UNITED STATES PRACTICAL SHOOTING ASSOCIATION
Board of Directors Meeting * Dallas, Texas
November 16 & 17, 2002
Annotations in blue have been added by Area 7 Director Rob Boudrie, and are not part of the official minutes
Michael Voigt called meeting to order at 8am and
welcomed Board and Monitors.
In attendance: President – Michael Voigt
Vice
President/Director of NROI – John Amidon
Executive
Director – Dave Thomas
Area 1 –
Bruce Gary
Area
2 – Jake Kempton
Area
3 – Arnie Christianson
Area
4 – Kenneth Hicks
Area
5 – Neil Keller
Area
6 – Charles Bond
Area
7 – Rob Boudrie
Area
8 – George Jones
Area
5 Director Elect – Gary Stevens
Meeting
Recorder – Colleen Voigt
Monitors
–
David
Houston – Section Coordinator
Denise
Minor – Life Member
Michael
Clark – Life member (Sunday only)
Michael
Bane – Marketing Representative (Saturday only)
1) Approval for Michael Bane to address Board and
observe meeting.
Background: Michael Bane was hired to help promote the 2002 Factory Gun nationals. With his help USPSA made beneficial contacts with several other organizations and media representation.
Area
6 Made motion.
Motion: Move to invite Michael Bane to address
Board and observe meeting, excluding Executive Session.
Area
7 Seconded motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
2) Approval
for Gary Stevens (A5 elect) to attend executive sessions.
Area 1 made motion
Motion: Move to invite Gary Stevens to attend Executive Sessions of this BOD meeting.
Area 3 Seconded motion
Motion carried unanimously.
3) Approval of new discussion items on
Agenda.
Area 3 Made motion.
Motion: Move to
amend agenda to include;
·
National
Championship Slot Distribution
·
Rifle
Classification
·
Shotgun
Classification
·
Super GM
Classification
Area 8 Seconded motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
4) Approve amended
agenda.
Area 6 Made motion.
Motion: Move to
approve the agenda as amended.
Area 5 Seconded motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
5) Approval of
February 2, 2002 meeting minutes.
Area 1 Made motion.
Motion: Move to
accept & approve February 2, 2002 minutes.
Area 7 Seconded motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
6) Approval of
Audit Committee Report.
Neil Keller (A5) gave oral report that he reviewed
financials & credit card bills and found nothing out of the ordinary.
Arnie Christianson (A3) requested that financial
report be published.
Dave Thomas added that the financial report was
going to be published in Front Sight.
Area 5 Made motion.
Motion: Move to approve Audit Committee Report.
Area 3 Seconded motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
7) Committee
Reports
A) National
Point Series Championship committee report
Charles Bond
(A6) passed out a National Point Series Championship proposal.
BOD discussion
followed.
Michael
Voigt suggested that BOD have some time to read over the National Point Series
Championship proposal and vote later.
Area 1 Made motion.
Motion: Move to TABLE discussion.
Area
8 Seconded motion.
Motion
carried unanimously.
The board has followed up on the Point
Series Championship, and will be providing details about this program
shortly. This series championship will
be optional. Members will not be
required to participate in it if they do not wish, and no one not participating
will be asked to pay any point series fees.
This is about as close to a fee lunch as you get.
B) By-Law
Review committee report.
Background: USPSA by-laws have needed a serious updating
for several years.
The by-laws
committee undertook the project to make changes and presented the new document
for BOD to inspect and approve. Inspection & discussion on by-laws began.
Break
recess 10:45-11:00 am
By-law discussion and inspection
resumed.
Lunch
recess 12:30 – 2:05
By-law
discussion and inspection resumed.
Changes to by-laws were agreed upon and will be sent to legal counsel.
The bylaws will then be returned for BOD approval.
No further action taken by Board.
There were no “motions” or “votes” as
part of this procedure, since we were working on a draft in progress.
A new draft of the bylaws, incorporating
the results of discussions during this bylaw review, will be drafted before any
board vote may be taken on implementation.
