Harlan's grasp safe with Dave Shaeffer's suspension

Was the ATA's decision to suspend Dave Shaeffer influenced by their investment in Harlan Campbell? This is the story. You decide.

As per interview with Dave Shaeffer:

Dave Shaeffer told the story of the incident at the Pennsylvania State Shoot. The incident allegedly happened during the handicap event. Prior to the last 25 birds he said he had two steel based Federal shells stick in his Silver Seitz. Each time he tapped his gun on the rubber shooting pad provided by the PSSA. The shell then popped out.

Nothing was said to him by anyone until the last 25 birds. Near the middle of that trap Sandy Jo Jack, on the next station, said something to him. No shells were lodged after that.

Following the event Sandy Jo Jack went into the tournament office with two shooters on the squad. According to Dave, the shooter by name of Oscar, that agrees with Dave's version was not approached by the PSSA or the tournament office.

Oscar wrote a letter to the ATA but was still never interviewed.

One week after the PSSA shoot Dave received a notice of suspension from the PSSA. It did not say he was suspended by the ATA. The ATA/ Vice Presidents would be making a decision at the grand.

At the time Dave was challenging Harlan Campbell for being the "Top Dog." As Dave said, "It was going to come down to the Cardinal Classic."

Dave was informed the day of the Cardinal Classic the he was suspended. He was suspended for two years but it would be reduced to one year following a written apology to Sandy Jo Jack.

I asked him, "Is Sandy the victim?

"It sounds like I am the victim," he said.

I asked, "how was she hurt?"

His answer, "I don't don't know, maybe because I am a big person with a deep voice."

Dave said she was following him to his car. "She followed me when I was walking away and started in on me. I didn't use any profanity but I heard she did as I got closer to my car."

I asked him again...."Did you threaten her?

"No", I never threatened her," she is a little woman. "I saw all of the Vice Presidents at the Grand. Not one of them told me I was suspended."

He said the vote was not unanimous. "They said there is no appeal for anything less than a five year suspension."

Hold on I said. "Are you telling me they voted at the middle of the grand, and let you shoot without informing you they just voted on your suspension?

"Exactly!"

Dave told me one of VP's said, "this was all about the ATA's investment in Harlan."

Was it?

I report. You decide.

Merlo out

 

Suspension letter from the ATA

 

The complaint was not posted. If Dave was suspended because of the shells sticking in the chamber, half of the people on the line would be out. The three people either lied about the reason or the ATA is ashamed to post it.
If an altercation was instigated after the shoot was over, then maybe the perpetrator should be the one suspended.
I know Harlan and he is an honorable man, if he thinks the competition between himself and Dave had anything to do with the suspension, I believe he will come forth. Roger C.

 

One of the letters Dave is supposed to write to a supposedly offended individual will end up in the dead letter office. That squad mate will be vacationing in Ireland during the time period the registered letter is sent. Good luck ATA with that one!

 

I don't know what may or may not have happened with Mr. Shaeffer's situation but dragging Harlan into this without any shred of proof is fake news of the greatest proportion. Harlan isn't afraid of any competition. Did the ATA help him be captain the past 10 or so consecutive years as well?! I'd suggest the title of this thread get changed.

 

This is the most ridiculous thread ever started.

 

SUJ

And how is Campbell dragged in? They were competing. I don't see where he is accused of anything. Someone quoted a VP. What did you read I don't see?

 

So an anonymous person quoted an unnamed VP? Sounds like a perfectly credible source to me to report on. I think the title of this thread and double heresay quotes insinuating that the ATA is helping and protecting one of the most honorable and honest competitors the sport has even known is absolutely disgusting.

 

NO....its not too hard to read. Merlo quoted Dave Shaeffer. Dave Shaeffer is not anonymous.

And nowhere does anyone disparage Campbell. I like that someone got Shaeffer's opinion. Not real sure why it bothers you. You doth protests too much I think.

 

Great title for a thread. Start it.

 

Question then...is Dave Shaeffer eligible for All American points and the All American Team? They allowed him to shoot the remainder of the grand without telling him he may not be qualified for the AA points and team.

Curious. Would like that answered.

 

In the Past all Complaints are listed in Trap & Field, all Complaintants versions are printed, This has been the Protocol over the Years I have been a member,
and Complaints are in the ATA Record, and to my Knowledge, NO EXCEPTIONS, Sticking Hulls w/Steel Bases is a common thing anymore, I would like to see the Complete ATA Minutes, Also this is not Lynn Gipsons sole Job, The ATA President is the Official to oversee actions I Believe.

Gary Bryant, ATA # 40-10126 Life Member

 

It's in the letter above.

 

Really....so is he ineligible for the 2017 year or 2018 year? Suspension starts Aug 15 so are his points earned previously removed? They show on the ATA site. He is fifth on the All American Mens. Please explain

Shotshell , please show where that is answered.

If he is not eligible this year then he spent lots of money at the grand for nothing. And then traveled to the CC for nothing.

 

Family Guy,
The way I read it, the suspension is effective as of 08/15/17. Since apparently he was a member in good standing up to that date my guess is he should retain his AA points through the Grand. I don't believe he shot the CC. Not saying that I agree but I don't know of any provision and/or ruling which would disqualify him for 2017 AA consideration.

 

"suspended for a minimum of one (1) year with an effective date of August 15, 2017."
"you will not be eligible for consideration for the ATA All American Teams during the suspension period."

 

Are his points removed? And why haven't they been removed? You haven't answered the question. Only re-typed. And why is he listed 5th?

