TG Requirements and "Issues"

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

It seems that the proposed new rules are put into print and then clubs vote. Then a club of 3 has the same weight as a club of 300 (not good ). Then a percentage of TGs are able to make the convention due to any number of reasons. While at the convention the percentage of TGs that were able to make it talk about the rules that were put up for a vote and in some cases change the wording to were the votes polled before the convention could be useless. So wouldn't it make more sense to have the convention and make the Final wording available to the sass members via email and let the members vote. That way each member carries the same weight and their vote is not wasted on a rule that will be reworded. Also the member has only themselves to blame if they didn't get counted.

If we could do that how many would respond? How many would respond in a timely manner? Heck even on the TG wire I see a very small percentage of TG's, and on the wire there aren't a big percentage mainly new people, it's not a perfect system but at least the members have some voice, and by looking at the TG's attendance to including proxies, it seems most of the membership doesn't know or worse don't care.

 

KK

[Most Wanted]

KK. How many would respond? My guess would be more than now but at least that's on them. One week to respond seems fair.

How could this be worse than what's happening now. Do you think a club of 3 should carry the same weight as s club of 300. Do you think it's right for a members vote to not count because the wording got changed or the TG didn't vote.

[Chuckaroo #13080 Regulator]

The biggest problem here is that many clubs DO NOT VOTE. And for that, there is no excuse. That includes some of the respondents to this string of posts. And I am certain that within the clubs that did vote, their membership participation was low. Some folks care and others do not.

To be affiliated, a club must list a TG to represent that club. The TG does not have to be a member of the club.

Many organizations have conventions and not everyone can attend due to time, money or conflicts.

There is probably no way to satisfy everyone. Conventions are what they are, a gathering of like minded folks sharing experiences and information about our sport. If that is not your cup of tea, that's OK too but, don't knock the process because you cannot make the convention.

I can tell you that the people that take the time to vote, and get that vote in via mailing it to Slipnoose, their TG or any other TG that is available, are the only ones that can respectfully complain about the process.

When you send a TG, you are in a better position, should modifications change the intent of the agenda item. It does not happen often but it can. Your TG, much like a congressman, must vote the conscious of their constituents.

[Blackey Cole]

As a past TG I've seen it from the inside. I ve seen the proposed ballets come down and after the discussion the the actual vote was worded different than the original ballot. Some of it was because of the definition or back ground info that was presented so all the tb can do is take the intent from what he presented to the club and their vote to the summit and with that info make an informed vote on the final ballot.

 

I think the reason for the life membership requirement is two fold one to show financial ability to make the summit and the other is commitment to the sport. If they are not willing to pay the fee for the membership who is gonna pay the expenses for travel and lodging to the summit. The trip I took the membership fee would barely cover the fuel or cost of transportation or the hotel bill. I've seen clubs reimburse the TG the convention fee but not travel and lodging. At least not the clubs I've seen most can barely make it through the annual bills without having a fund raiser or not upgrading the range without an annual match. The dues usually cover the insurance and range fees or mortgage, lean or whatever the club pays to the landowner or parent organization.

 

Being a TG is more than a weekend thing you need to be able to attend the state and above matches for your area to attend all the TG mtgs so you have an understanding of why the rules are coming down the way they are.

[Nickel City Dude]

I am new to SASS but as it has been explained to me, it doesn’t really matter how the TGs vote, if the WB doesn’t like it they will make the final decision. We are only members in the sense that like belonging to a health club. The club is owned by a corporation and we pay to use the facilities. This is not an organization owned by the members. If I am wrong please let me know.

[Krazy Kajun]

As a past TG I've seen it from the inside. I ve seen the proposed ballets come down and after the discussion the the actual vote was worded different than the original ballot. Some of it was because of the definition or back ground info that was presented so all the tb can do is take the intent from what he presented to the club and their vote to the summit and with that info make an informed vote on the final ballot.

 

I think the reason for the life membership requirement is two fold one to show financial ability to make the summit and the other is commitment to the sport. If they are not willing to pay the fee for the membership who is gonna pay the expenses for travel and lodging to the summit. The trip I took the membership fee would barely cover the fuel or cost of transportation or the hotel bill. I've seen clubs reimburse the TG the convention fee but not travel and lodging. At least not the clubs I've seen most can barely make it through the annual bills without having a fund raiser or not upgrading the range without an annual match. The dues usually cover the insurance and range fees or mortgage, lean or whatever the club pays to the landowner or parent organization.

