Do we have any really sharp NRA Bylaws wonks here?

[Diamondback]

Do we have any longtime members deeply active in NRA internal politics here? I have a spitball on something a lot of members are demanding but the Board appears to have no interest in, so I'm looking for someone who can help figure out how to make it a member petition. Or even just to do a Feasibility Assessment on it, or identify potential pitfalls.

In a nutshell, it's a proposal to over twelve years drawdown the NRA BoD from its current bloated 76 members to a healthier 13 (which is closer to the average for a Fortune 100 corporation). Nothing dramatic cutting heads, just every year the number of open seats for election get reduced by 3-4.


If anyone wants to take a run at this, here's what I worked up... from here on is copypasta.

An average Fortune 500 or even Fortune FIFTY corporation only has ten to fifteen directors. The NRA at 76 has more Board than five to seven of America’s largest companies COMBINED. So here’s my modest thought: Reduce the available seats to be won by 3-4 every year, until the total is thirteen seats (one NRAAM, four for 3-year terms every year). If reduction by four would produce an even-numbered total, reduce by three as needed to produce a minimum of four three-year seats with an odd-numbered total. When needed to ensure both these requirements are met an additional one-year seat shall be filled at NRAAM. Twelve years is long, but it’s intended to allow adjustment time for the expected growing pains.

I’ve divided the three-year term seats into three “classes” much like the US Senate, noted here a Groups A/B/C.

Yr 0 (aka how it works now = 76 (50 seated, 25 up for election + 1 at NRAAM) 25 A-25 B-25 C-1
Yr 1 = 73 (50 seated, 22 up, 1 NRAAM) 25 B-25 C-22 A-1
Yr 2 = 67 (47 seated, 19 up, 1 NRAAM) 25 C-22 A-19 B-1
Yr 3 = 57 (41 seated, 15 up, 1 NRAAM) 22 A-19 B-15 C-1
Yr 4 = 47 (34 seated, 12 up, 1 NRAAM) 19 B-15 C-12 A-1
Yr 5 = 37 (27 seated, 9 up, 1 NRAAM) 15 C-12 A-9 B-1
Yr 6 = 29 (21 seated, 7 up, 1 NRAAM) 12 A-9 B-7 C-1
Yr 7 = 25 (16 seated, 4 up , 1 NRAAM) 9 B-7 C-4 A-1
Yr 8 = 17 ( 11 seated, 5 up, 1 NRAAM) 7 C-4 A-5 B-1
Yr 9 = 15 (9 seated, 5 up, 1 NRAAM) 4 A-5 B-5 C-1
Yr 10 = 15 (10 seated, 4 up, 1 NRAAM) 5 B-5 C-4 A-1
Yr 11 = 15 (9 seated, 4 up, 2 NRAAM) 5 C-4 A-4 B-2
Yr 12 = 13 (8 seated, 4 up, 1 NRAAM) 4 A-4 B-4 C-1

If I had been feeling NICE and was willing to see the game go on for decades I would have proposed "reduce each Class equally". But I'm getting older and less patient and crankier, and the NRA ain't gonna fix itself, so part of my thinking is to force turnover and push the Wayne Weasels out faster.

[MikeBjerum]

I am not up on the information you are requesting, but there is a way to petition change or action.  I will leave it up to wiser people than me to answer.  However, I have also long thought the Board needs restructuring.

My understanding is that the Board is so large so that it makes sure all demographics are represented. It also includes big names, Ted Nugent being the most commonly pointed to, to promote interest and involvement.  However, the huge makeup makes action within the Board very difficult - Something the past leadership thrived on.

I would like to see the board whittled down to a smaller number, 13, 15, 11, ... However, I would also like to see a set number of elected members that serve on commissions that represent the different branches and activities of the Association. These commissions would guide their small part under the direction of the Board, they would report to the Board, and they would make recommendations to the Board.

[Diamondback]

Your idea of elected commissions has merit, and could also directly address one chronic malcontent's beefing about "unelected committee members."

Biggest thing is that sometimes I have blind spots to my own work's weaknesses, and I'm asking for thoughts on identifying and addressing them.

[Rastus]

The board must be chopped down to a reasonable number.  I believe the reason the board membership was increased was to cement political control. Much like the 20-50 million illegals who have flooded into our nation.  If the stated goal was to provide greater demographic representation that looks like slight-of-hand subterfuge to me.  You know...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.  There is no way we need more than a dozen board members. 

Instead of getting it down to say...9 or 11 (at most 13) in drips and drabs, do it all at once.  Get it done and move on.  If you have a couple of bad one's they will become readily apparent as there is nowhere to hide with a small number....unlike having a "school of fish" to hide in.  You can see the rot in the barrel if there are only enough apples in the barrel to see them all at once....with a full barrel you won't even notice the stinkers.

