IPSC @ Barrie and No Provincials

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry if someone else posted this but I jumped to the end.

Is the host organization not Barrie?

7.1.5. Range Master (“RM”)
The RM has overall authority over all persons and activities within the
entire range, including range safety, the operation of all courses of fire and
the application of these rules. All match disqualifications and appeals to
arbitration must be brought to his attention. The Range Master is usually
appointed by and works with the Match Director
, however, in respect of
IPSC sanctioned Level IV or higher matches, the appointment of the Range
Master is subject to the prior written approval of the IPSC Executive
Council.
Match Management
IPSC Handgun Rules, January 2009, 2nd Edition 34


7.1.6. Match Director (“MD”)
The MD handles overall match administration including squadding,
scheduling, range construction, the coordination of all support staff and the
provision of services. His authority and decisions will prevail with regard to
all matters except in respect of matters in these rules which are the domain
of the Range Master. The Match Director is appointed by the host
organization and works with the Range Master
.
 
Dear BOD IPSC ON, can you please let us know as soon as possible what is going on and where we gonna have ON Provincials?

Also, how a man who didn't RO any matches can be allow to be Head of NROI?
What are the merits to become a Head of NROI?
 
Dear BOD IPSC ON, can you please let us know as soon as possible what is going on and where we gonna have ON Provincials?

Also, how a man who didn't RO any matches can be allow to be Head of NROI?
What are the merits to become a Head of NROI?

Mark Hamrol is the head of NROI...and has more than enough experience.
 
I am just speculating, but I think it has been taken down while the BOD is re-working and/or preparing our constitution for final review and voting on by our membership.

How can that make sense?

Would it not be valuable to the membership to be able to read what the original form was so as to be able to make an informed determination as to their opinion of the new proposals?

Having it gone now just makes bad optics......

Oh what am I saying.....

This WHOLE EPISODE has nothing but bad optics......
 
Hello Everyone,

I have been contacted by a number of people about what is going in this thread.

I have no idea. I only learned about what was happening by this thread on the forum.

I will be speaking with the SC this evening.

I do not want to comment or make any decisions until I have spoken to the people involved.

DVC
 
I am just speculating, but I think it has been taken down while the BOD is re-working and/or preparing our constitution for final review and voting on by our membership.

Was there ever a vote of the membership to approve the 1996 version. I can't remember voting except for the new BOD. There is nothing in the Sitreps for 1996 that alludes to a new constitution as far as I can tell. Maybe it should be the 1997 version or the version that was never ratified by the membership.

Maybe MrClean can shed some light on the subject as he was elected to the BOD at the end 0f '96.
 
Was there ever a vote of the membership to approve the 1996 version. I can't remember voting except for the new BOD. There is nothing in the Sitreps for 1996 that alludes to a new constitution as far as I can tell. Maybe it should be the 1997 version or the version that was never ratified by the membership.

Maybe MrClean can shed some light on the subject as he was elected to the BOD at the end 0f '96.

Way before my time... and as I said, I am just speculating...
 
Was there ever a vote of the membership to approve the 1996 version. I can't remember voting except for the new BOD. There is nothing in the Sitreps for 1996 that alludes to a new constitution as far as I can tell. Maybe it should be the 1997 version or the version that was never ratified by the membership.

Maybe MrClean can shed some light on the subject as he was elected to the BOD at the end 0f '96.

It's really a mute point this many years later. I doubt any BOD would move forward based on someones recolection of what may or may not have happened 14 years ago.

It's the only complete and credible version we were able to find and we had to make a judgement call (ahem...perhaps you fine folks should have addressed this a decade ago. :nest: )

That being said, your current BOD is refreshing the constitution...
 
It's really a mute point this many years later. I doubt any BOD would move forward based on someones recolection of what may or may not have happened 14 years ago.

It's the only complete and credible version we were able to find and we had to make a judgement call (ahem...perhaps you fine folks should have addressed this a decade ago. :nest: )

That being said, your current BOD is refreshing the constitution...

When we should have been dealing with this, we were putting out another fire. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom