NRA election coming up

[Mark Shuell]

Hi Seth,

If you can go to the January 29 issue of Ammoland.com, Jeff Knox has a good review of all the candidates along with his voting suggestions.

Best Wishes, Mark Shuell.

[326MOD10]

Originally Posted by Mark Shuell

Hi Seth,

If you can go to the January 29 issue of Ammoland.com, Jeff Knox has a good review of all the candidates along with his voting suggestions.

Best Wishes, Mark Shuell.

Not sure if you have been reading the entire thread but Seth doesn't have good things to say about Mr. Knox and recommends not voting for any of those candidates.

[326MOD10]

To Mr Haan.

Thank you for responding to my questions in the earlier post.

What is your roll currently in regard to the NRA?

I Google your name, as listed here, and get no returns. I don't see your name on the current ballot but I am unsure if you are on the B.O.D or your interest.

You have provided some insider insight so it makes me curious as to where this knowledge was gained. I like to vet the sources of information when it is an important issue, which this clearly is.

Thanks for your response and the info already provided.

[rockquarry]

Originally Posted by 326MOD10

To Mr Haan.

Thank you for responding to my questions in the earlier post.

What is your roll currently in regard to the NRA?

I Google your name, as listed here, and get no returns. I don't see your name on the current ballot but I am unsure if you are on the B.O.D or your interest.

You have provided some insider insight so it makes me curious as to where this knowledge was gained. I like to vet the sources of information when it is an important issue, which this clearly is.

Thanks for your response and the info already provided.

This is not the only forum he's spreading his alleged impassioned beliefs on.

[SethHaan]

Originally Posted by 326MOD10

To Mr Haan.

Thank you for responding to my questions in the earlier post.

What is your roll currently in regard to the NRA?

I Google your name, as listed here, and get no returns. I don't see your name on the current ballot but I am unsure if you are on the B.O.D or your interest.

You have provided some insider insight so it makes me curious as to where this knowledge was gained. I like to vet the sources of information when it is an important issue, which this clearly is.

Thanks for your response and the info already provided.

I've been following board politics for some time.

[Mark Shuell]

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a candidate for the NRA Board. I have been endorsed by Jeff Knox in his Ammoland article. Last year I met and spoke with the “Four for Reform” candidates. They are dedicated to making the NRA as best as it can be. I also met many of the Directors who have been on the Board for a long time. The phrase “Asleep on their feet” comes to mind.

[Old 44 Guy]

I have been a Lifer since 1961. Voted in every election. I know the Anti's would like the NRA to go away. But I don't think so. WLP did us dirty. But a new Heston will appear. I will study up on the new candidates before voting this time.

[STCM(SW)]

I have been a life member since 1972.
I still see nothing but confusion on who I should vote for.....
Last year I voted for the 4 reformers and they won.
Some clarification would help....

[tomahawk223]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

What about the amend proposal? Yea or Nay?

I was wondering the same?

[bedwards]

My understanding is yea prevents another lawsuit from NY, but I only read it in one place.

[326MOD10]

Originally Posted by STCM(SW)

I have been a life member since 1972.
I still see nothing but confusion on who I should vote for.....
Last year I voted for the 4 reformers and they won.
Some clarification would help....

Only you can decide on who you think you want to vote for.

With that said here is the Post #'s for the links to the three different groups who are saying "vote for me".

In this thread under Post #1 is a link that will take you to a group that is calling itself NRA 2.0, The Reformers.


Under Post #28 you have a group who someone who follows the NRA Board of Directors, signed up under the name of Seth Haan is promoting. The link will take you to their information.

Under Post #30 is a link that will take you to the preferred picks from Jeff Knox. Mr. Knox is who came on this forum and recommended the four that were voted in last year under reforming the NRA.

Some of these groups have overlap of people, where the same person may be in more than one group.

Hope this helps but the choice is really yours.

Sorry for the letter coloring mess.

[ladder13]

Ballot filled. Thanks for the clarity.

[pmanton]

How about an opinion on the individuals recommended on the full page following the ballot. The page is titled "www.ElectANewNRA.com"
This is the Feb Rifleman.

[326MOD10]

Originally Posted by pmanton

How about an opinion on the individuals recommended on the full page following the ballot. The page is titled "www.ElectANewNRA.com"
This is the Feb Rifleman.

They would be the group listed in Post 1. At least in my magazine.

Also, that group is half in front of ballot and half behind. The ads look the same and are one group.

If you read above you get 3 opinions for 3 different groups. You will need to sort through and decide which group, or individuals, you feel aligned with.

Main thing Is if you want to be heard vote.