[Diamondback]

Faster reduction timetable, and my first thought... Again, "attrition via term expiration."

Yr 0 (now) - 25 A, 25 B, 25 C, 1 NRAAM = 76
Yr 1 - 4 A*, 25 B, 25 C, 1 NRAAM = 55
Yr 2 - 4 A, 4 B*, 25 C, 2 NRAAM = 35
Yr 3 - 4 A, 4 B, 4 C*, 1 NRAAM = 13
*Seats up for election this year

[Sponsor]

[Jim Kennedy-ar154me]

I correspond with Frank Tait. Would you like his address?

[PegLeg45]

The board must be chopped down to a reasonable number.  I believe the reason the board membership was increased was cement political control. Much like the 20-50 million illegals who have flooded into our nation.  If the stated goal was to provide greater demographic representation that looks like slight-of-hand subterfuge to me.  You know...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.  There is no way we need more than a dozen board members. 

Instead of getting it down to say...9 or 11 (at most 13) in drips and drabs, do it all at once.  Get it done and move on.  If you have a couple of bad one's they will become readily apparent as there is nowhere to hide with a small number....unlike having a "school of fish" to hide in.  You can see the rot in the barrel if there are only enough apples in the barrel to see them all at once....with a full barrel you won't even notice the stinkers.

100% this.

If they want anything close to demographic representation, I'd suggest regional zone reps similar to congressional districting....but on a national level.
Divide the country into six zones with two reps elected from each....thirteenth man is an 'at large' member.

[Diamondback]

I correspond with Frank Tait. Would you like his address?

So do I once in a while, he actually was a big help getting me sorted out when the NRA e-petition system didn't wanna let me sign.

Part of my motivation, I want to both fix what's broken and stick it to the guys who stuck it to him.

Another:

TERM LIMITS - No DIrector, having served three consecutive terms, shall be eligible for renomination or reappointment to the Board for a period of three years after the end of their third term.

[alfsauve]

This bloated representation happens and it causes paralysis.  In the case of US Congress it's by law, but in most other organizations it just happens because nobody thinks to keep it in check.   Of course once the Powers That Be, usually the big money, realize what has happened they're never going to let go of their power.  They utilize Whips, just like congress, to keep a majority of the members in line.  Even in churches this happens, the big donors usually run the church from behind the scenes.   I've witnessed it first hand in Methodist, Baptist, &  Presbyterian churches.

I'm in favor of a smaller BoD with geographical representation.  I think an odd number and they elect their own chairman from that.  The Executive staff only gets an advisory role, not a voting or tie breaking one.

[Rastus]

I really like the executive staff idea Alf. 

But, I'd ditch demographics.  I suspect that was all obfuscation to load the board to have friendly control.  Demographics...everyone gets to vote and if a demographic area feels wronged (is there a legitimate example of this happening?) they can concentrate their votes for representation.  If the ebb and flow of ideas and concepts is inhibited then create a mechanism that a demographic group can use to concentrate their votes.  Activism for a cause is a great way to get the word out and to make a paradigm change. 

I like the quick fix.  Something like, in 2026 we shall have 11 board members.  All terms and of the board of directors shall end on whatever date the voting and installation of 11 board members occurs...pick a day but pick it for 2026.  Put this behind us and move forward.  So now...if that is said their will be whiners about eliminating board seats...that identifies the ones who are not team players and helps me to decide who to vote for. 

When our board meets is it in one place face-to-face or online?  Who pays for the face-to-face meeting (which I favor)?  And those meetings may have to be a bit more frequent (online and face-to-face) to address issues.  That is what they are there for...to address issues and to provide overwatch of the administration.

I've gone into businesses we acquired because they were bloated, administratively handcuffed and self-serving to provide kickbacks and employment for friends and family.  "You have to have this, you have to have that, we tried it that does not work, you can't do that because of the rules" (stupid company rules for the most part that did not apply)....whatever....we kept the good people and turned money losers into money makers.  The businesses sold because they were in the red or about to be in the red and lacked the foresight and/or will to do the difficult things needed to make money...some were so far gone nobody would buy them and the banks took them over and everyone lost their jobs and perks. 

So...fix it now.  If 11 is not enough then you can change it.  If it is too many you can change it.  Pick a damn number and go with it.  Planning for the perfect solution that will blossom and last forever is a common fallacy since that solution does not exist.  Get out of the weeds, put movers and shakers in control (not complainers) and move on.  Throw the bums out when needed.

Now that is not to say their cannot be "complaints".  Obviously a gun control freak in the ranks will cause "complaints"{ and that is what should happen, "complaining" can be used to highlight and educate everyone to a problem.  But you need to have perception here to make a righteous call (i.e. use uncommon discernment) to identify the people who will keep their head down and work the problem...whatever that problem is.   Almost universally the motor mouths are the ones that need to go....just my observation and 2 cents.