May 21, 2004

I would like to provide a little perspective concerning the year-long process of developing the new USPSA rules. I will not get into any of those political/cultural IPSC vs. USPSA "relationship" things or any of the anger or outrage issues. Neither am I responding to anyone in particular, I am only making some general responses to some recent comments posted on the Unofficial IPSC List. I hope this will help Area 8 members to understand both the process and the USPSA rules which ultimate resulted from the effort. I apologize for the potential length of this post but I haven't had time to say much lately, so watch out! :-)

I am fairly new member of USPSA, but I have made a large effort to keep up with the changes. I read our official publication, and I browse the website. I follow this list and web forums related to our sport, like Brian's I did not see a list of things being considered. That does not mean that they weren't there somewhere, but I didn't find them, and apparently neither did a lot of other people. Perhaps the notification process was faulty.

I can only speak for Area 8. A full year ago, I sent an e-mail notification to all A8 SCs and MDs advising them of the process, the location of the draft IPSC rules, requesting dissemination to their shooters and that I needed feedback. That feedback was, err..... "less than overwhelming". OK. My conclusions: either no one cares or no one has a complaint. No problem, let's move on.......

One could also argue that knowing that the rules changes would be based on the already published IPSC book we should have taken a look at that and express our opinion. Sorry, but that is not a realistic expectation. Trying to keep the two documents side by side and scroll through them to figure out every one word change is not something we should have to do.

This may have been a reasonable expectation in past rules changes, but not this one. It was, I believe, fairly well communicated that this was not a piece-meal rules "adjustment". It was a full-fledged re-write of the whole book. As far as I know this was a result of a general belief that the existing rulebook has become unwieldy, with subjects spread over different sections - a definite need to restructure. Also, it was the first attempt to reconcile (at least some of) the differences between the IPSC and USPSA versions in an effort to narrow the gap, with the USPSA President serving as the overall Rules Chairman and USPSA representatives on every firearm committee. As such, a side-by-side comparison was not really possible.

In my opinion, when changes this drastic are made, the agenda should be published in Front Sight well in advanced, just like you publish the (partial) results of the votes.

On the surface, a good idea. Unfortunately, two problems make this highly impractical. One, the IPSC drafts were constantly evolving last year. Changes were regularly (and irregularly) produced as the various committees offered amended versions. Anything published in Front Sight would have been outdated long before printing. As good a vehicle as Front Sight might be for static information, the pre-publication deadlines make it impossible to use it for real-time feedback, especially when you add whatever time would be required to receive and assimilate member input.

The only practical venues for member information and feedback are web-based. Information can be provided in an instant and the membership can respond quicker than I can sort through and evaluate the various opinions. That process was available last year, beginning with the early IPSC drafts. It's always easier to affect rulemaking early in the process, much less so when that process is nearly complete.

Once September rolled around, the new IPSC rules had just been approved at the General Assembly. It took a few weeks to receive the "final" corrected version. As soon as those documents became available, the BOD took whatever feedback had been received and began the discussions of what (if any) changes USPSA might implement. First, we addressed various parts of the main body of the rules. As you would expect of any similar group, there were lengthy and sometimes sharp differences of opinion. Ultimately, over the course of the last three months of 2003, and including an in-person BOD meeting in November, we came to conclusion on most of the rules. We also addressed the USPSA Divisions and what changes might be considered. This was followed by a period of review and corrections of omissions and errors, and final review.

I need to point out that during this period, it was no longer reasonable, from a timeline point of view, to continue to solicit member input. Had we done that, the process of discussion and consensus would have taken "forever". We did not have that luxury. The President and the BOD generally realized that if we did not set a time limit on the process, we would not finish it before the start of the major match season. As it is, without the additional time drag, we still ran smack into May before the handgun rules were finished. Believe me, none of us wanted to continue this very time-consuming process much longer or be suspected of dragging our
collective feet or being indecisive. I don't know about all the ADs, but I can tell you that I was not the only AD who was spending more than 30 hours per week on this rules business. And it has gone on for over seven months. That's a fact, my friends!

There are a few vocal people here, but there are a lot more who are fuming without being vocal. I can give their names if you want, I am not making it up. Most of us think you guys really screwed up. We feel like the sport is being pushed towards the "everyone shoot open with a .22" side. This is not a fun atmosphere to compete under. People like Jim Norman work hard to add new members, and put on great matches, (check out your latest copy of FS. there is a blurb there about the 28 new members out club has brought in a few months) only to watch people stop showing up because of rule changes viewed as arbitrary, petty, or
senseless.

I know Jim well and have the utmost respect for his dedication to USPSA. There are others out there just like him. And I do recognize that his opinion is not unrealistic, it was simply stated way too late to have impact on the recent process. I assure you that his pet "BS rule" will not drop off my radar screen. I did not care for it much in the first place, but lacking any input, I had to blend my personal opinion with the realities of the rest of the BOD. Had I felt strongly about the rule myself, I could have pounded my shoe on the table, but what would that have accomplished? I assure you that it would have done nothing but render the rest of my opinions valueless. That's is generally the penalty for forgetting your business "manners".

Did I like the "NS 2 hits max" rule? No!. Did I like the "no hanging ninjas" rule? No!. But neither one, failing any member input, fell into that "deal-breaker" territory. They were both mentioned and dropped to non-essential level, leaving us more time to devote to the tougher issues. And there were plenty of those.

I have no doubt that most people involved though they were doing the right thing, with little feedback. However you have mistaken the lack of feedback for an uncarring membership. It was a lack of communication. As far as I am concerned, I recommend that you folks go back to the drawing table and try again, before you publish these rules. You should make a real effort to consult the membership and look at the changes again. I doubt you will. But that would be the right thing.

You know the old saying.... "You can lead a horse to water....". *All* I can do is send the information. I cannot plead, beg or threaten to get anyone to actually do what is necessary to provide the input I'm looking for. Is that slander of the membership? Absolutely not! It is only an observation of reality. Trust me, it is difficult enough to get useful responses to single "Yes or No" questions. To expect a significant number of members to promptly spend the time necessary to studying the rules drafts in detail and return succinct and specific opinions would be somewhat less than realistic.

We all have families and jobs. I signed on the dotted line, so I have a moral obligation to the members of Area 8 to spend whatever time is required for me to do the job. The members have no such obligation beyond their own individual interest. But, I still represent all those members who do not have the time or opportunity to do all the reading and comparing of the rules, so if I do not get their input I can only fall back on my own experience and perspective to reach a position on any given subject.

So, if I've "screwed up", please, please, please.... fire me. :-) I could go back to shooting. Until then, I'll just keep plugging away with whatever information and little personal common sense I have available.

Meanwhile has anybody found anything they like in these new rules? I'm in dire need of some positive reinforcement these days. :-)

George Jones
Area 8 Director