Arnburg out as A3?!!!!!

[CleverNickname]

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]

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.

[JCS]

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]

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]

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.

[Lon]

The BoD is doubling down on stupid. Filed for trademark on HIT FACTOR.

[Spart]

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"?

[RJ]

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]

The BoD is doubling down on stupid. Filed for trademark on HIT FACTOR.

The 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]

[QUOTE=DMF13;1551955]The application was filed January 17,2023. /QUOTE]Sorry, that's a typo. It should be 2024.