C) USPSA Team
Selection committee report
Michael Voigt gave report
from committee and presented a selection design.
Discussion followed.
Area 1 Made motion.
Motion: Move to TABLE discussion.
Area
3 Seconded motion.
Motion
carried unanimously.
D) Marketing committee report.
Dave Thomas gave a report of our marketing efforts
and their impact this past year. Michael Bane gave an overview of marketing
plan that had happened over 2002 and delivered his insights on what could
happen with USPSA plans in the future. Board thanked Michael Bane for
presenting ideas.
No further action taken by board.
E) Area
Boundaries committee report
Charles Bond gave a report on the Area Boundaries
committee findings. There were several possible changes to current Area
boundaries that would better distribute our membership.
The board discussed a number of different
options, including “starting from scratch” and re-aligning all area boundaries;
creating a ninth area; and various options involving shifts between Area 1 and
Area 2.
Bruce Gary (A1) presented plan to realign area
boundaries over a specific time period.
Area 1 Made motion.
Motion: Move to move forward with intent to create
USPSA Area 9.
Area
2 Seconded motion.
Vote
failed 6/3.
Area
7 requested roll call.
1-Y,
2-Y, 3-N, 4-N, 5-Y, 6-N, 7-N, 8-N, Pres-N
The creation of another area would not appear to make sense until and unless we have sufficient membership growth to support an additional Area Championship, and positive revenue stream sufficient to support the “overhead items” (Area director’s travel to board meetings, Area marketing budget, etc.).
More area boundary discussion continued.
Area 1 Made motion.
Motion: Move to have Area Boundary committee develop a plan to realign
the boundaries between A1 & A2.
Area 2 Seconded motion.
Motion passed 8/1.
Area 3 requested roll call.
1-Y, 2-Y, 3-Y, 4-Y, 5-Y, 6-N, 7-Y,
8-Y, Pres-Y
Area 1 &
Area 2 agreed to discuss boundary proposal and methods to poll Area 1 and Area
2 members.
No further action taken by board.
F) Classification
Policy committee report
Rob Boudrie (A7) discussed concerns with out having
a “magical solution.” Discussion
continued bringing up questions, needs and possible solutions, committee will
continue to work.
No further action taken by board.
Although they are not part of the
official minutes, I have posted my report on the classification system to the www.boudrie.com web site.
8) Area 1 made request.
Request: Add items to agenda “New Business” section.
o
Logo
o
Member classification between divisions
9) Area 7 Made motion.
Motion: Move to recess meeting for the day at 5:56pm.
Area 2 Seconded motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sunday, November 17, 2002 – meeting
reconvened.
Michael Voigt called
meeting to order at 8:05am.
10) Executive
Session.
Area 1 Made motion.
Motion: Move for Board to go into Executive Session at 8:09am.
Area 3 Seconded motion.
Motion
carried unanimously.
Executive session is routinely used for
discussion of matters including, but not limited to, salaries and staff
performance. Gary Stevens attended
this session (see item #2 above)
Area 6 Made motion.
Motion: Move to exit Executive Session.
Area 1 Seconded motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Monitors
invited back in.
Break recess 9:20-9:30am.
11) Committee Reports
readdressed
A) National Point Series Championship
Committee
Area 3 Made motion.
Motion:
Move to un-table National Point Series
Championship.
Area
6 Seconded motion.
Motion
carried unanimously.
Charles
Bond presented a revised National Point Series Championship that reflected
changes discussed the previous day.
Area 6 Made motion.
Motion: Move to
adopt National Point Series Championship proposal subject to
legal
council approval.
Area 5 Seconded motion.
Area 7 moves to amend motion.
Area 6 requests roll call vote
Amended
motion: Move to approve National Point
Series Championship subject to legal review and final rules and policies being
worked out.
“Legal review” refers to making sure that
the cash prize payout approach is not inconsistent with our charter as a
non-profit corporation. I also
requested addition of the term “final rules and policies”, since we need to
make sure that the system is administered in a way that works. The most
significant impact of this will be the requirement that Point Series matches be
scored using EzWinScore 2.0 or later, so that our automated system can accept
the scores.
Amendment motion died.
Vote on original motion failed 2/7.
No further action
taken by board.
The Point Series Championship was
subsequently approved in the phone meeting of 11/25/02.
C) Team
Selection Committee REMAINS TABLED.
Discussion
will continue via e-mail.
No further action
taken by board.
Team selection is a difficult process,
since we are deciding two things:
1.
Who will
represent USPSA at the World Shoot?
2.
Which
members will receive USPSA’s financial support for the trip?
This brings up a question of goals: Is a
slot on the team a “prize to be won”, or are team members individuals who are
“hired to win titles for the US?” The
consensus of the board is that the goal is to win. However… we must also remember that USPSA will be telling those
who “almost” made it that someone else got the honor, and financial support,
associated with team membership.
If winning were the only goal, the way to
do it would be to have a knowledgeable committee pick the team
participants. That, however, would be
very awkward as the committee would also be deciding who gets team honors and a
“free trip” to the match that most members can only dream about being able to
afford to attend.
Michael Voigt has a proposal for using
the performance at a certain number of Area Championships and Nationals for
team selection. His goal was to device
an objective mathematical formula which will select top quality representation
for the team.
As with any formula, there is always the
chance that some unforeseen event will prevent someone who would be the best
for the team from “making the cut.” As
long as we have an objective, rather than subjective, team selection process we
are stuck with that risk.
We did not take final action at this
time, so there is no result to report at this time.
D) Area
Boundary Committee
Bruce
Gary (A1) presented his ideas for boundary change. A1 & A2 worked out details after formal meeting ended and
came to conclusion:
·
Boundary change will
not be implemented until further investigation. Affected members will be polled and based on feelings, findings
will determine proposal at next board meeting.
Polling cost was brought up by Charles Bond (A6). Rob Boudrie (A7) advised he has a program that would help with cost and prevent ballot stuffing.
Internet
polls, without a mechanism to assure everyone who cast their opinion is
eligible to do so, and does so only once, are useless. I have a system in place which can send
postcards out with the question and individual (and anonymous) one-time
passwords for a cost of $.24/each, and also allow for users without net access
to return their opinion by postal mail.
Area 1 & 2 Made motion.
Motion: Move to get authorization from BOD to
proceed with the task of realignment by investigating plans to adopt in future.
Area
7 Seconded motion.
Discussion continued on best way to get feed back.
Area 8 Made motion to amend original motion.
New Motion: Move to get authorization from BOD to proceed with the task investigating realignment of A1 & A2 boundaries and re-present finding.
Area
3 Seconds amended motion.
Amended motion carried unanimously.
The Area 1 and 2 directors will be coming up with a plan to present this to their membership for comment before any action is taken. Any decision to alter area boundaries is not to be taken lightly, and it is very important that all members be give ample opportunity to comment on any such changes.
While the polling is not a “referendum” per-se, the board, and particularly the Area 1 and Area 2 directors, are very concerned in your thoughts on the matter. I hope to publish a write-up on the proposed boundary changes on the USPSA web site relatively soon.
12) IPSC General Assembly
report
Michael Voigt gave oral GA report to board.
·
IPSC Executive Council
recommended updates to 14th edition rules and were passed by
GA.
·
Next World Shoot venue
was discussed and the reasons why Ecuador was selected.
o
Michael
Voigt informed the board that he cast USPSA’s vote at the GA for Ecuador.
o
Ecuador is holding the
Pan American Championship this year and will have experience running a large
match.
o
Ecuador has both
government and personal financial backing insuring the match will be well
supported in many critical areas.
o
The cost of staying in
Ecuador is approximately 50% of USA costs.
o
Michael
Voigt mentioned the cost of staying in Denmark (the third nation bidding – the
other was Canada) is on the order of $200 for a hotel room, making for a 4 to 1
(or greater) ratio to the Ecuador cost.
o
Bringing firearms,
magazines and ammunition will not need a variance from existing laws.
o
Michael
Voigt explained that the Canadian delegation had not been able to receive a
formal commitment from their government granting an exemption from the 10 round
limit in Canada. Under Canadian law,
all possession of > 10 round mags is banned to civilians unless they possess
a permit which, by policy, is not issued to anyone under any
circumstances. Some have suggested that
the solution would be to run the World Shoot with a 10 round limit. There are some problems with that:
§
We would be
forcing people shooting in Limited to shoot in a constrained version of their
division.
§
It’s not as
simple as “just load 10” – competitors from nations which have no limit would
be compelled to purchase and test limited-capacity magazines which in many
cases would not be readily available in their nation.
§
We are part
of a World Organization, and should offer a national championship which fully
supports the flavors of IPSC shot in member nations.
o
While
Canada would have been preferable (assuming the had a formal exemption),
Michael’s assumption (which is very likely accurate) is that a World Shoot held
in Canada would likely not have allowed all divisions to be shot as recognized
by the rulebook. The Canadian government has “surprised” shooters before. When the Canadians were drafting their major
gun control law a number of years back, parliament addressed the issue by
adding a provision to license high cap magazine use and possession by
competitors. After using this provision
to help get the law passed, the policy issued was “no such licenses shall be
issued.” This observation and
commentary is not intended to slight the good faith efforts of IPSC Canada in
their work to obtain an exemption, but to explain why it would be unwise to
assume that the commitment from a Canadian government official to recommend an
exemption indicates such would actually be granted.
o
The bylaws
draft reviewed at the recent board meeting contains a statement to the effect
that the USPSA President should represent the desires of the USPSA Board at the
General Assembly. This means that the
Board will have not only the opportunity, but the obligation, to take a
pro-active role in selection of the next World Shoot site. This is not a criticism of Michael’s action
at the South Africa General Assembly, but a reflection of my personal opinion
that key decisions such as this should be made by the board whenever possible.
·
IPSC announced the
World Shooting Federation has been mothballed at this time. IPSC will still
maintain the corporate website and books, but no IPSC money or time is being
spent on World Shooting Federation at this time.
No
action taken by board.
13) IPSC
Representation/Rules Issues
Michael
Voigt gave oral report and overview to the Board on the newly formed IPSC Rules
Committee. Committee’s goal is to
present interactive rules for rifle, pistol, shotgun and tournaments. Rules will be submitted for approval at the
2003 IPSC GA.
·
Michael Voigt is
Chairman of the IPSC Rules Committee.
·
John Amidon is on the
7-member (5 votes) Coordinating Committee.
·
Bruce Gary is on the
7-member Handgun Committee.
·
Arnie Christianson is
on the 3-member Shotgun Committee.
·
Troy McManus is on the
3-member Rifle Committee.
14) 2003 Budget Planning
Will be discussed
later in day.
15) Sponsor/Prize
Table Format
The
BOD addressed creating sponsor and prize table format guidelines for the Area
and National matches that could be a template for local clubs to use if
desired.
Rob
Boudrie (A7) noted the BOD should establish a policy or recommendation
regarding the appropriateness of major USPSA matches granting “sponsor
exclusives” in return for larger prize donations.
No action taken by board at this time.
I had hoped to have a clear policy
established at this board meeting, however, time constraints did not allow
extended discussion of the matter. At
this time, it is my understanding that the 2003 A7 championship will not be
granting any sponsor “exclusive territory” for that match. I do not intend to interfere with any other
match in Area 7 making such deals in 2003 unless prohibited by USPSA policy.
16) 9mm Major for Open
Division
Background: Members have asked BOD to re-evaluate a
resolution from 1990 prohibiting the use of 9X19 ammunition loaded to less that
1.250 overall length for use with the 175pf major caliber and also 38 super
loading criteria. A resolution drafted
by corporate attorney was presented to Board, see Attachment 15E.