 

Being a TG is more than a weekend thing you need to be able to attend the state and above matches for your area to attend all the TG mtgs so you have an understanding of why the rules are coming down the way they are.

I kinda disagree with your premise on the highlighted wording...seems to me if that were true then SASS would be saying that only the rich get to attend the meetings...that would be wrong on so many levels we don't have time to list them. And, does the fact the you don't have the money for a life membership, mean that your level of commitment to the sport isn't as much as those who have the money to afford the life membership?

 

Kajun

[Santa Fe River Stan,36999L]

KK. How many would respond? My guess would be more than now but at least that's on them. One week to respond seems fair.

How could this be worse than what's happening now. Do you think a club of 3 should carry the same weight as s club of 300. Do you think it's right for a members vote to not count because the wording got changed or the TG didn't vote.

I represent 2 clubs. The SASS Convention/TG Summit was held on the same weekend as the Florida State Championship so I sent our votes with another TG. When the wording for item 4 changed he called me to verify our position. It was on Thursday during the challenge......

 

Stan

 

PS...Had a ball shooting with you guys!

[Most Wanted]

Stan, We had a great time shooting with you and your crew. You and Chuckaroo are great TGs and represent multiple clubs to the best of your and the systems ability. From what people are saying there are problems with some TGs or lack there of. Also I can't get around the fact that 3 are as powerful as 300. I also feel the vote should be after the final wording as some may wish to change their vote.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

 

NO! I'm saying the TG's who DIDN'T vote (either in person or by proxy) Had the money to qualify but didn't show the commitment.

YOU on the other hand have plenty of money and show plenty of commitment!

My bank account would call you a fibber. Fortunately I represent ACSA (Arizona Cowboys Shooter's Association) and Winter Range. They both chip in a part of the costs or I could not afford to go. Still a couple of hundred dollars out of my pocket.

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

 

KK. How many would respond? My guess would be more than now but at least that's on them. One week to respond seems fair.
How could this be worse than what's happening now. Do you think a club of 3 should carry the same weight as s club of 300. Do you think it's right for a members vote to not count because the wording got changed or the TG didn't vote.

Didn't say it would be worse just don't think it will work but if SASS is for it I am too, whether it's a club of 300 or 3 it's still just one vote, if you broke down to say one vote for every 100 members then you would have what you have now in US politics say like California the Cities dictate to the rest of the State a dense major ruling everything, and like Chuckaroo said you must express your wishes and hopes he votes the clubs wishes, if not replace him, and I represent two clubs just like Stan and proxies were sent with another TG that could be counted on to do the right thing.

Don't have an answer for everything only my opinion again with all respect like I told Phamton don't like the process get involved, did you ask your TG how he voted for you?

 

KK

[Most Wanted]

I have a great TG so my problem with the system isn't that

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

Stan, We had a great time shooting with you and your crew. You and Chuckaroo are great TGs and represent multiple clubs to the best of your and the systems ability. From what people are saying there are problems with some TGs or lack there of. Also I can't get around the fact that 3 are as powerful as 300. I also feel the vote should be after the final wording as some may wish to change their vote.

When people give the stats and say only "X" number of 'clubs' voted out of "Y" clubs in SASS it is in most cases the smaller clubs that lack the interest/wherewithal to send a TG. The 300 person club generally has a lot of interested shooters and a bank account so they are going to make sure their TG attends. So it more or less comes out in the wash. As an FYI the 3 vs. 300 argument comes up frequently (I have made it myself on occasion) and is promptly shot down. We might not have one man, one vote. But people seem to like the idea of one club, one vote.

[Steeldust Dan, SASS #2631Life]

When people give the stats and say only "X" number of 'clubs' voted out of "Y" clubs in SASS it is in most cases the smaller clubs that lack the interest/wherewithal to send a TG. The 300 person club generally has a lot of interested shooters and a bank account so they are going to make sure their TG attends. So it more or less comes out in the wash. As an FYI the 3 vs. 300 argument comes up frequently (I have made it myself on occasion) and is promptly shot down. We might not have one man, one vote. But people seem to like the idea of one club, one vote.

 

And heaven forbid we have a bicameral TG system. For those of you who don't recognize bicameral, it means two houses or groups, as in House and Senate. What we have now is a Senate, with each club having one vote no matter how many members the club has.

[Chuckaroo #13080 Regulator]

I have also considered the difference between a small and a large club. At first it looks like a club of 300 is not represented proportionally. But, in the end, the club still only gets one vote. It's not like they were going to get 300 votes to cast against a club of 10 with 10 votes.