 

If he's suspended effective 8/15/17, and isn't eligible for ATA All American Teams during the suspension, and 8/15/17 falls in the 2017 target year, why would you think he would make the 2017 team?
And he sure won't make the 2018 team when he can't shoot ATA targets until at least after the 2018 Grand.
Seems clear to me.

 

Around 260 people make an All American Team. Who would think anyone wouldn't make it?

If he earned it, and is in 5th place some may argue he deserves it. Not that I really care. 260 people on the team. Really?

Also, does the word "consideration" mean he cant earn the points or keep the points? And again why is he listed in 5th place?

 

Shotshell,
I believe your interpretation is correct and was the intent of the EC. However, in saying that the individual is not eligible for consideration for ATA AA Teams "during" the suspension period would suggest solely the period 08/15/17 - 08/15/18 not necessarily the entire 2017 target year. It appears that he has retained all is AA points prior to 08/15/17 which for this individual are more than enough to qualify him for the 2017 AA team. But if he is not ineligible for the 2017 target year, then obviously the statement would be a bit of an overkill since as you stated he can't shoot targets during the period of suspension.

 

Since the points he earned from Sept 2016 through Aug 2017 is for the 2018 AA Team, I think he will be on the 2018 Team.

With the way the rule book is written, points gained will be honored as to placement on the AA team, even with suspension. As long as requirements are met.



It may seem obvious that a member suspended is not in good standing, however the ATA rule book does not define it as such for this organization. Wording within the ATA rule book for a "good standing" definition pertains to dues and fees only.

It would be a good test if the affected individual(s) find it worthy of such challenge. I guess we will know the official AA 2018 list on September 14th.

 

If throwing guns and shell bags eliminated one from All-American status then a former many times female team member wouldn't have made the grade for years too. I needn't mention names but suffice to say she's on a temporary sabbatical for lack of funds.

Heck, one long time former shooter from PA was well known for damaged muzzles on all his TM-1's-and yet, was a vendor selling guns and components for decades.

Can their really be an ulterior motive for Dave's suspension? If so, we'll never know, but it should make us wonder if the powers at the top established other criteria for his dismissal!

 

B's F

 

As this is the only ATA suspension letter I have ever seen I have to ask if this sentence;

"In addition, you will not be eligible for consideration for the ATA All American Teams during the suspension period."

is normally included in a letter of suspension? It strikes me as an odd thing to state directly after the sentence saying you are no longer eligible to compete in ATA events. If you can't compete in ATA events you can't earn All American points. Therefore, it appears the ATA is saying that David will not be considered for the All American team for the just completed 2017 target year (for the All American points he had already earned prior to the suspension). Just wondering if this is normal for the ATA or is this something special just for Mr. Shaeffer?

 

Don are you really wondering about anything the ATA EC can come up with as normal. You know first hand from your years on the OSTA that the ATA EC does what they damn well please and to hell with the rule book. That is why I call it a book of suggestions. I wouldn't find it hard to believe at all that some kind of BS was going on, it does all the time.

To Dave I'd wouldn't worry about being an All American or not. My best money years of trap shooting I was never on the AA team. After 95 I refused to play the AA game and wouldn't send in or not shoot enough singles. The AA team has turned into a joke anyhow. 260 All Americans is ridiculous. Everyone at a trap shoot KNOWS who the best shots are and some artificial anointment by a bunch of incompetent target claimers like PIPE LYIER, yes I remember your KY history and all the bull shit that went on in your state with you involved, don't mean shit. My advice Dave is get a good Lawyer and find out just how sharp the EC and there rules are. Just because they say something don't mean it's legal. Brad

 

I had the pleasure of shooting with David. Quite a few times this year .and we shot with females and young kids. And David never was anything but professional. I even shot with him when he missed his 100th target for a 99. No problem... after this supposed false claim. I brought to Dave's attention. That the golf cart gang the pipe liars. Gang was watching him . So from the the supposed false claim. The pipe liar has his peeps. Watching. Set up deal. Corporate pressure on ata.... if you watch video of molar shoot out. At the grand. You can see. They didn't want to shake hands with dave. Looks like the supposed victim might have some Hanky lanky going on with top kolar.. offices.. How Many Complaints has this person filed against others...????????

 

Am I correct in interpreting the suspension letter to read that Mr. Schaeffer was expelled for a term of one year, for alleged violations of disrupting the harmony of a shoot, unsportsman-like conduct, handling a gun dangerously and deliberately or carelessly violating gun safety precautions?

And, if Mr. Schaeffer fails the ATA's demand to provide letters of apology to the three named persons and send copies of his apology letter to the ATA, a requirement that is not contained in the rules or bylaws, he will received one additional year suspension for not writing a letter?

I don't recall the ATA ever doing this before or mentioning a word about All American Team status. What if the defendant is not guilty? In such case, why would anyone not guilty of a violation agree to this demand? I find it hard to believe the letter of apology requirement can be successful legally if challenged. The ATA will certainly be asked to provide the rules and by-laws supporting this additional disciplinary action.

Retaining a good lawyer might see the ATA reverse their decision as was done in the Las Vegas 1000 decision back in 2013.

HB

 

I don't know Dave but I do know Sandy Jo. I don't think she would make up a story just to hurt or help someone else.

 

I just re-read the letter that was sent to Dave by the ATA. What strikes me is how politically correct BS has seeped into even Trap Shooting. I can remember being at the Great Lakes Grand one year and Jim Bradford was my squad leader. The Michigan bunch flipped our sheets and trap two became trap three, this was back when 50's paid well and it messed up mine and Phil Kiner's options. Jim was the VP of the Central Zone that year and he went into the office to report it. All of this was before the event was over. The woman running the office refused to change it, Jim called her the C word and the B word and was not expelled, shamed, or shunned by the EC.

