USPSA Dues Increase 85% / what’s going on with USPSA

[Knob Creek]

Massive increase in dues. Was $40 per year with a three year membership at $105 saving a few bucks. Now the three year offers no discount so effectively a 85.71% increase.
1 year for $65 = $65 per year
3 years for $195 = $65 per year
5 years for $325 = $65 per year
Why are people signing up for more than 1 year?

That is highly disappointing.
For the old rate which was like $35-40 it was a really easy sell to someone shooting their first match to join just to get the stats to post.
At $65, not so much.

 

[EddieZoom]

First I've heard....not surprised. I joke that we're paying our "tribute" to the "organization" whenever fees are tallied after a USPSA match ;-)

 

[Broc]

Massive increase in dues. Was $40 per year with a three year membership at $105 saving a few bucks. Now the three year offers no discount so effectively a 85.71% increase.
1 year for $65 = $65 per year
3 years for $195 = $65 per year
5 years for $325 = $65 per year
Why are people signing up for more than 1 year?

That is highly disappointing.
For the old rate which was like $35-40 it was a really easy sell to someone shooting their first match to join just to get the stats to post.
At $65, not so much.

The only advantage to signing up for 3 or 5 years is if they plan to increase prices often.

 

[chris_1001]

Ouch. Pass.

 

[greencobra]

i'm wondering the amount of people who won't renew and drop out of the organization. i'd bet you'll see a group come along and start another competing organization, like liv golf that recently came along and got the pga thinking a bit now, didn't it? i think the two are merging, no?

 

[chris_1001]

i'm wondering the amount of people who won't renew and drop out of the organization. i'd bet you'll see a group come along and start another competing organization, like liv golf that recently came along and got the pga thinking a bit now, didn't it? i think the two are merging, no?

I know a place that did IDPA and decided it was better to do “defensive pistol” on their own and pass IDPA. Same rules for the most part. But the club gets to be autonomous

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I could fill a long thread with actions of (in my opinion) questionable ethics done by USPSA over the past year, but I'll stick mainly to the topic.

They have had massive negative cash flow (something they are not forthcoming with in Front Sight), member suspensions for dissident online speech, and have even attempted to have motions the majority of the board does not agree with redacted from the official minutes as if they never happened (there was pushback and that did not happen).

The proper way to handle a long overdue dues increase.

1. Freeze salaries, bonuses and expense accounts. Do not issue raises and bonuses, and certainly not in excess of the inflation rate
2. Be candid about current negative cash flow, and the need for an increase
3. Announce the increase well in advance, and give people one last chance to renew or upgrade under the current fee schedule
4. Phase a huge % increase in over several years, announcing what and when the increase steps will be at the beginning of the plan

None of these steps were taken.

But, the dues issue rates rather low on the mistakes that are being made by the leadership. The Area 7 Director (New England + NY) is a bright light who understands ethics, integrity, and that he is there to serve, not rule.

 

[Knob Creek]

I believe our Area 7 Director voted against the Dues increase. Correct me if I'm in error.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I believe our Area 7 Director voted against the Dues increase. Correct me if I'm in error.

Our area director is not one who "goes along to get along".

For example, he introduced a motion to rescind the suspensions of the members expelled for dissident speech (or, as the board put it, they support free speech but not when it crosses the line....). Stuff like doxing posting publicly available info, arrest records for domestic violence (but, in fairness, no conviction), and even asking law enforcement (CO AG's office) about the legality of bringing in high cap mags for competition.

The motion was not seconded, and the board then retained counsel to advise them they could redact the motion from the minutes so the members would not see it. The A7D pushed back, and it did get into the official published minutes. Streisand effect anyone?

There is more. Much more.

 

[walter62]

off topic but just recvd an email that a local club (Maynard) is
jumping from $220 to $300.

Hard pass.

 

[Knob Creek]

off topic but just recvd an email that a local club (Maynard) is
jumping from $220 to $300.

Hard pass.