 

One club one vote actually works for me.

[Blackey Cole]

KK maybe I did say it the best way possible but if you can't afford the membership fee you can afford to go to the summits I'm guessing as its the TG that pays for everything not the club In my experience. I'm not aware of a club that pays for the TG to travel, lodging to the different TG meetings I've heard of so giving them money toward the fee for the convention or a little gas money but the clubs I belonged to were small and had better things like insurance, stage material for the clubs money to go to. I'm sorry that you misinterpret what I wrote because I didn't word it correctly. I'm not saying that tgs have to be rich, matter of fact several are able to write it off as a business trip if they are vendors also. But it is something that needs to be taken in account when accepting the position.

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

 

Most Wanted Said:

 

Stan, We had a great time shooting with you and your crew. You and Chuckaroo are great TGs and represent multiple clubs to the best of your and the systems ability. From what people are saying there are problems with some TGs or lack there of. Also I can't get around the fact that 3 are as powerful as 300. I also feel the vote should be after the final wording as some may wish to change their vote.

 

 

 

 

I have also considered the difference between a small and a large club. At first it looks like a club of 300 is not represented proportionally. But, in the end, the club still only gets one vote. It's not like they were going to get 300 votes to cast against a club of 10 with 10 votes.

 

One club one vote actually works for me.

 

What we have is the equivalent of having a Senator for each club. There are two Senators from each state whose votes have equal weight regarless of the size of the state. We would need to have the equivalent of Representitives based on population size (membership) to address that. But that creates other problems. Now you have large clubs dictating to small clubs how they need to operate and that can be just as problematic as the way we have it now. Besides, based on what I have seen, the vast majority of the members in that 300 person club probably don't bother to cast their votes. And what about the situation where a person is a member of multiple clubs and can cast (or not cast) their vote multiple times. There is no perfect answer.

 

Without going to a full blown dual representation system (which is way too much work for the gain), one club, one vote, is a pretty good system. Should it be changed, maybe, I guess time will tell. If enough SASS members push for a change, it will eventually happen, but eventually can seem like an eternity sometimes, FCGF is an example of that! Until then, lets work to get the unrepresented clubs represented.

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

I have a great TG so my problem with the system isn't that

Then what is and how do we fix it? always interested to hear what people think you never know it might turn into a topic and get voted on like it works now, when you have an issue present it to the TG and he/she presents it to the ROC.

Every year the same old arguments come up which are fine, but I watch the TG wire and not one has presented a solution to the same old arguments each year, I present stuff that my clubs shows interest in and I get shot down but not before we have a great discuss to why and why not, but the problem seems to be club interest or participation, like Pettifogger said mostl likely the 300 member clubs have sent a vote and the 10 person club didn't.

 

KK

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

KK maybe I did say it the best way possible but if you can't afford the membership fee you can afford to go to the summits I'm guessing as its the TG that pays for everything not the club In my experience. I'm not aware of a club that pays for the TG to travel, lodging to the different TG meetings I've heard of so giving them money toward the fee for the convention or a little gas money but the clubs I belonged to were small and had better things like insurance, stage material for the clubs money to go to. I'm sorry that you misinterpret what I wrote because I didn't word it correctly. I'm not saying that tgs have to be rich, matter of fact several are able to write it off as a business trip if they are vendors also. But it is something that needs to be taken in account when accepting the position.

what are you talking about? didn't respond to your post all.

 

KK

[Most Wanted]

Then what is and how do we fix it? always interested to hear what people think you never know it might turn into a topic and get voted on like it works now, when you have an issue present it to the TG and he/she presents it to the ROC.

Every year the same old arguments come up which are fine, but I watch the TG wire and not one has presented a solution to the same old arguments each year, I present stuff that my clubs shows interest in and I get shot down but not before we have a great discuss to why and why not, but the problem seems to be club interest or participation, like Pettifooger said mostly like the 300 member clubs have sent a vote and the 10 person club didn't.

 

KK

My first post on this stated what I feel are the problems and how to fix it. That's what people always ask for and yet when you give it people don't take the time to read it. Why would I ever think these same people would be up for a change. I thought it would take some of the heat off the TGs and be more accurate. But if the masses want it this way then keep it.

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

My first post on this stated what I feel are the problems and how to fix it. That's what people always ask for and yet when you give it people don't take the time to read it. Why would I ever think these same people would be up for a change. I thought it would take some of the heat off the TGs and be more accurate. But if the masses want it this way then keep it.