The story ended when I told Dave Bopp that if I didn't get paid what I was owed when I got home to Maryland I was going to go next door to Delaware and file a lawsuit against the ATA, him, and the Michigan state association and when we went to court they'd be staying in a motel and I 'd be sleeping in my own bed.

True story the Michigan president at the time paid me and Kiner CASH under the table but would NOT admit they screwed up. Sue um Dave. Brad

 

Nitrogetsome, This allegations should be investigated very closely. If any collusion if uncovered. Dave should bring suit, for income lost, defamation of character, and damages yet unspecified. I'm sure an attorney would consent to a contingency deal. Roger C.

 

HB makes a great point regarding the apology letters. Mr. Shaeffer will receive a one year suspension if he doesn't send letters of apology to three shooters and copies to the ATA? I've read the rule book and I don't recall that requirement being in the rule book. If the ATA had suspended Mr. Shaeffer for 2 years for the alleged rules violations but would reduce it to one year if he apologized, that MIGHT have been more a appropriate method. I get the impression there is way more to this situation than what we see here!

 

Hmmm look closer at the rule book

Executive Violations

Page 107

Line 23

Once the Executive has rendered a decision on punishment, the punishee may be required to send notes of apology. The notes must by mailed by registered U.S. mail within 30 days. The note(s) are required whether there is guilt by any party or any validity to any accusation.

The letter(s) must include a hand signature and express sincere remorse regardless of guilt or a lack of sympathy for an alleged victim.

All decisions by the Executive Committee are final.

Failure to send a letter may result in another separate suspension. The additional suspension type will be noted as an Executive Violation and can be as long as 4 years 6 months. A second Executive Violation will result in a permanent disbarment.

Rule changes effective 8/14/17

 

Thank you Union Strong! I stand corrected on that issue and offer my apology to any and all that read my erroneous post.

 

Don each year at the grand I always pick up a current rule book. The rule book that I was handed at the counter in the entry building was reprinted September 1, 2016 which would be for the 2017 shooting year. My rules booklet only has 93 pages. When did this rule become knowledge to the membership? Did they make a decision and then make a rule to fit their decision? Union strong how did you learn of this new rule? Also why don't you put on your big boy pants and sign your name?

Dave Berlet

 

Depends on the print size and font.

Are you using a real name? Shameful. It is a rule here.
ATC strongly advises that members not use their real names. Please do not use real names.

 

It is my understanding that the decision of the EC was unanimous. I do not know Mr.Shaw (Eastern Zone VP) but I have been told that he his very reputable and an excellent atty. I doubt he would be a party to any frivolous action(s). Not saying that Dave should not consider persuing legal action however he best make sure all his ducks are in a row if he does.

 

I remember this very well. I was in the squad and I saw the confrontation with the lady and I couldn't believe the language used by an ATA official and nothing more came of it.

Dave Berlet

 

Thanks for reading and posting.

 

Dave,
Union's post may have been made "tongue in cheek", at least that's how I took it.

 

Is it possible the accused was on Teri Dean Wormer's DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=double secret probation&view=detail&mid=57CDAA9BCC53192648A857CDAA9BCC53192648A8&FORM=VIRE

 

WHAT am I missing ???

Can anyone explain to me just what Dave did to this group of shooters OR this Sandy Ko Jack lady ?

Stuck shells, improper language, harmony of the squad ???

I thought I have read this thread through a few times, but I may have missed the exact allegation somewhere along the line.

Merlo ?

History Buff ?

Someone who knows ?

Thank You.

 

Brad's friend, It sounds like a lynch job. I do not believe Harlan had any thing to do with it. I would not put anything past the EC or some of the individuals that set on it, or have set on it in the past. Roger C.

 

I have heard people say bad things about Dave Schaefer in PA. What has he done that was so bad ? Or are people just jealous that they can't shoot as he does ? I HATE lynch mob people jumping on the bandwagon when they don't even know what the facts are. Was he given a chance to explain or just executed on site ?

 

Rog and Ice,

This is exactly what I am wondering...

Would like some FACTUAL info, that nobody seems to be able to fine out.

I'll go with Dave's interview as nobody else within the ATA seems to want to explain their actions.

Damn, I sure got disappointed in the EC over these past few years. Especially when I was told that I, and the annual members, "Would be informed on a need to know basis" several years ago.

Moral of that was Don't ask questions, because we won't answer them anyway.

I sure wish I could find that PM to me again...It may have even been on the OTHER site. I just cannot remember now.

 

Brad's friend, I talked to a friend about the problem, he heard that Dave got very angry and used some abusive language directed at the three people, and was not much of a gentleman. This is what I found out, I will wait for an official explanation as to what transpired. It's to bad, what a temper can do to a person. Roger C.
PS. As an after thought, maybe he was prodded into becoming angry. It could have been a set up, we may never know.

 

Brad's friend, all the documents should be available to the same people that posted the earlier letter. The complaint itself would lay out the accusations. Then there should be David's written reply to the complaint, which is the method available for him to present his side of things. I haven't seen any mention of that?

If there was some serious safety concern, the process can be accelerated, but otherwise, I believe he gets a copy of the complaint, has a time-frame in which to respond in writing with his version. Lacking that written response, it is unlikely to go in any accused's favor.

I believe he still might have some ability to ask for a review by the BOD, but you gotta read the bylaws, I'm not sure off the top of my head. That might take a year.