That looks like at least twice the rate of other clubs.

 

[Broc]

I could fill a long thread with actions of (in my opinion) questionable ethics done by USPSA over the past year, but I'll stick mainly to the topic.

They have had massive negative cash flow (something they are not forthcoming with in Front Sight), member suspensions for dissident online speech, and have even attempted to have motions the majority of the board does not agree with redacted from the official minutes as if they never happened (there was pushback and that did not happen).

The proper way to handle a long overdue dues increase.

1. Freeze salaries, bonuses and expense accounts. Do not issue raises and bonuses, and certainly not in excess of the inflation rate
2. Be candid about current negative cash flow, and the need for an increase
3. Announce the increase well in advance, and give people one last chance to renew or upgrade under the current fee schedule
4. Phase a huge % increase in over several years, announcing what and when the increase steps will be at the beginning of the plan

None of these steps were taken.

But, the dues issue rates rather low on the mistakes that are being made by the leadership. The Area 7 Director (New England + NY) is a bright light who understands ethics, integrity, and that he is there to serve, not rule.

How many people are employed by USPSA?

I wouldn't want some administrative assistant to not get a raise because I don't want to pay $20 extra.

There are 37K members.
If each member paid just $20, that is $740K.
Per the internet, USPSA has less than 25 employees. Let's assume it has 25.
That is $30K per employee.

I will assume each employee is full time, $30K is sh*t. But members also pay more than $20 and USPSA gets money from clubs and other stuff.

Does USPSA invest any money in the competitions?

 

[shootymacshootface]

Dam, this sucks. Does USPSA actually do anything to promote 2A issues? I know that the anti's are aware of us honing our evil skills by meeting and competing on a regular basis, but beyond that what purpose do they serve?

 

[KH56010]

I’m starting to become unsure of why USPSA is needed anymore? I shoot 3-7 matches a month. They’re all on PractiScore. Some are USPSA, the ones that aren’t, you wouldn’t really have any idea. I can’t imagine it will be long before PracticeScore does a better job of integrating rules and descriptions. The only issue with the non USPSA matches is if it’s something like 2 or 3 gun and it’s almost impossible to figure out what rule set they are using and no apparent contact info to reach out to whoever is running the match. But I started with USPSA done completely on paper and finding out about matches by word of mouth. So it’s definitely getting better by leaps and bounds every year.

 

[walter62]

That looks like at least twice the rate of other clubs.

Well, Harvard is going from 150 to 180 which is reasonable. But there are
also discount (seniors, volunteer) that can get the $ down.

 

[Supermoto]

How many people are employed by USPSA?

I wouldn't want some administrative assistant to not get a raise because I don't want to pay $20 extra.

There are 37K members.
If each member paid just $20, that is $740K.
Per the internet, USPSA has less than 25 employees. Let's assume it has 25.
That is $30K per employee.

I will assume each employee is full time, $30K is sh*t. But members also pay more than $20 and USPSA gets money from clubs and other stuff.

Does USPSA invest any money in the competitions?

Totally. I wouldn't want the McDonalds fry cook to not get a raise just because I don't want to pay $20 for a Big Mac.

USPSA has made nothing but bad decisions since buying Steel Challenge, then adding PCC, CO and LO.

 

[Dan S]

Totally. I wouldn't want the McDonalds fry cook to not get a raise just because I don't want to pay $20 for a Big Mac.

USPSA has made nothing but bad decisions since buying Steel Challenge, then adding PCC, CO and LO.

Don't forget the 2 Gun Nationals held at Cameo in Colorado last year. The match was really good, the flack of being held in a mag capacity state wasn't very good.

 

[DW357]

Don't forget the 2 Gun Nationals held at Cameo in Colorado last year. The match was really good, the flack of being held in a mag capacity state wasn't very good.

Was there much flack back in 2017 when Harvard held the Area 7 championship? That was my first championship match so I wasn’t well connected at the time to know if there was much flack.

Granted I realize an Area match is not the same as a National match.