Then the system worked, not the way some want it too but it worked. I read you first post I responded with my opinion and that with a dollar I might get me a cup of coffee, my point was did you present it to your TG for possible concideration? Something to think about for next convention.

 

KK

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

 

Welcome to the wire. Nothing like a valid point being completely ignored!

 

You have a true grasp on the system.

 

The TG results are really just recommendations. Not the final word as it is portrayed.

Were you or Nickel City Dude at the San Antonio Summit? I'll endeavor to give you a little background. This argument got some traction after the Branson Summit when the "lever" rule voted on in Branson was "clarified" at EOT. I can't think of another circumstance where the Wild Bunch has ostensibly "overruled" the TG's so the argument is basically sour grapes over one event by people who, for the most part, weren't even at the meetings. What is very instructive is what happened at San Antonio. Misty Moonshine sat in on the "lever" rule discussion and was somewhat surprised by the discussion and the fact that a lot of TGs did not agree with the clarification issued at EOT. She got up and said the WB had no intention of overruling the TG's and what was done was thought to have been a clarification. She then held a full and complete discussion of the matter and took the matter back to the Wild Bunch and the ROC. The rule voted on at Branson has been restored. The TG process worked. The TG summits and votes are sort of like national elections. People don't participate and then complain about the process when the election didn't come out as they, after the fact, wanted. The process works as well as the clubs make it work.

[Chuckaroo #13080 Regulator]

Were you or Nickel City Dude at the San Antonio Summit? I'll endeavor to give you a little background. This argument got some traction after the Branson Summit when the "lever" rule voted on in Branson was "clarified" at EOT. I can't think of another circumstance where the Wild Bunch has ostensibly "overruled" the TG's so the argument is basically sour grapes over one event by people who, for the most part, weren't even at the meetings. What is very instructive is what happened at San Antonio. Misty Moonshine sat in on the "lever" rule discussion and was somewhat surprised by the discussion and the fact that a lot of TGs did not agree with the clarification issued at EOT. She got up and said the WB had no intention of overruling the TG's and what was done was thought to have been a clarification. She then held a full and complete discussion of the matter and took the matter back to the Wild Bunch and the ROC. The rule voted on at Branson has been restored. The TG process worked. The TG summits and votes are sort of like national elections. People don't participate and then complain about the process when the election didn't come out as they, after the fact, wanted. The process works as well as the clubs make it work.

 

+1 That is what really happened, not hearsay from a member that is not in the know.

 

I have been to the last 12 conventions as a TG. The incident last year was the only time the Wild Bunch made a reversal of a TG vote. They, as Larsen stated, have corrected that.

 

The TG process works and it is misconceptions, like above, that explains why some clubs wrongly decide not to make the effort to vote. Personally, if I was in one of those clubs I'd be upset.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

Do not misread me. I am NOT picking on the TG's, nor was the other poster I am sure.

 

Quite the opposite, and I wish the WB would abide by the decisions.

 

If the system is so great, why did it get reversed in the first place?

 

And respectfully, yes, I was in SA. But what does that matter?

Did you read my post #58? It answers your questions. The WB did abide by the decision. Can you name one other instance where there was even a hint that the WB is ignoring the TG process? Sorry I didn't see you in San Antonio. It was an interesting two day TG meeting. After that I just floated around town.

[Krazy Kajun]

what are you talking about? didn't respond to your post all.

 

KK

Kiowa Kid, Blackey Cole was responding to my post hence the inclusion of "KK" in his post.

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

Kiowa Kid, Blackey Cole was responding to my post hence the inclusion of "KK" in his post.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

KK

[Chuckaroo #13080 Regulator]

 

Couple of years back..............

 

Sr. GFer?

 

Again, I am trying to be supportive to the TG's not opposed. ??

That was not a reversal of a TG vote.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

 

Couple of years back..............

 

Sr. GFer?

 

Again, I am trying to be supportive to the TG's not opposed. ??

I realize that. I was just trying to make sure new shooters don't get the misimpression that the WB goes around overruling the TGs at their whim. Does not happen. I've been going to the TG meetings for quite a while and the WB certainly did not overrule anything regarding Senior Gunfighter. In fact, the WB has had Senior Gunfighter at EOT for several years even though it is not a recognized SASS category.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

 

Right.

 

But the result was that SGF appeared everywhere because of WB influence. This last closed lever issue should never have been reversed in the first place. It sends the message that the WB is not listening and that is evident by the post above where a newer member is trying to understand what is going on. A few things like this do give the feeling that membership is being ignored. Just because someone is not a TG does not eliminate their opinion or make them less informed.