 

Does anyone else find it strange that this thread starts out: As per interview with Dave Schaeffer and the first sentence reads: DAVE SCHAEFFER told the story of the incident at the Pennsylvania State Shoot. So the rebuttal offered here against suspension is started by an interview with ONLY the accused person and does not include a version offered by the other side? Furthermore, obviously the ATA has investigated and found evidence of wrong doing and did make a ruling to suspend. Has Schaeffer ever disputed the ruling? IF the allegations and suspension are false why has he NOT sought legal relief? Witnesses to the incident tell a vastly different story than Mr. Schaeffer and his supporters are now telling. The ATA has explained their actions by specifically listing the violations committed and the specific rules violated. They need NOT comment further. And people would do well to remember the terms "liable" and "slander" and know and understand the definitions of and penalties for committing either one.

 

Bobby, I have not seen any evidence related to this site explaining the complainers reasons for their actions. I have not made a judgement about the situations. You have made it clear that having only the ATA actions are enough to judge the man guilty. I believe an eye witness stated that even after he supplied writen testamony in favor of Mr Schaeffers explanation of what happened the ATA never talked to him. Also I do not think the posters need you explaining the penalties for slander and liable. We are very well informed. One thing you should remember. There is nothing less appreciated than unasked for ADVISE.
You attitude on your first post on this site leaves a lot to be desired. Roger C.

 

You must NOT have talked to "Mr. Schaeffer" ..... I have, and he informed me he is .....

Unless you want some lessons in "liable" and "slander", I would highly suggest you learn to use the word "alleged" .....

Sure they do ..... don't be an ass .....

 

How long have you had that opinion?

 

I detest the saying "the ATA." Many of us are the ATA and "WE" will decide.

 

Looks like Mr. Shaeffer Jr. name has been removed from the AA standings. I thought that the penalty was to be applied going forward from the date of the decision was made and it should not affect his prior standings. Looks like a lawsuit coming. This decision will certainly affect Mr. Shaeffer finiancially.

 

The last time the ATA asked for our input they did the opposite of what we decided.

 

Union Strong, The rule change is dated 8-14-17. Is that before or after the problem at the PA. state shoot? Roger C.

 

Roger.......I think Union is making a joke. No such rules exists. I think that is the point.

 

Wow....Lots of things to address...First a disclaimer.. I have never met and would not know David Schaeffer if he walked up to me on the street. Have not shot with him so I don't know his demeanor on the line. He might be a great guy. So NO User 1 I have NOT talked to Mr. Schaeffer. Whether or not he is getting legal representation remains to be seen so that one is open. Also User 1 I have re read my post and find nothing where I slandered or libeled anyone so "alleged" does not fit there. AND, everyone in disagreement with the suspension needs to remember one very uncomfortable fact. When you sign your membership application for the ATA or most any other like organization it contains a provision that says you AGREE to abide by the rules and that INCLUDES a disciplinary procedure. Like it or not that is a fact.

Roger..Get spell check...the word you are looking for is ADVICE..and that you dislike my opinion is no concern to me thank you very much. For the record sir the last line in the above paragraph explains clearly that the ATA does not need to offer you or any other individual an explanation outside the written letter which contains the violations committed. Sad but true sir, those are the rules you and I agreed to abide by in signing our membership application.

Lima Shooter 50 I agree that WE make up the ATA and WE can impact what the organization is. However WE are not the executive committee empowered by the rules we agree to abide by which gives them authority to act. We may not like it and we may protest but they have the right under the rules.

Union Strong. Hello Brother...35 year member retired from the IAMAW here and proud to acknowledge that. How long have I have that opinion? From the very first time sir and brother that I signed my membership application. Don't always like it but I signed it.

It is troubling to me IF the shooter identified as Oscar wrote a letter in defense of Mr. Schaeffer IF as alleged here it was not investigated. Find that hard to believe but I guess it is possible. ALL evidence must be weighed. I WAS NOT THERE when the incident occurred. I have talked to people who were and I too have "heard" versions of what happened that are left out of Mr. Schaeffers interview version. It is ALLEGED and backed up by 3 people on the squad that Mr. Schaeffer did in fact threaten the female shooter. It is also ALLEGED to have happened by other witnesses close by. Notice I used the word ALLEGED because I freely admit I was not there.

It is a sad situation when things happen that result in suspensions. Our sport like all the shooting sports needs MORE shooters NOT LESS through disciplinary suspensions. How this shakes down is anyones guess. IF the ALLEGATIONS of threats are true that is a very serious thing that must have a ZERO tolerance policy attached.

Sorry for the length..I wanted to respond to everyone and everything addressed to me.

 

Read YOUR post again, you missed some things ......

"why has he NOT sought legal relief?" You state that as FACT, when you admit you have NO IDEA about his actions .....

"the ATA has investigated and found evidence of wrong doing" ...... again, please tell us your personal knowledge of the "evidence" ..... at this point it looks more like a "he said she said", than something I would want to post as fact.

IF ...... you have something to post about this OTHER THAN regurgitated "hearsay", please do. Or, be clear about stating opinions as such.

I would like to know what the "threat" was supposed to be. Because if a "potty mouth" is grounds for "suspension", "Phil Kiner" sure pushed the limits of that here with a post.

 

Uer 1 .....Again a disclaimer Sir...If I have poorly communicated and insinuated I have personal knowledge of what happened that is incorrect and I apologize. Many people here have stated they "heard" things so if that is the benchmark for inclusion and credibility in this discussion, I have "heard" things as well. And I mentioned that I "heard" direct threats or a threat were made. Those threats were heard by 3 squad members and other witnesses to the incident and that evidently was part of the basis I would assume for the ATA to have made the finding they did. I find it odd that you chastise me for this and leave other such comments unchallenged.