[Mark Shuell]

Since I’m one of the candidates for the NRA Board of Directors, I’m going to jump in here with some personal information. I have deep experience in both firearms and finance. I’ve been a NRA-ILA Frontlines Activist Leader for 3 years. Last year I was named the NRA-ILA Jay M. Littlefield Volunteer of the Year. I did stints in the Accounting Departments at both General Motors and Dow Chemical. I spent 36 years as a Financial Advisor, Certified Financial Planner, and Branch Manager at Raymond James Financial and Ameriprise Financial. The NRA has suffered financial malfeasance by Wayne LaPierre and his cohorts in the past. Many of the existing Board members were either complicit of asleep on their feet. Neither is acceptable. My financial BS detector is extremely well developed. I promise this: As a Director, I will always have the best interest of the membership as my top priority. Best Wishes, Mark Shuell.

[ladder13]

You have at least one vote ^^^^^^

[Warren Sear]

I am an NRA Life member. I have been a member since about 1980.

I just voted in an NRA election for the first time ever, thanks to the efforts of the OP.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by Mark Shuell

Since I’m one of the candidates for the NRA Board of Directors, I’m going to jump in here with some personal information. I have deep experience in both firearms and finance. I’ve been a NRA-ILA Frontlines Activist Leader for 3 years. Last year I was named the NRA-ILA Jay M. Littlefield Volunteer of the Year. I did stints in the Accounting Departments at both General Motors and Dow Chemical. I spent 36 years as a Financial Advisor, Certified Financial Planner, and Branch Manager at Raymond James Financial and Ameriprise Financial. The NRA has suffered financial malfeasance by Wayne LaPierre and his cohorts in the past. Many of the existing Board members were either complicit of asleep on their feet. Neither is acceptable. My financial BS detector is extremely well developed. I promise this: As a Director, I will always have the best interest of the membership as my top priority. Best Wishes, Mark Shuell.

Well, Jeff gave your post a like so I know my vote for you was a good one. Hope you win and team with the others to get the NRA back on the path.

[JeffKnox]

