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.Originally Posted by Spart
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
Most likely yes, as seen by the vote to reinstate Rizzi. Rodero has consistently sided with the "legacy" board members.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
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.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.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.
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.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
PCSL Classification System either is dropping Q1 of 2024 or already is out (I haven't been following it super close).
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Hopkins was blackmailed into resigning, they threatened to pull his world shoot slot.
These guys are awful.
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-sau...sa.../register
Hope to see you all on the range!
Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, join and give!
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/vie...ws/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.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
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.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
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.
Reply With Quote