Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

jgarvas wrote:Trust me, we'll take into consideration any suggestions that are being offered to fix things or make them better.

I think everyone who is upset needs to realize that we're attempting to operate an organization where our image plays a big role in our success.

The changes are not proposed "just because" of a potential lawsuit. That is one example of how an individual not associated with the Michigan group who chose to show up at an event carrying a long gun resulted in a judge ruling against them for an otherwise handgun only open carry walk. It's an example of how a third party can harm us.

Some of you are implying that membership will be "hurt" by redefining the image and scope of these forums because you are presuming that what we're attempting to curtail is the preference of the majority. The stark reality is that a number of people tell us they won't become engaged in the forums community because of the things that are taking place here and the direction these forums have gone in.

Our focus is on being a welcoming community to new shooters and new recruits in an effort to grow the organization. We realize some people may not like the changes but we believe they are in the best interests of the organization.

Finally, to those of you who said you'll get involved if we get sued, why would it take that to get you involved in doing something productive for the cause? These decisions and this organization operate because of a dedicated team of people who come from various backgrounds to work together for the goals and causes of the organization.

Cruiser: You can absolutely talk about your computer problems. Go to the Kirchner Korner. Nothing has changed there.

carmen fovozzo wrote: ....So I see that the people you talk to say they will not get envolved in OFCC because of the way it is going. They are more important then payed members ? They influence your actions more then the members that are now envolved in OFCC...I'm trying to uderstand your thinking, but I can't.

jgarvas wrote:

carmen fovozzo wrote: ....So I see that the people you talk to say they will not get envolved in OFCC because of the way it is going. They are more important then payed members ? They influence your actions more then the members that are now envolved in OFCC...I'm trying to uderstand your thinking, but I can't.

Carmen: You're coming to a conclusion on your own. We're adjusting the behavior and makeup of the forums because we do not like the direction that they've taken. We are redesigning the organization public image. I can assure you, the vocal minority that is reacting to our changes is not a representative sample of the membership as a whole. For each person here complaining that they don't like what we're doing I've easily received thunderous applause for the move privately.

The difference is, if you want to object you do it publicly. If you appreciate the move you're more akin to do it privately.

carmen fovozzo wrote: -----------------------
....So I see that the people you talk to say they will not get envolved in OFCC because of the way it is going. They are more important then payed members ? They influence your actions more then the members that are now envolved in OFCC...I'm trying to uderstand your thinking, but I can't.

jgarvas wrote:

AlanM wrote: What annual volunteer meeting???
Who, When, and Where did this occur?

Alan: Every year the organization holds an annual meeting where the coordinators meet face to face for the better part of an entire day. It was held in January, which is when we usually hold the event. In addition to the existing coordinators who are already "on board" with the organization, individuals who are nominated as potential future additions are invited to attend the meeting as well.

It is not a public event. It is a private annual strategy meeting of the organization.

P-chan wrote: I think you know exactly what is being asked and are dancing around the answer.

Who nominates these individuals as potential future additions? How are the nominations decided (on what merit)? What's the point of being a contributing member of a "grass roots" organization if you don't get a say in what happens with the organization?

I for one, agree with your changes, but however off-topic the organizational questions may be, they're still relevant and haven't been addressed that I've seen.

OhioPaints wrote:Well it's good to know that there are new supporters to replace those of us who are leaving. Jeff says there is overwhelming support for the changes, I guess it is obvious that those of us who feel otherwise do not really fit in here.

jgarvas wrote:

P-chan wrote: I think you know exactly what is being asked and are dancing around the answer.

I'm not dancing around anything. I'm at work and busy.

Who nominates these individuals as potential future additions? How are the nominations decided (on what merit)? What's the point of being a contributing member of a "grass roots" organization if you don't get a say in what happens with the organization?

Coordinators of the organization are appointed by the Board of Directors. The Coordinators who meet people in person and work with them suggest them based on their professionalism, their skill, their ability to interact with the public, and their level headed nature among other things. If a person shows up representing OFCC at a public event and they do not present a professional "clean" image, or if they don't have the requisite skills to communicate with the public and come off sounding knowledgeable then we're not going to say "lets make this person a representative of the organization" and then maybe send them off to represent us on Fox News

If a coordinator says "I believe that P-Chan could really help us with restocking the shelves" we sit down and look at it and decide if it makes sense, and we bring that person into the fold. If a person is better suited to work a small task from home (Like Alan did with fulfillment) we put them in that roll, or they help at the picnic, or they staff gun shows.

People who "shine" as decision makers climb the rank of authority within the organization much like they would in a regular full time job - based on results.

I for one, agree with your changes, but however off-topic the organizational questions may be, they're still relevant and haven't been addressed that I've seen.

If I've neglected to answer something ask it. I'm not hiding anything, but I am going to lunch