Area
4 Made motion.
Motion: Move to adopt the resolution presented.
Area 1 Seconded motion.
Area 8 Made motion to amend original motion.
Amended
Motion: Minor change was made to language in the resolution.
Vote carried 8/1.
Are
6 Requests roll call.
1-Y,
2-Y, 3-Y, 4-Y, 5-Y, 6-N, 7-Y, 8-Y,
Pres-Y
The resolution banning 9x19 major was passed when the power factor
was 175, not 165 as at present.
It is important to note that this is not a “rule change”, but a
retraction of a board policy which had an effect very similar to a rule. Also, nothing in this board action changes the
requirement that major caliber rounds in Limited and Limited 10 be of at least
.40 caliber.
This decision was the result of an original proposal from a member,
with follow up research. Rescinding
this prohibition would not have happened at this time absent such a proposal
and member input.
17) RELEASE DECISION ON 9MM MAJOR
Area
7 Made motion.
Motion: Move to release decision immediately on 9mm
Major.
Area 8 Seconded motion.
Motion
carried unanimously.
18) BOUNDARY DISCUSSION CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENT
Area 1 Made motion.
Motion: Move to remove confidentiality agreement
regarding boundary discussion.
Area
7 Seconded motion.
Motion
carried unanimously.
Items #17 and #18 are functionally
identical motions with different wording.
Current policy prohibits discussion of the meeting until the minutes
have been reviewed and published.
19) Revolver
Background:
There has been limited increase in activity in the revolver divisions at
the local level; however, there was a tremendous increase in revolver participation
at the Factory Gun Nationals. Feedback
is needed to pursue positive avenues for revolver shooters in both the IPSC
rules and USPSA rules.
Rob Boudrie (A7) submitted a proposal from a member
asking that the board recommend, but not require, that Area and other major
matches be revolver friendly with no more than 6 rounds required from one
shooting position.
No further action taken by board.
The proposal for Dave Neis (published on www.boudrie.com) asked the board to
recommend major matches use no more than 6 rounds from one position (unless
available to be shot from other positions) and advertise such events are
“revolver friendly.” While Dave’s
proposal was very well written, there was little interest on the part of the
board in implementing it. I concur,
since I do not agree with Dave’s conclusion that reducing the number of rounds
typically shot from a single position will not adversely affect stage design.
I spoke to a number of people about this
issue (both on and off the board) before the board meeting. The overwhelming consensus is that the stage
design changes would indeed adversely effect stage quality. When you reduce the rounds available from a
single shooting position, you need to create additional shooting positions to
maintain round count. That takes range
space, props, setup time, etc. The net result would be fewer average rounds per
stage.
I am convinced that such a recommendation
from the board would displease the vast majority of our members. Diminishing stage designs to the detriment
of 95+% of our shooters doesn’t seem to make sense.
What could change this conclusion? In my opinon, additional information showing
that the vast majority of our existing membership would not consider the
proposed recommendations to be a reduction in stage quality. Also, if a member who wishes to advocate
this proposal would like to address the board, (s)he can ask to be placed on a
meeting agenda. If the meeting’s not in
your town, use the unofficial IPSC list to ask for donations to fund the trip
and I’ll be the first one to send in $10.
20) Residency Review
Policy
Background: There have been some issues arise concerning
a competitors residency in regard to area matches. Our current rules define region of residency, but do not clearly
define residency with in our region.
This issue will be discussed online and will be put in next board
meeting agenda so that rule is addressed in rule or tournament book.
No further action taken by board.
The issue here is “Who is entitled to the
title Area Champion” (rather than “Winner of the Area Championship”).
21) #13 readdressed – 2003
Budget Planning
Dave Thomas
asked for guidance in the following areas to set up 2003 budget.
·
Earned interest income
·
Dave was asking
for permission to include interest earned as income on the balance sheet, and
noted that even with this permission, obtaining a balanced budget is still
going to be difficult.