Sorry for the delay getting here guys. Always too much to do.
As others have previously posted the link to my Endorsement Article at Ammoland, here's a link to my Author Page where you can see all of my articles going back years, including this year's endorsements and a recent compare and contrast piece on what the "Old Guard" Directors say, and what the jury said.
Jeff Knox
To summarize my thoughts on voting this year, and answer some of the questions that have been posed in this thread, here's my take:
Wayne LaPierre and his pals didn't engage in their chicanery in a vacuum. They had help and the helpful, willful ignorance of a 76-member Board of Directors. For that reason I am very bearish on all incumbents who served during the corruption, and very bullish on most of the new candidates.
The Old Guard made it pretty easy on us this year by purchasing an ad in the ballot issue of the NRA magazines, one page before the ballot package. It's mostly black and white with a list of candidate names in red letters. This is very convenient because most of these folks comprise almost all of my "Don't Vote For" list this year. Just by making sure you don't vote for any of the incumbents listed in that ad, you're 90% of the way to voting for a stronger, more effective NRA.
That's almost everything you need to know to vote this year. The incumbents in that ad were there for the corruption and either were complicit, directly culpable, or culpable by negligence.
They now claim that "they didn't know" and fixed everything as soon as they found out... But they also defended Wayne LaPierre for the next 5 years at a cost of nearly $200 million from NRA coffers. They were part of the problem, and whether they have been part of the solution or not, it's time for them to go.
If you're interested in a deeper dive, read on.
There's another ad in your magazine from the "Reformers" (NRA 2.0, ElectaNewNRA.com). It's a color 2-pager that sandwiches the ballot package.
I mostly support the candidates listed in that ad, just as I mostly oppose the candidates in the other ad.
There are also some (7, I think) unaffiliated candidates that don't appear in either ad, but are included in the Bios before the ballot, including Mark Shuell, who has posted in this thread and who I really like and endorse.
I have no issues with any of the other non-affiliated candidates and urge you to consider them all.
The NRA 2.0 folks have 28 candidates on their list, including two people they're asking you to write-in. Most of the people on that list are NEW candidates who have never been on the NRA Board. I am endorsing ALL of those NEW candidates.
There are also 10 incumbents on the list: Four who were first elected in 2022, so they came in late in the trial and weren't really part of the problems. I endorsed all four: Al Hammond, Cathy Wright, Charles Hiltunen, and Mitzy McCorvey.
Another four have been on the Board a bit more than one term and I'm not endorsing those four: Anthony Collandro, Paul Babaz, Todd Ellis, and Jim Wallace, but I'm not opposing them either. Look them over and you decide.
Finally, there are only two candidates on the list who have been on the board for more than six years: Willes Lee (first elected in 2016 or '17, and Jim Porter, first elected in 1989. Porter is also a past president (as was his father). Since these two were on the Board during the corruption and the cover-up, I can't endorse them and actively oppose their reelection, even though they have both repented their pasts and have been actively working with reformers since 2024. Sorry, too little, too late, in my book, but your mileage may vary.
The ad, from the StrongNRA.com group is headlined by current President Bob Barr, who has been on the Board since 1998. It also includes past Presidents Sandy Froman (first elected in 1992), John Sigler (first elected in 1996), and Ron Schmeits (first elected in 2000). The incumbents are rounded out by Senator Larry Craig (first elected in 1983), Carol Frampton (first elected in 1998), Dwight Van Horn (first elected in 1998) Joel Friedman (first elected in 2005), Tom King (first elected in 2007), and Blaine Wade (first elected in 2016), as well as two short-term incumbents, Danny Stowers, and Isaac Demarest, both first elected in 2022.
I strongly oppose ALL of the long-term incumbents, and am unenthused by the short-term incumbents.
The StrongNRA.com list also includes four new candidates who I'm mostly ambivalent about. I'm a little concerned about the two from Arizona, as there are already 6 or 7 Directors from Arizona, and I tend to think both of these were recruited by Sandy Froman, who is a very nice, very sharp, and very persuasive person, who was all-in for Wayne, and has been on the wrong side of NRA issues pretty consistently for decades. I just worry that the two new candidates from Arizona, Sharon Callan and Jeff Fleetham might be unduly influenced by Sandy. I could be wrong. While I've met both, I know neither one well.
The final two candidates on the StrongNRA.com list are also the last two new candidates, Lawrence Finder and Charles Rowe. Both have impressive credentials and could potentially be excellent additions to the Board. Again, my only concern is whose advice they might be predisposed to listen to, but I urge you to consider all NEW candidates, regardless of who endorses or promotes them.
That's it. That's my recommendation: Vote for the new folks.
As a practical matter, I suggest going through the bio's in the ballot package and marking them in accordance with which ad they're in or one of my endorsement articles. I think I've identified all of the incumbents, just in case they don't tell you in their bio's. Then number your choices working up to 28, remembering that the two write-in candidates won't be listed in the bio's. Whatever you do, DO NOT VOTE for MORE THAN 28!!!
That will result in your entire ballot being thrown out.
Other matters:
Several have asked about the size of the NRA Board. The argument opponents of reducing the Board keep putting forward is that a smaller Board would make it impossible to do all of the critical committee work that Board members currently do. Some have also argued that having a large board is important because there will always be celebrities, politicians, and big donors who will seek and win seats on the Board, but who aren't interested in rolling up their sleeves and doing the work, so a bigger board is needed to make sure there are always enough worker bees to get the jobs done.
The last argument I've heard is that a smaller board would be easier for a small faction to take over and rape the NRA.
I think all of these arguments are idiotic and myopic.
My proposal for years has been a Managing Board of about 9 members, combined with an "Advisory Board" or "Advisory Committee" of 50 to 75 members, predominately elected from states or regions by NRA members in those states or regions. These delegates would handle most of the committee work and advise the Managing Board on all issues. They would also serve as the Search Committee for executive positions and for candidates to serve on the Managing Board. I also think this body should appoint or elect the Managing Board members, rather than leaving it to a easily manipulated popularity contest among the membership.
The final component of my plan is an "Honorary Board" (call it whatever you want) that is populated by celebrities, politicians, and big donors. It gives them a place of honor and respect, without being mixed up in the work of making the sausage.
I also saw questions about Directors being compensated. No Director is currently being paid by the NRA. We all serve as volunteers. Only a few ever received payments for consulting, personal appearances, speeches, and things like that, and there's non of that going on now. We've instituted a stricter conflict of interest and related transaction policy that covers almost any questionable activity you could think of. I think some folks go a bit too far in wanting to forbid any sort of financial transaction between the NRA and a Director. There are some transactions that might be beneficial to the NRA and fair to the Director, but all of them should be carefully scrutinized and approved in advance, then duly reported to the membership. For instance, if I wrote a review of a new gun for American Rifleman at normal rate (same as they pay their other writers), got some ammo donated from an ammo company, and was able to purchase the now-used gun at a discount, as is often offered to writers, would that be a corrupt deal? I've pledged not to take pay for any article for NRA publications, just to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but Bart Skelton, Jeff Cooper, and Neal Knox were paid for articles while they were Directors, and I don't think there was any undue influence involved in any of those cases. Scrutiny and transparency are the keys.
As to the rantings of SethHaan, it's apparent to me that he/she has not actually read very much of what I've written about the NRA, instead relying on what others, who also don't actually read my articles, have said about me.
The one thing I will call him/her out on is the nonsense about wanting to "fire our lawyers while we were still in litigation."
While I advocated for replacing the Brewer law firm, probably as far back as 2019, the only vote on anything close to that was a vote calling for the dissolution of the Special Litigation Committee at the September 2024 Board meeting. At that point, the trial was over, and we were just negotiating the remedies to put before the judge as he prepared to issue his final order. In fact, the Board voted on most of those remedies and the judge eventually accepted all of them, I think. Had we prevailed in our effort to dissolve the SLC, that would have returned the authority for hiring and firing lawyers back to the Executive Vice President and CEO, Doug Hamlin. I think he would have as rapidly as prudently possible, severed ties with Brewer, and either brought in new counsel to handle those last few filings, or more likely, turned it over to the NRA's in-house General Counsel and the officers to manage. Doing this would have ended up with the exact same results, but would have saved several million dollars over the following three months. But it should be pointed out that this would have been at the discretion of Doug Hamlin. If he saw a problem with removing Brewer, he wouldn't have taken that step.
Finally, I would challenge Seth Haan to provide any specific instance of anything I've written that is demonstrably false, twisted, misleading, or even mean-spirited.
I've written almost weekly columns for over twenty years now, only slowing down my pace a little for the past two or three years. All of that writing represents a very wide swath of my brain laid out on paper or pixels. I dare anyone to actually read that body of work, or even just my articles discussing the NRA, and conclude that I'm a "bitter old man" just grinding an axe over an old grudge. There's occasional anger, and a whole lot of frustration, but you won't find pettiness or bitterness anywhere, at least not more than a small pinch here and there when things got personal, but hey, I'm only human.
Sorry for the long rant guys, and my absence.
I'll try to keep this tab open on my machine and check-in here regularly for a while, in case there are any other questions or concerns.
Oh, one last thing. We've finally gotten a system for Board members to be able to review NRA documents online, and we're working toward a forum site where members can get regular reports, access documents like our Bylaws, and interact with directors in a forum-type structure. I don't expect this to happen soon, but we are working on it.
Thanks for caring. Please VOTE!
Onward --
Jeff