 

[DW357]

Dam, this sucks. Does USPSA actually do anything to promote 2A issues? I know that the anti's are aware of us honing our evil skills by meeting and competing on a regular basis, but beyond that what purpose do they serve?

You get a monthly magazine. Worth more than the cost of membership…

 

[Dan S]

Was there much flack back in 2017 when Harvard held the Area 7 championship? That was my first championship match so I wasn’t well connected at the time to know if there was much flack.

Granted I realize an Area match is not the same as a National match.

To my knowledge there were no issues with A7 championships. Rob has a good pipeline for the 2 gun match issues. The match was good, fun and the range is unreal. Cameo is a state recreation facility. Prior to the 2 Gun, they hosted the Big Horn Classic for a couple years. This year, no Big Horn.

 

[Knob Creek]

I think they are funding National Matches on the backs of the average USPSA member who will never get there.

 

[Supermoto]

I think they are funding National Matches on the backs of the average USPSA member who will never get there.

I think they still give National slots to the section. So you can ask to go

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Don't forget the 2 Gun Nationals held at Cameo in Colorado last year. The match was really good, the flack of being held in a mag capacity state wasn't very good.

USPSA dug in on that one.

• USPSA initially claimed there was an exemption - in reality it was proposed in the CO legislature and shot down in committee.
• They used the "nobody will get prosecuted" line, which carefully assuring that the risk was on the competitor, not the organization.
• One USPSA director offered his legal opinion that it did not apply to non-residents since they were not mentioned in the law. Hmmmm... not residents are not mentioned in the OUI law as well, wonder if it does not apply to them.
• Another USPSA director offered advice that shipping mags to your hotel "reduces the chances of getting caught"
• USPSA banned Infinity Firearms from advertising or sponsoring matches, ever, because that firm said it would not sponsor the match as long as USPSA was suborning criminal activity. This included an offer to reinstate sponsorship if USPSA stopped playing the "just ignore the law" game. I am 100% certain the reason Infinity took that position is they "play it straight" with the legal stuff, don't play silly games, and will not knowingly associate their firm with any event that does.
• The USPSA director of media and events (the same one who declared the Infinity ban) referred members who expressed concern but were not attending the CO match as dickheads.
• The USPSA president ruled that rule 3.3.1 did not apply since *some* competitors could legally bring high cap mags (personally owned prior to the CO ban), even though USPSA rule 3.3.1 states that the max mag capacity is that *all* competitors may legally possess
• At one point, a USPSA director declared that the solution was for people who did not feel comfortable breaking the law to just not come to the event.
• Several members were suspended from membership (from one to a few years) for dissident speech that "crossed the line" as they defined it. One member was suspended for contacting the CO AGs office asking if there was a provision for out of state competitors without personally owned pre-ban mags to bring them to compete. While obviously not preferred by USPSA leadership, the ethics of sanctioning a member for discussing compliance with the law with a LE agency is highly questionable.
• USPSA's current policy is that they will not respond to, or even acknowledge, any questions or correspondence regarding this issue from members.

As to 3.3.1 - I am the foremost expert on what was in the mind of the author of that rule when he presented it to the board "way back when"

There are other issues that constitute, in my opinion, ethical breeches but I don't want to stay up all night writing when I could be doing more productive stuff.

USPSA ignored member requests for an outside investigation into the leadership's behavior on the CO mag ban and other issues, taking the position that it already knew they acted appropriately. Any questions pertaining to controversial issues like this at a member meeting are met with "we will not discuss that" and the asking of the question is edited out of video USPSA posts online.

 

[67ray]

USPSA leadership wanted bigger salaries period. And it isn't going to the administrative assistant. Good ol fashion capitalism

 

[Rob Boudrie]

USPSA leadership wanted bigger salaries period. And it isn't going to the administrative assistant. Good ol fashion capitalism

Administrative assistant? USPSA does not have one - it has an executive director (employee, not elected) who manages the office and decided what financial records elected directors are allowed to see. The response for a request for financial records from a director was "I report to the board as a whole, not to you" rather than just providing the records.