The ATA Executive or Disciplinary committee has investigated the complaint filed and deemed action was necessary. They have clearly stated the rules and sections found to have been violated so if you are looking for evidence why not look there? And again you/we may not like the rules at times but your membership in this organization is VOLUNTARY and in joining you agree to the rules and to be bound by them and the disciplinary process. That much sir is a clear fact that you have NOT addressed. Like it or not, that is a fact.

Vile and disgusting insinuations of impropriety against the complaintant are small minded garbage. The insinuation that Harlan Campbell, Sandy, company officials and or others were being protected by the ATA? Why have you NOT taken that accuser/accusers and statements to task sir?

 

Needless to say, I was there, discussed the incident with two of the complainants and suggested they pay Mr. Klinger a visit given the circumstances. I was wrong to believe no action would have been taken as I suggested. Obviously, these two individuals were rather upset by the actions of the defendant and Mr. Klinger immediately took action based on their testimony. I'm very familiar with both complainants and consider both outstanding individuals. Mr. Klinger was surely a man willing to take charge of this unfortunate situation.

Nonetheless, it's quite possible other criteria were used to pass judgement on the defendant. I doubt we'll ever know if it's true.

 

Mr. Ward,
Have you HEARD if Mr. Shaeffer was given an opportunity to defend himself before the EC?

 

I doubt most members of the EC would be willing to sit in the same room with Mr. Shaeffer Jr. if he was more than a bit upset.

 

Mike J,

Having never been subject to disciplinary action I have no knowledge of the exact procedure but past instances have always included the accused being asked his version of the incident. I have NOT HEARD as you have asked if this was the case with the accused in this particular incident. Certainly he has and should be offered the right to offer rebuttal. At the same time we must remember that membership in the ATA and other like organizations is voluntary and elective. Once you sign that application you are subject to the rules and policies defined within the rule booklet. On most cases and incidents the term used in the court systems, "due process" DOES NOT APPLY. Courts have ruled before that voluntary membership in organizations and agreeing to abide by the rules and policies defined within, does not include the right to seek legal relief from the courts. That was proven in the case of University of Illinois vs. NCAA, MUCH to our indignation, disgust and outrage. Bottom line in this case is Mr. Schaeffer should have been given the right to represent himself and make his side of the incident known. If that was not done then it is DEAD WRONG and his rights as a member are NOT well represented. There have been some very unfortunate and sleazy accusations made on this site through insinuation and that is JUST AS WRONG!

 

Because I do not take "insinuations" to "task" ...... "insinuations": "an unpleasant hint or suggestion of something bad" ...... https://www.google.com/search?q=insinuations&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I do "take issue" when people post "opinions/insinuations" that are intended to be taken by the reader as "fact" ...... "why has he NOT sought legal relief?" ...... is NOT an "insinuation" ......

Post away, give all the opinions you care to share, but expect a post like "And people would do well to remember the terms "liable" and "slander" and know and understand the definitions of and penalties for committing either one." ...... to be "chastised" ......

Just like posting ...... "Roger..Get spell check..." ...... then post "Uer 1" ......

 

I think I generally agree with your arguments if I understand them correctly. I am not a lawyer, but in any organization regardless of rules you cannot be unjustly discriminated against. It's the members who own the ATA. Officers serve the wishes of the members. If Mr. Shaeffer was suspended without a hearing that is discriminatory because he was not given the same opportunity as his accusers.

 

The ATA, or any other such organization, is not going to publically announce the details of the complaint. That would not be fair to the accused. If standard procedures were followed here, Mr. Shaeffer would have received a copy of the complaint, and he would have had the right to respond to the ATA in writing to provide facts to support himself. The ATA doesn't have to interview him, since he is required to respond to the complaint in writing if he wants his side heard.

Then again, he is certainly entitled to hire an attorney and address the issues outside of the ATA.

If you guys want the gory details, get a copy of the complaint and Mr. Shaeffer's written response from the source that provided the ATA sanction letter. The ATA is not going to reveal the details other than as worded in the sanction letter.

 

Put this "The ATA is not going to reveal the details other than as worded in the sanction letter." ...... with this "for alleged violations of disrupting the harmony of a shoot, unsportsman-like conduct, handling a gun dangerously and deliberately or carelessly violating gun safety precautions?" ...... and threads like this will "happen" ......

This, "disrupting the harmony of a shoot" ...... note the use of "shoot", not "squad". If you have never been on a "squad" with someone "disrupting the harmony", you are very lucky, or have never shot without a full "squad" ......

This, "unsportsman-like conduct" ...... ??? ...... where is that line crossed ??? verbal ??? physical ??? attitude ???

This, "handling a gun dangerously and deliberately or carelessly violating gun safety precautions" ...... IF a "steel based hull" gets "stuck" in the chamber, what does the "ATA" consider a "safe" way to handle this ????? and any way deemed "safe" could "disrupt the harmony" of a "squad" ......

So ...... "The ATA is not going to reveal the details other than as worded in the sanction letter." is BS doing nothing to prevent other members from doing the same, whatever the same is supposed to be .....

 

Bobby, I may have spelled the word wrong, but did you get the message it sent? Spelling may be your strong point, but reading comprehension does not seem to be one of your strong points. Roger C.
The ATA usually gives the person that is named in the complaint 30 days to respond. If no response then the complaint is to move forward. This has been the procedure that was followed normally. It apparently was side stepped in the case of Dave's actions.
The accused should always be given the right of confronting the testimony lodged against him or her. The state delegate is supposed to handle the letter penned by the accused, and forward it to the ATA for inclusion into the file. It seems all of the normal operating procedures were dispensed with in this case. This is a little suspect as to why was the normal procedure not followed. Roger C.