[somorris]

Thank you, Jeff. A lot of us have already voted, but I suspect a lot of us were waiting/hoping for your input. I appreciate your time and response! I hope not unfortunately, I used the list from ElectANewNRA based on a recommendation from Amanda Suffecol. Thanks again for your input. We want the NRA reforms to succeed!

[SethHaan]

In his post # 69 above, Jeff Knox makes a number of misleading statements in his attempt to convince you to vote for his recommendations.

First, he recklessly blames all NRA board members for the fraudulent acts that were deliberately concealed by certain NRA executives who are no longer at NRA. He completely omits the fact that those fraudulent acts went undiscovered by three different, independent, outside auditing firms under contract to NRA over a period of time. If the professional auditors missed the fraud, how can the board members be faulted?

Knox tries to minimize the fact that the NRA Board acted quickly to stop the fraud once it was discovered and immediately put reforms in place. But the Judge in the New York case acknowledged and credited these and other reforms made by the Board when he dismissed the NY AG’s demand to dissolve NRA and again when he dismissed her fallback demand to appoint a monitor to oversee NRA and again when he issued his final judgement recognizing additional reforms made by the NRA Board of Directors.

Knox claims, without any factual basis whatsoever, that the NRA Board of Directors defended Wayne LaPierre at a cost of nearly $200 million. This is simply not true. He just pulled that number out of thin air without a shred of evidence.

Knox shows what he thinks of you with his opinion about the size of the board and how it would be elected. Jeff says the current NRA Board is too big at 76 members. But then he says he wants NRA to have a “managing board” of about 9 members, combined with an “advisory board” of 50 to 75 members. So, Jeff wants to replace a 76-member board with a 59 to 84-member combined board, because a 76-member board is too big. Get it?

Jeff says he wants the “advisory board” to be elected by the NRA membership. But he doesn’t trust you, the NRA membership to elect the “managing board”, because he doesn’t want to leave that important election to “an easily manipulated popularity contest among the membership”.

