for boutique companies that cater to the shooting sports and sort of rely on their relationship to those sports to survive. The smartest thing STI did from a business standpoint was move away from being a competition-only pistol, rebrand as Staccato, and sell "duty/carry" guns.

[45dotACP]

If Ben "just wanted to compete" he probably would have shot matches in the three years where he was largely inactive in USPSA but before he got banned. Or he'd go shoot PCSL or IDPA now that he's banned from USPSA. In the over a decade that I've known Ben, I have never known him to take an action that wasn't in what he thought his own best interests were, often without regard for the consequences to others.

As far as what Clusterfrack said about industry influence in USPSA, this is a pretty great example of Ben not knowing what the fuck he's talking about. "Industry influence" in USPSA is minimal at best. Most of the big companies are also very aware that if we lost every single USPSA member as a customer, the difference in our bottom line would be so small that it would be a rounding error.

Now, this isn't true for boutique companies that cater to the shooting sports and sort of rely on their relationship to those sports to survive. The smartest thing STI did from a business standpoint was move away from being a competition-only pistol, rebrand as Staccato, and sell "duty/carry" guns.

I would think "industry influence" more or less just boils down to "Dudes wanna sandbag so they can get shit from the prize table"

If there were no prize table, lots of dudes would make the jump from B class to GM


Also...huge fucking agreement about STI's change in business model. Once they made the switch from shooting competitions to Instagram influencers, I'd bet they posted record profits.

[dannyd93140]

If Ben "just wanted to compete" he probably would have shot matches in the three years where he was largely inactive in USPSA but before he got banned. Or he'd go shoot PCSL or IDPA now that he's banned from USPSA. In the over a decade that I've known Ben, I have never known him to take an action that wasn't in what he thought his own best interests were, often without regard for the consequences to others.

As far as what Clusterfrack said about industry influence in USPSA, this is a pretty great example of Ben not knowing what the fuck he's talking about. "Industry influence" in USPSA is minimal at best. Most of the big companies are also very aware that if we lost every single USPSA member as a customer, the difference in our bottom line would be so small that it would be a rounding error.

Now, this isn't true for boutique companies that cater to the shooting sports and sort of rely on their relationship to those sports to survive. The smartest thing STI did from a business standpoint was move away from being a competition-only pistol, rebrand as Staccato, and sell "duty/carry" guns.

Don't know Ben personally, but that description unfortunately fits a lot of competitors in the shooting sports. I do hope the organization the best in their future endeavors, but they may need to change things a bit.