 

The infractions are not "alleged" at this point as far as the ATA matter is concerned. They investigated it, we have not heard whether Mr. Shaeffer took the time to respond in writing or not, and they made a decision. That means it is not alleged as far as the ATA matter is concerned.

Many seem to be raising issues of very poor behavior from years ago, and it is true they might have been violations also, but the difference is that it appears nobody filed a valid written complaint in those instances. In this case someone did take the time to write a complaint. ATA is forced to look into it into it at that point.

Hey, if there are new facts not brought before the EC, they may still be presented for reconsideration. Either be careful to follow the ATA's bylaw provisions or hire an attorney and work from outside.

 

I don't have time right now to respond to this thread, as I am at work, but will when i get home.

I did write a letter. I was never interviewed by the ATA, though I was on the squad, neither was Dave. I have read all 6 complaint letters, 3 of which were from shooters on the squad behind us, and none of them match. They are close, but have discrepancies. I did write a letter, I have no clue what happened with that letter. The ATA has never contacted me, ever, about this situation.

Thanks,

Osker Reynolds
08 13375

 

How is someone supposed to follow "the ATA's bylaw provisions" ..... when there is NEVER clear answers to any "infractions" ?????

Letting people know "after the fact" is a "piss poor" way of running anything ......

What was the "alleged" threat ????? "A mere threat that does not cause any harm is generally not actionable. When combined with apparently imminent bodily harm, however, a threat is an assault for which the offender might be subject to civil or criminal liability." ..... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Threats

How was the "removal of a stuck hull(s)" performed in an "unsafe manner" ?????

Was "Mr.Schaeffer", "disrupting the harmony of a shoot" ????? Or just one or more members on a "squad" by "his" choice of " stuck hull removal" ?????

The "ATA" DOES NEED TO ANSWER TO ANY CONCERNED MEMBER, or expect to be challenged in the "legal system" more and more, that has no winners regardless of any decision.

It should be very easy to explain the necessity of the actions, if there is clarity of the infractions .....

 

You follow the bylaws procedures by responding in writing within the time limits. If it does not go your way, gather additional info, such as Mr. Reynolds letter and send to ATA EC asking for reconsideration (make sure you read the bylaws for particulars on how you do this).

I'm not sure what you mean by "there is NEVER clear answers to any "infractions." If there are complaints of an "infraction" it is clear that you should respond within the time limit, in writing, with your side of the story. I don't think it matters what the infraction is, but if someone took the time to make a written complaint against you, you better respond to the ATA in writing as prescribed by the bylaws. Otherwise, they are going to make a decision without your input based on what they have been provided.

I don't buy for one second that Paul Shaw was part of a scheme to hang Mr. Shaeffer, so I'm not inclined to say he was railroaded when none of us here except Mr. Reynolds have read the complaints.

 

Does Trap & Field still print all the complaints and actions like they used to do now that the ATA owns them? I haven't subscribed to T & F since the kool aid site first went on line so I don't know the latest on this.

Bat this should be in your wheel house to answer, or maybe historybuff. Brad

 

How in the Hell can there be "your side of the STORY", IF there is a clear violation/infraction of rules/by-laws ?????

You break/violate, or not, "laws/by-laws/rules" ..... You DO NOT have a "story" that could/will change guilt .....

Here we go with Bull Shit from "Bat" ..... IF "Mr.Shaeffer" is guilty, so be it, but to suggest a "side of a story" is enough to prove guilt, shows your ignorance .....

Take your head out of the "ATA's ass" long enough to get fresh air ..... provide clear proof of the "violations/infractions" and "stories", "letters", "responding in writing within the time limits", or anything else can/will change guilt .....

 

Roger C, I did sir get your rather contentious message in reply to my thread which I thought was harmless but evidently you did not. My comments about slander and liable are definitely appropriate given the fact that some contributors here have mentioned names and some very nasty allegations in regard to them. When one does that he had better have solid proof to back it up. Sorry if you were offended.

Mike J, Sir we definitely agree on ALL points. Especially and specifically that every member involved whether he/she be accuser or accused deserves the right of fair and open hearing of that particular side of the issue. IF this is not done, no member is served well.

I guess what I don't understand here is that the ATA in its letter clearly outlines the infractions committed complete with the section of the rule book where these things may be found and yet some here continue to demand explanations and evidence of wrong doing. I don't know how it can be any clearer than providing the rules and codes used to determine the guilt or innocence.

If the accused feels he or she has been discriminated against or unfairly treated and wants to obtain independent legal representation then more power to that individual. What I do know is that when you join ANY organization and agree to abide by the rules of same, the courts often do not step in. In the case I quoted above, University of Illinois vs. NCAA, the courts refused to intervene because membership in the organization was deemed voluntary and as such the rules of the organization stood unchallenged. No telling what might happen here, I just hope it is a process that in the end is fair and equitable to all.

 

Brad,
I believe T & F has stopped printing the complaints and actions. They are listed in the minutes of the EC meetings. However, it apparently is the ATA's policy (Roberts Rules of Order) not to make the minutes public until approved at the subsequent EC meeting. Personally, I see no reason why the membership should have to wait 3-4 months to see the minutes. Most organizations, in the name of transparency, will issue an unofficial draft of the minutes asap after the meeting.