 

Sadly, it is hard to get on the wire and not leave with the feeling that everyone is going to pounce on someone for having a viewpoint, or just be ignored. This should be the place for the best information available and done in the same spirit that is found on the range. With open friendly smiles and consideration for all who might join in.

 

(Yes, I know that is not going to happen)

 

What a shame.

JM

:)

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

 

Right.

 

But the result was that SGF appeared everywhere because of WB influence. This last closed lever issue should never have been reversed in the first place. It sends the message that the WB is not listening and that is evident by the post above where a newer member is trying to understand what is going on. A few things like this do give the feeling that membership is being ignored. Just because someone is not a TG does not eliminate their opinion or make them less informed.

 

Sadly, it is hard to get on the wire and not leave with the feeling that everyone is going to pounce on someone for having a viewpoint, or just be ignored. This should be the place for the best information available and done in the same spirit that is found on the range. With open friendly smiles and consideration for all who might join in.

 

(Yes, I know that is not going to happen)

 

What a shame.

JM

I really wish animosity was not exhibited on the Wire forums. I value any politely stated opinion and I believe that the WB does too.

 

Although your words sadden me and I wish I could say they were not true, I see truth in them.

 

Please friends, do not let negativity continue on Wire forums or be our face to the world. We are better than that.

[Nawlins Kid SASS #36107]

Were you or Nickel City Dude at the San Antonio Summit? I'll endeavor to give you a little background. This argument got some traction after the Branson Summit when the "lever" rule voted on in Branson was "clarified" at EOT. I can't think of another circumstance where the Wild Bunch has ostensibly "overruled" the TG's so the argument is basically sour grapes over one event by people who, for the most part, weren't even at the meetings. What is very instructive is what happened at San Antonio. Misty Moonshine sat in on the "lever" rule discussion and was somewhat surprised by the discussion and the fact that a lot of TGs did not agree with the clarification issued at EOT. She got up and said the WB had no intention of overruling the TG's and what was done was thought to have been a clarification. She then held a full and complete discussion of the matter and took the matter back to the Wild Bunch and the ROC. The rule voted on at Branson has been restored. The TG process worked. The TG summits and votes are sort of like national elections. People don't participate and then complain about the process when the election didn't come out as they, after the fact, wanted. The process works as well as the clubs make it work.

+2

Every year after the Summit the TG system comes into play. If your club does not have a TG, is there a SASS club near by that has a TG that could represent your club. There is no excuse for a TG not sending in a vote!!!!

 

I carried 12 proxies and some of the clubs give me leeway if the wording changed. They trust my opinion to vote for them. If there was an "electronic vote" the discarding of the long gun rule would not have changed. As noted there was a discussion with Misty in the room and a solution was achieved.

 

Another thing that keeps coming up is show a list of clubs who voted , WHY. A club has a right to ask their TG if he / she voted and if not what was the reason? When you have less than 1/3 of the clubs voting then that means there is a large segment of the SASS membership who could care less other wise they would get their TG to vote or find a TG to represent them.

 

Maybe it's time to start a movement to get the all of the clubs to vote!!!

 

Nawlins

[Smokestack SASS#87384]

I am curious. How many TGs were present at the summit this year? I know we have figures on how many clubs were represented but I am more curious how many heads were in the room during these discussions.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

I didn't do a head count, but knowing Allie she probably did. Either that or Chuckaroo. He was the official note taker.

[Chuckaroo #13080 Regulator]

There were 42 clubs that sent in votes to Slipnoose.

 

There were around 90 actual TG's in the meeting that represented 194 clubs.

 

Total number of clubs that were represented were 236.

[Smokestack SASS#87384]

There were 42 clubs that sent in votes to Slipnoose.

 

There were around 90 actual TG's in the meeting that represented 194 clubs.

 

Total number of clubs that were represented were 236.

Thank you.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

 

 

TG's are no longer required to attend the convention in order to summit votes. They have always been permitted to send their votes with another TG. They can now submit their votes to Slipnoose for inclusion in the voting. This year almost 50 clubs did that.

There is absolutely no excuse for a club to not have a voice in the voting process.

It is desirable for TG's to attend the convention because there is a lot of other discussion beyond the agenda items.

 

A couple of TGs told me that they were not voting this year because their vote doesn't matter since the Wild Bunch can do anything that they want to do anyway. They were still smarting over the 2014 open/closed long gun fiasco last year.