It is not just salaries but benefits. When the president and directors travel to shoot a match using member funds, they squad together. The right thing would be to spread themselves out across the squads to meet as many members as possible. Elected members of the board do not draw a salary (only travel benefits); the President and persons hired by the board are paid - in many cases at a much higher level than their services would command at an arms length free market transaction.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Was there much flack back in 2017 when Harvard held the Area 7 championship? That was my first championship match so I wasn’t well connected at the time to know if there was much flack.

Granted I realize an Area match is not the same as a National match.

There is a key difference, and why it was not an issue at the A7:

- MA grandfathering allows all pre-ban mags to be legally possessed by an LTC holder. They did not have to be "personally possessed" pre-ban.

- CO grandfathering only allows magazines that were personally possessed before the CO ban. Aye, there's the rub.

There is a way for any person to legally possess a high cap mag in MA. There is no legal way in CO for someone who has not personally owned the mag prior to the ban passed in 2013. Good luck for a 21 year old competitor asserting (s)he owned such magazines back when (he) was 12.

I am also not sure when 3.3.1 was added, and if it was in effect back in 1997.

My position was that 3.3.1 mandated that persons who were in the subset of competitors could not use them to advantage due to rule 3.3.1 (below). The USPSA president rules that 3.3.1 did not apply since some competitors could legally bring high cap mags. I though the rule was perfectly clear when I wrote it, and never imagined it would be so ridiculously twisted:



USPSA leadership's actions were like those of an anti-gun court. Look at the result you want, ignore the law, and rule accordingly. USPSA leadership chose to ignore both CO law and the USPSA rules. When the USPSA president and the Director of Media and Events had a zoom meeting with me, their emphasis was on what re-homing that nationals would mean for the org; not what the law required.

 

[DW357]

There is a key difference, and why it was not an issue at the A7:

- MA grandfathering allows all pre-ban mags to be legally possessed by an LTC holder. They did not have to be "personally possessed" pre-ban.

- CO grandfathering only allows magazines that were personally possessed before the CO ban. Aye, there's the rub.

There is a way for any person to legally possess a high cap mag in MA. There is no legal way for someone who has not personally owned the mag prior to the ban passed in 2013. Good luck for a 21 year old competitor asserting (s)he owned such magazines back when (he) was 12.

I am also not sure when 3.3.1 was added, and if it was in effect back in 1997.

My position was that 3.3.1 mandated that persons who were in the subset of competitors could not use them to advantage due to rule 3.3.1 (below). The USPSA president rules that 3.3.1 did not apply since some competitors could legally bring high cap mags. I though the rule was perfectly clear when I wrote it, and never imagined it would be so ridiculously twisted:

View attachment 788672

USPSA leadership's actions were like those of an anti-gun court. Look at the result you want, ignore the law, and rule accordingly. USPSA leadership chose to ignore both CO law and the USPSA rules. When the USPSA president and the Director of Media and Events had a zoom meeting with me, their emphasis was on what re-homing that nationals would mean for the org; not what the law required.

Gotcha.

Then there’s the debate of the “competition exemption” for out of state shooters (without non-res LTCs) coming to MA. But I’ll avoid drifting off topic and say no more

 

[FPrice]

I think I've got my life membership card somewhere...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Gotcha.

Then there’s the debate of the “competition exemption” for out of state shooters (without non-res LTCs) coming to MA. But I’ll avoid drifting off topic and say no more

Yup, but I have never heard of someone who was legitimately going to a competition getting jammed up in MA. GOAL's interpretation adds stuff that is not in the exemption - like no carry on one's person (not in the law), and does not address the issue at question. There are other possible defects with the exemption that I will not discuss on an open forum.

 

[10mmdave]

I think they still give National slots to the section. So you can ask to go

They give the shooter a discount on a Nats entry, not a free entry. ($20 off when I did this years ago iirc)