 

User 1, seems useless to try to carry a conversation with you.

If you don't think giving someone the right to present their side of the story is important, there is no helping you. The ATA will make a determination of whether any infractions occurred based on the information before them. The accused has a right to present his view of what happened, and that should be considered in the decision. Failing to properly present your case only serves to diminish your chances of success.

In this case we have seen neither the complaints nor the rebuttal, if any. All we know is the ATA found several infractions, and meted out punishment as they are charged with doing. The only thing shown in this thread is the decision letter, which properly informs the person of their decision and cites the bylaws provisions involved. It does not recap the details of the actions involved since those were already detailed in the complaint. It isn't the ATA's fault that Merlo has not posted the actual complaint. I do not believe they make any of these documents public in any manner other than the minutes of the meetings.

 

Mr. Shaw was the one who told Dave the details about the meeting. I wasn't there, but from what i was told, the vote went 3-2 in favor of suspension. Then passed a by-lw about the letter writing cra

The accused didn't have that right, in this case. They found infractions, based on collusion against a shooter. Only 3 of the 5 shooters on the squad were interviewed that day. How is that a thorough investigation?

 

The EC and BOD can be very biased on how they investigate maters. I can attest to that from experience. Who you are makes a world of difference with them and the state delegates involved. I was not the accused but the accuser. It involved more serious action than foul language and threats. It involved physical contact. And it was shoved under the rug. So do not think the EC is the lady holding the scales for equal justice for all. Roger C.

 

My only question is the second suspension. Where is it in the by-laws, rules, etc, that says that if you do not write a specific letter you can receive another suspension? What is the rule number? What is the name of the rule?

Note the letter does not say the 1st suspension will be made smaller. It clearly states there will be an additional suspension.

 

P-MX10,

I'm just pointing out the procedure, if they did not properly follow the procedure it should not be difficult to get it overturned or at least reconsidered. To the best of my knowledge, I have posted the required steps. Are you saying Mr. Shaeffer was not mailed a copy of the complaint, and that he was not provided an opportunity to respond in writing?

Everyone keeps talking about an interview of Mr. Shaeffer, but that is not what ATA is required to do, they are required to mail him a copy of the complaint, or based on your earlier post, complaints, and give him the opportunity to respond to them in writing within 14 days. That's it as far as dealing with the accused.

Mr Shaw is the Zone VP and therefore made a recommendation for the others to either agree, disagree, or amend. Barring some of Merlo's discoveries popping up, it is likely that nothing further will be known until the minutes of the meeting are released. Again, I do not believe Mr. Shaw would take any shortcuts in the matter.

The only situation that does not require all of this is a serious safety concern, and this does not appear to, nor from the letter ATA sent, sound like the case.

I don't follow your statement "Then passed a by-lw about the letter writing cra," are you sure of that? I have not heard of any such thing, other than Union Strong's post above which is obviously not something from the ATA. In addition, I don't think the EC has the power to make bylaws changes? Where did you hear that? It really does not make any sense simply because the EC is charged with determining punishment and is certainly allowed to require someone to write such letters, and they do it quite often. No need for a Bylaw change.

 

What happened as far as PSSA is concerned? Something was mentioned about them taking some action. That would be an entirely separate matter, what did they do?

 

It appears there is a hidden rule.

Bat, what is the code for the failure to send correspondence? Who voted for that?

 

I think I read elsewhere it was unanimous.

 

"Bat, what is the code for the failure to send correspondence? Who voted for that?"

Not sure what you mean by code? Requiring a letter be written as part of the punishment is something they do fairly often I believe. They all voted for it I would guess, but don't know till we see the minutes. If you don't comply with the terms of the punishment, they make the punishment more severe. We have seen that over the years as well.

 

MR. Shaeffer is banned from the PSSA grounds for 2 years.

 

You believe....but don't know? Just guessing? Trying to cover the butt of the corporation?

A new violation they voted for. "The letter violation"! A new by-law.

They aren't making the punishment smaller if he sends the letter. It is a new punishment. A new violation. Must be a new by-law that you say they voted for.

jmho.........looks like a 1st amendment issue.

And who is to judge the true remorse? Who else had this wording in a letter?

 

OK "Bat", lets have a "conversation" ......

I am asking you, "specifically", what is the "ATA approved" way to remove a stuck hull from the chamber of a SBT, an O/U, or a semi auto. Please be "specific", like "stop the squad and wait for the scorekeeper to assist" ..... And then please quote the "specific rule" one may violate by not doing so ......

With more and more people shooting "steel based" shells, it is going to happen to more and more people. So it would be a shame for many to be suspended for the sake of "equal treatment" .....

You have no interest in a "conversation", you have an interest in speaking "Bat" Bull Shit in a weak effort to always defend the actions of the "ATA" .....

So lets have this "conversation", starting with the question I "specifically" ask you .....

 

No FG, when I used the phrase "I believe," I was not guessing. I was stating my recollection of minutes where it was stated that the persons were required to write letters of apology. I did not go back and read any of them to refresh my memory, or how many times I had seen it, but it is a fact that they have used it on several occasions, which is in the minutes available for anyone to read. So, I "believe" they have used it "fairly often" since I have not gone back and actually counted the number of times it was used in the minutes.

User, there is no "ATA approved" method to remove a stuck hull. Obviously it should be done in a safe manner without disturbing the squad. As you are well aware, normal methods that I doubt would get you suspended include using a stick to push out the hull, using a tool to pry it out etc. We don't even know how much that issue played in this matter, since nobody has provided a copy of the complaints. More than likely this is going to be more about abusive behavior, but we don't know yet. That said, there are certainly some ways that would be disturbing, such as repeatedly sweeping others with the barrel, repeatedly making a lot of noise or movement while others are shooting etc.

