Arnburg out as A3?!!!!!

[AMC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

USPSA is going to collapse if they keep this up.

[konkapot]

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]

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]

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?