·
Marketing
·
Proposed
marketing expenses are modest
·
Area budgets
·
Each Area Director
has a $2000 general budget and $1000 marketing budget. I generally spend well
under this budget, and that portion of the
$1000 I use goes for items such as reimbursement of gun show table fees
and hosting for the Area 7 web page.
·
USPSA member death and
dismemberment insurance
·
I have
raised the ad&d insurance as an item of concern, and I am in favor of
eliminating it. This insurance benefit
is small, costs us about $12,000 per year, and has become increasingly
restrictive over the years (for example, they added the condition that the
death must occur on the way to or from a USPSA event a few years ago – prior to
that any accidental death qualified).
To put it into perspective, USPSA has paid more for this benefit over
the past 8 years or so that we paid for the lot in Mt Vernon, WA.
o
Look for other member
benefits
o
Possible royalties;
i.e. SASS
SASS was used as an example of an organization which
earns royalties from the use of its name.
·
Junior Funding
·
Dave Thomas
mentioned that Junior Committee chairman Bill Sahlberg would like the junior
program to be self-funding.
Board made recommendations and Dave Thomas will implement into Budget Report at next Board meeting.
22) Approving New
USPSA Logo
Area 1 Made motion.
Motion: Move to adopt diamond logo as “an” official
USPSA logo.
Area
4 Seconded motion.
Area
6 Made motion to amend motion.
New
Motion: Move to make diamond logo
exclusive USPSA logo.
New
motion died.
Original
motion carried unanimously.
23) Classification
Policy Change
Area 1 Made motion.
Motion: Move
to reclassify a member to “unclassified” if a valid classifier is not on file
within a division within the previous 12 months.
Motion died.
24) National
Championship Slot Distribution
Dave
Thomas passed out possible distribution formats for board to view and this
issue will be discussed at next meeting.
No further action taken by board.
This was subsequently approved at
electronic board meeting on 11/26/02. I
expect to post a copy to the USPSA page shortly. The slot distribution policy details how many slots are offered
to each area championship, how many are allocated to returning victors, etc.
25) Rifle Classification
Due to time
constraints, agenda item will be discussed at next board meeting.
26) Shotgun Classification
Due to time
constraints, agenda item will be discussed at next board meeting.
27) Super GM
Classification
Due to time
constraints, agenda item will be discussed at next board meeting.
28) Request from Area 1.
Request: Add items to agenda for next board meeting
·
Match re-entry in different divisions
·
Classification system policy review
29) ADJOURNMENT
Area 2 Made motion.
Motion: Move to adjourn meeting at 12:40pm
Area
3 Seconded motion
Motion
carried unanimously.
-DRAFT-
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS one of the principal obligations of the Board of Directors of the United States Practical Shooting Association is to encourage the development of equipment and techniques that will safely advance the craft of practical shooting in a sporting atmosphere; and
WHEREAS the Board, based on information available at the time, adopted a Resolution on July 9, 1990, prohibiting the use of .38 Super ammunition using jacketed bullets of less than 150 grains, or lead bullets of less than 143 grains, and loaded to the 175,000 major power factor category, unless fully supported chambers are employed; and
WHEREAS the Board, based on information available at the time, adopted a Resolution on July 9, 1990, prohibiting the use of 9mm (9X19) with an overall length of less than 1.250 inches and loaded to the 175,000 major power factor category; and
WHEREAS technology, products and conditions have changed since 1990; and
WHEREAS it is not the intention of the USPSA Board of Directors to neither endorse any product, nor can information provided by the Board substitute for the research and judgment of individual members;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the prohibitions described in the Resolutions of July 9, 1990 are hereby rescinded. With this action, the Board does not intend to imply any opinion as to the safety of such ammunition, but recognizes that informed opinions may vary and encourages individual members and match participants to choose ammunition that is consistent with applicable USPSA match rules and is safe for use with their equipment and in conditions under which they compete.
Per item (17) on the November 17, 2002 agenda the
information regarding the 9mm decision will be released immediately.