 

Notice how this is all one sided and its the ATA that's wrong. And not the person involved.

 

"there is no "ATA approved" method to remove a stuck hull" ...... very good "Bat" ......

"We don't even know how much that issue played in this matter" ...... I can tell you, he told me directly, that is what started this whole thing in motion .....

Next question "Bat" ...... Would you continue shooting all of an "event", with someone you "thought" was "handling a gun dangerously and deliberately or carelessly violating gun safety precautions" ?????

FWIW ..... You can not bang the end of a barrel on something, and "repeatedly sweeping others with the barrel" at the same time ..... So, "specifically" when would you be "sweeping others with the barrel" ?????

 

In the interest of transparency the minutes will not be out for months.

 

Gee Bat. That should be easy. Just name one time. And tell me when it was not a separate suspension as it is the way this was written.

Just once Bat. Tell me the time you "believe". And don't get me wrong. This guy would not be invited to Thanksgiving dinner. But, neither would a few of the EC members.

 

Funny how a member was recently suspended two years for foul language around a scorekeeper but never offered the opportunity to reduce his suspension with an apology letter. In fact, the deceased PA delegate who recommended the two year suspension never believed the ATA would uphold his recommendation and would suspend the member only one year for the infraction. Obviously, it's not what you know but whom!

Heck, falsifying shoot records might only get you a pat on the butt-that's a given.

 

OK, they did it twice in the cases reported in the December 2016 minutes. In each case, the initial penalty was a requirement for an apology, and in each case additional punishment would be applicable if the shooter failed to make the apology.

I'm not sure where you get "separate suspension" from. In this case the penalty was 1 year suspension plus letters of apology, and if those terms were not met it would increase to two years.

The EC does mete out punishment including terms the shooter has to meet. If he does not meet those terms, additional punishment may be imposed. That's what they did here - one year suspension plus apology, increasing to two years if those terms are not met.

 

Are we done with our "conversation" "Bat" ?????? I don't blame you.

The "ATA" needs to do some serious "modernizing", or fold up ......

Look at this from your post number 81 ..... "give him the opportunity to respond to them in writing within 14 days" ..... Is that "calendar days" ????? "working days" ????? include or exclude "Federal Holidays" that "mail" does not move ?????

Things like this matter, if you spend years of your time, and thousands of your dollars participating at the highest level of the sport .....

 

Is the "ATA" now going to "mandate" all clubs shooting "registered targets" to provide "sticks and tools" at all "stations/posts and yardages", or require each shooter to provide their own ?????

I don't know about you, but a 36 inch "stick", or longer, in my pocket would bother me worse than the person shooting before me banging their barrel on the ground ......

Please be "specific" with your answer, I miss enough targets without having to worry about a "suspension" through lack of understanding ......

 

[QUOTE="User 1, post: 37458, member: 77

FWIW ..... You can not bang the end of a barrel on something, and "repeatedly sweeping others with the barrel" at the same time ..... So, "specifically" when would you be "sweeping others with the barrel" ?????[/QUOTE]

User, you asked me a question and I answered it. The question said nothing about banging the barrel on something, you asked what was the ATA's approved method for removing stuck hulls, which we both know is a ridicules question. I was answering about safely removing stuck hulls from a barrel, and a couple actions ATA would likely consider safe and unsafe or disrupting. I was not speaking of the shooter's actions involved in this case, since none of us here have seen the complaints. From what I have seen posted here, it seems to me the penalty is likely based more on actions and things said after the round was over, but that's just my feeling based on what I have read here.

What's the point of all this back and forth, you don't let up a bit about the ATA, but this involves two organizations. Is the PSSA made up of people that you think are just as bad as your opinion of the EC? If he is being railroaded, he has, or had, depending on whether there are any time limits involved, the opportunity to get new facts brought out and the suspension reconsidered. He also has the option to spend some money and move into the legal system, where others have had some success against the ATA.

This site has done a good job of getting the issue out there, I would expect the EC is well aware of this thread, and if additional facts could be brought forth and presented in accordance with ATA bylaws, there might be some progress.

In reply to you latest post above, no the ATA will not make such a requirement, they simply require safe gun handling, and if someone files a proper complaint, they will make a determination of whether they deem that particular action unsafe.

But it isn't serving anyone to keep discussing whether 14 days means calendar days or business days, or the definition of safe gun handling. Best to just let this ride itself out until the lawyers get somewhere.

 

In accordance to ATA bylaws, any decision made by the EC is final, and there is no appeal process. You can go in to the legal aspect, as you said Bat, but that's about all.

The timing is just too coincidental. Why let the man shoot the whole Grand, while all the VP's knew a suspension was coming; then travel to the Cardinal center, after watching him win the Kolar shootoff and saying nothing, just to be sent a suspension letter by email. That's about as cowardly as you could possibly be.

 

P-MX10,

I disagree with your point about it being final. There is a provision that allows new information, not previously before the EC, to be submitted and the suspension reconsidered.

As far as the timing, I have no idea if its too coincidental or not. The bylaws spell out the process they have to follow and the time for the various letters. The complaint comes in, is reviewed on its technical merits, is then forwarded for investigation, copy mailed to the member, wait for response from delegate doing the investigation, wait for member's written response, send Delegates suggestion to Zone VP, Zone VP recommendation forwarded to all EC, EC votes on Zone VP recommendation, ATA sends letter of the ruling to member. It does not happen overnight.