by Adam Kraut
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Every year the Members of the NRA get to choose at least 25 Board Members by a Mail in Ballot. Occasionally, more than 25 seats are up for election when a sitting Board Member passes away or leaves the Board.
Most of the individuals who appear on the ballot are nominated by the Nominating Committee. A minority of candidates bother to run by Petition of the Members. Now that the new by-law changes have gone into effect, the number of candidates who successfully collected enough signatures is down 50% from the year prior (from 10 candidates to 5).
While we could have a long discussion about the merits of the Nominating Committee and the Petition of the Members, a bigger question arises. Should Board Members be able to constantly be re-nominated by the Nominating Committee or should they have to prove their worth to the Members at large?
It is also worth asking whether the candidates you elect and re-elect be required to show up to meetings. You would think if a candidate was elected to serve the Members they would attend meetings on a regular basis, unfortunately, this is not always the case.
The Roll Call from the Board Meetings that occurred from January 2015 – May 2017 show that some Board Members take their duty very seriously and attend all the meetings while others have not attended a single meeting in those three years.
And while some of the repeat offenders have excused absences, at what point should the lack of attendance outweigh the excuses?
So what does any of this have to do with the proposed by-law changes that I’ve introduced?
Term Limits
Allow me to explain. The first series of proposed changes would impose “term limits” on Board Members. This is a slightly different twist on it than a traditional term limit that you’d find with the President of the United States. Rather than setting a hard number which would stop a Board Member from running for reelection, the proposed change would limit the Board Members’ eligibility to be nominated by the Nominated Committee.
In essence, it would require the Board Members to prove their worth to the Members and if they wanted to run for a third or more consecutive term, they’d be forced to run by Petition of the Members. This would force the Board Members to subject themselves to the requirements that they instated for individuals who did not choose to or did not submit their name to the Nominating Committee. But if the Board Member is actively participating, proving their worth to the Members, the signature collection should be a fairly easy task.
Attendance Policy
The proposed changes would also impose an attendance policy. Penalties for nonattendance would include the loss of eligibility to be re-nominated by the Nominating Committee, assuming that Board Member was still eligible. I understand that sometimes life events beyond a person’s control happens. So I built in some provisions for excused absences that would not count against the Board Member. However, if the Board Member consistently seeks excused absences, they are no longer safe from the “penalty”.
Honorary Board
And for those of you who are concerned about your favorite celebrity or see the value in having individuals who are well known lend their name to the NRA, fear not. I also drafted a proposed change which would create an Honorary Board. The Honorary Board would be a place individuals who are well known but don’t have the time and/or desire to sit and participate on the governing board. This would allow the mutually beneficial relationship to continue, while freeing up a seat on the governing board for someone who wants to be active and participate.
The idea behind these proposed changes is simple. Let’s return accountability of the Board to the Members. After all, you vote for them, shouldn’t they be working for you?
To learn more about the proposed NRA By-Law Changes and to get the petitions visit www.adamkraut.com/nra-bylaw-amendments/
About Adam Kraut;
Adam Kraut is running for NRA 2018 Board of Directors & has proposed a Term Limit bylaw change that seeks to restore the Board’s accountability to NRA Members.
have requested a financial statement several times thru-out the years – nada. am intrigued with this glimpse into inner workings of the organization, thanks. I think a salary ceiling should be considered in addition to the term limits.
I am a benefactor member of the NRA but I also feel that they have become a good old boys club. Yes, they have done a lot of good for the promotion of shooting sports and have provided much needed money for clubs who have junior shooting programs. That being said I am fully aware that they are many time unwieldy and bureaucratic when it comes to aiding various competition programs and helping individual members who are being picked on by the media and government. There are too many hoops to jump through for many individual and club attempts to… Read more »
no, the ability to get on the board is not as tough as Adam states. it just takes work. and people like me who have been around since the 70’s review each entry and vote accordingly. i am not the “outlier” , we review the people. each person who votes has a chance to set the direction of the NRA, whether they choose to vote all females first, cops second, lawyers third or even all people with the first name of Don. the nominating committee gives you an extra star, the Attaboy Club membership, but the rest is up to… Read more »
Mr Ackerman, how mant times have you personally worked to collect signatures to run for the board? Also, with the last name Ackerman, any chance you are vested in Ackerman McQueen, the marketing and PR firm that actively benefits from their relationship with Wayne LaPierre and has a direct interest in Mr Pierre staying in power? It seems the best move for the NRA is transparency on who is getting paid what, term limits, and termiating the relationship with Ackermann McQueen to remove any conflicting interests and/or back room kickbacks Mr LaPierre and his fellow former Ackerman cronies in positions… Read more »
*** Wonder what this recent comment is like inside this perspective of readers ? Economics and security of US is quite different to Australia and monarchy. Part of the monarchist security plan is their usual misguiding the Australian people that any form of AKA “faction” can be allowed to exist in Australia with any “physical effect of force” or “publically outspoken ability”! A recent example of the British and Commonwealth governments security molding the minds of people and their perceptions and perspectives of citizen right is being advertised for the TV called “Romper Stomper”. It is in effect what the… Read more »
What does your “response” have to do with the NRA board? Sounds more like AltRight stuff to me.
ANSWER TO… What does your “response” have to do with the NRA board? It is not clear if Australia of Britain would be allowed a “registered firearm lobby” that bases its point of promotion of thought on the USA system of right to bear arms and the appropriate laws allowing defense of property and life and health with that. The tout of Australia and Britain on the issue of “firearms ban” is that all that were fair and choice by the people. Nothing could be further than the truth, Australia and Britain are a monarchy not so little as a… Read more »
Do the NRA board of directors get paid?
No. Reimbursed for expenses. In my 9 years I wound up ahead about 20 hats and a dozen pins. The Board is deliberately too large (76) to function in any effective management capacity. The EVP and Senior staff do as they please.
@OLP, Good to know. Tell us more. What is the resolution to the inefficiency problem.
Agree 110%. Do It. Particularly would like to remove those that don’t attend. Why isn’t a roll call published? The absentees would likely be voted out negating the need for an amendment.
Makes sense to me.
Sounds reasonable to me. Maybe this could decrease the number of times I see NRA/ILA statements and say, “What?”
This sounds like a good way to handle absenteeism