« NRA Board elections overall | Main | Computers and the law »
NRA bylaw changes
My ballot issue finally arrived, and it looks like a package of bylaw amendments is also being put up for a vote. Some people did a lot of work here.... a lot of them are simply going thru the bylaws and correcting errors that crept in over the decades. Some of the bylaws being amended date back to the Cincinnati reforms of 40 years ago, and in the intervening decades sometimes a something was changed without realizing that the change also affected another bylaw, that manner of thing.
There are substantive changes, too, and I rather like them. One bylaw required disclosure when a director did "any business" with NRA: that's amended to read when the director receives payments for goods or services. In the past, a lot of directors' disclosures involved disclosing that they or their firms had, for example, purchased advertising in the NRA publications. The disclosure requirement was meant to shed light upon any director's receiving funds from the organization, not upon his giving funds to it.
Some deadlines are created for the nomination process, which were quite needed. The number of signatures required to nominate by petition and to petition for removal of a director are expressed in terms of percentages of the vote cast in the last election, instead of being stated as a hard number. (A lot of these regulations date to 1977, when membership was 1/8 to 1/10 its current number).
Bylaw amendments will henceforth be made by mail-in vote of the entire membership; the procedure for amendment at the annual meeting (I don't recall if any have been made that way in the last 10-20 years) is removed.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
These changes were actually promoted by Neal Knox, years ago, per someone who has talked to his son, Jeff. There are groups organizing in an attempt to take over the NRA, funded by a certain New York billionaire, these changes are mostly targeted at limiting their ability to do so.
I strongly oppose this package of changes to the NRA bylaws, and encourage members to Vote "No!"
James, I'm not sure who your source is, but there is clearly an error on someone's part.
The changes currently being foisted upon us by the inner circle of the NRA Board of Directors is nothing like anything that my father ever supported.
Ken914 is spot-on in his assessment. This is an incumbent protection move, removing power from the members, and giving even more power to the Board.
David is correct that many of the changes are just housekeeping, and some of the other stuff could be justified, but this is an all-or-nothing proposal that would do serious harm.
The suggestion that Bloomberg is going to come in and take over the NRA - or stir up trouble by funding recall elections - is a straw man play. The formula they are suggesting would mean that only someone with Bloomberg's money could possibly orchestrate a successful recall or bylaw petition.
Currently the standard for a board nomination is 250 signatures, addresses, and member numbers of members eligible to vote. The "Voting Member" count currently stands at about 2.2 million, but historically, only about 7% of those actually cast a ballot. That percentage has gone down as NRA membership has gone up. In 2015, just over 5% cast ballots. Under this formula, that would mean about 575 signatures and ID numbers of eligible voters would be required. If the voting percentage goes up - as I suspect it will with this bylaw measure on the ballot - the signature requirement quickly becomes un-achievable. If 8% cast a ballot in this year's election, it would require about 900 signatures for a candidate to qualify for the ballot next year.
For recalls and bylaw amendments, the petition requirement would be 5% of the last election - meaning signatures starting at over 5,000 on the low end, and going up dramatically if more people participate. That's simply out of reach for normal people.
If you've never been involved in an NRA petition campaign, I can tell you that collecting 250 valid signatures - and all of the other required information - is not easy. 500 would be a significant challenge. Anything over 500 borders on the impossible - unless your Allen West or R. Lee Ermey with a huge online following willing to work for you.
This bylaw package should be rejected. It demonstrates what is wrong with doing everything through the mail-in ballot system. Most members will only see what information is published in the magazine, and it's likely that a majority will vote in favor of whatever the "leaders" suggest. No alternative views presented. No discussion or debate. They are taking the NRA right back to where it was before Cincinnati - but they are also closing all of the avenues that made Cincinnati possible.
Vote "No" on the bylaw proposal.
Jeff Knox
NRA Endowment Member
www.FirearmsCoalition.org
Thanks, for your input Jeff. I am doing some significant online research to select my members. I appreciate your approach and providing the information. There are some others out there that are significantly opposed to the signature requirement. As a person that could feasibly be interested in more involvement in the future, why would I make this harder for myself to participate.
If you are a voting member of the NRA (member for 5+ years or Life Member), read on.
The NRA made progress in the last few years evolving beyond the "fudd mentality". They are embracing black guns, suppressors, and all things that should be available to all to protect our life, liberty, and property. Unfortunately, the Board of Directors was not happy that one of their own hand-picked bubbas didn't get enough votes last year to be on the board.
So, the Board want to change the bylaws to give the board more power over it's membership.
- Item 8 of the bylaw changes moves to amend the section regarding nomination of directors by petition. They want to change the requirement that you get 250 signatures, to a requirement that you get a number of signatures equal to 0.5% of the votes cast in the previous election of directors. The practical effect? If more than 50,000 people voted in the previous election, you now need more signatures than the previously required 250 to get on the ballot. The NRA has over 5,000,000 members; 50,000 is 1% of that. So if more than 1% of the membership of the NRA votes, it just got harder to nominate people by petition.
If this is passed, the Board can assureed the nominating committee, made up of Board members, will have complete control of who can run for the Board from now on. The limp-wristed celebrities, hangers-on, and 2A do-nothings that fill so so soooo many seats on the Board will be safe from the NRA membership attempting to replace them with new directors who will advocate for a full understanding of the RKBA.
Remember, this is the same BoD that defended Joaquin Jackson until his death. What could go wrong if we just let them become a closed club who hand-selects their own successors?
- Item 12, the Board is attempting to completely remove the ability of the membership to change the bylaws by vote at a meeting, and in item 13 to make the process for petitioning for a by-law change to require an impossibly high 5% of the number of voters from the most recent election of directors. Let's say you can get that many voting members to sign a petition to amend the by-laws. Item 14 gives the board the power to unilaterally undo it.
The NRA Board is attempting a coup to seize all power of the organization away from the membership, and leave no foothold from which the membership could ever get it back. We're trying to drain the NRA Board swamp, and they're trying to make it 10 feet deeper.
If you disagree with these changes in what should be a member-driven organization, please vote no on the bylaw changes. Your ballot will be in the mail very soon.