Go back and read what he wrote in his post #69 above. He doesn’t trust you to vote “properly”

He wants you to follow his recommendations for whom to cast your vote, but he doesn’t trust you to vote for his “managing board”. Instead, he wants his “advisory board” of 50 to 75 members to elect the “managing board”.

But there’s more. Jeff also wants an “honorary board” of who knows how many members, populated by celebrities, politicians and big donors!

But the current 76-member board is too many, Jeff says.

Moving on, Jeff Knox did indeed advocate for firing NRA’s attorneys right before the big board meeting where NRA’s attorneys worked with the NRA Board of Directors all day and night until after midnight, to hash out NRA’s position on the critical final negotiations for the conclusion of the New York case. In fact, Jeff Knox voted to eject NRA’s attorneys from the room just before that big meeting began.

After this meeting, and over the next 60+ days, NRA’s attorneys prepared and filed extensive briefings, arguments and documents with the court, setting forth NRA’s position for final judgement and opposing the New York Attorney General’s harsh demands for restricting NRA’s freedom to conduct business. NRA’s attorneys also appeared in court and argued NRA’s case before the judge.

And Jeff tries to pass this off as just a minor issue, not requiring NRA’s battle-hardened attorneys.

For Jeff Knox to suggest that NRA’s attorneys could have easily been replaced by newly hired attorneys on such short notice is wildly unrealistic and it is doubtful that the judge would even have allowed it to occur at such a late date in the trial.

For Jeff Knox to suggest that NRA’s attorneys could have easily been replaced by NRA’s in-house counsel and NRA officers is even more ridiculous because none of these individuals is licensed to practice law in New York.

But once again, Jeff thinks you won’t notice as he continues to make misleading statements.

I suggest that you completely ignore Jeff Knox’s voting recommendations because they are based on misleading statements and unsubstantiated accusations. Instead, take your time and read what the candidates have to say.

I leave you with the following link that reports what the NRA Board of Directors has done to make NRA stronger and more effective now that the New York trial has ended.

NRA Board of Directors Election & the Future of NRA, Comments By Bob Barr, NRA President

[Matt_X]

Whomever you are "Sethhaan", you're just digging a deeper hole with every post you make.

[lkabug]

Seth Haan.

You say the "NRA Board acted quickly to stop the fraud once it was discovered and immediately put reforms in place."
When did the NRA BOARD first discover "the fraud"? What month, what year?

[SethHaan]

Originally Posted by lkabug

Seth Haan.

You say the "NRA Board acted quickly to stop the fraud once it was discovered and immediately put reforms in place."
When did the NRA BOARD first discover "the fraud"? What month, what year?

It's all in the trial testimony, you'll have to check the trial transcripts.

[woodsltc]

Originally Posted by 326MOD10

To Mr Haan.

Thank you for responding to my questions in the earlier post.

What is your roll currently in regard to the NRA?

I Google your name, as listed here, and get no returns. I don't see your name on the current ballot but I am unsure if you are on the B.O.D or your interest.

You have provided some insider insight so it makes me curious as to where this knowledge was gained. I like to vet the sources of information when it is an important issue, which this clearly is.

Thanks for your response and the info already provided.

Originally Posted by Matt_X

Whomever you are "Sethhaan", you're just digging a deeper hole with every post you make.

Originally Posted by lkabug

Seth Haan.

You say the "NRA Board acted quickly to stop the fraud once it was discovered and immediately put reforms in place."
When did the NRA BOARD first discover "the fraud"? What month, what year?

It appears to me that Seth Haan (if that's a real person) may have some "splaining" to do. Interesting read below: Don

Who Is Seth Haan Really? -

[Matt_X]

Interesting sleuthing.
Take a look at the other thread he(it?) started here.

[JPR9954]

Originally Posted by woodsltc

It appears to me that Seth Haan (if that's a real person) may have some "splaining" to do. Interesting read below: Don

Who Is Seth Haan Really? -

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" - Sir Walter Scott

[lkabug]

Originally Posted by SethHaan

It's all in the trial testimony, you'll have to check the trial transcripts.

Thank you.
I didn't really expect that you would provide any answers.

[Goldstar225]

OK Seth, if not 200 million, how much was spent defending WLP and his cronies?

[STCM(SW)]

I voted and not for 28 people....

[SethHaan]

Originally Posted by 326MOD10

To Mr Haan.

Thank you for responding to my questions in the earlier post.

What is your roll currently in regard to the NRA?

I Google your name, as listed here, and get no returns. I don't see your name on the current ballot but I am unsure if you are on the B.O.D or your interest.

You have provided some insider insight so it makes me curious as to where this knowledge was gained. I like to vet the sources of information when it is an important issue, which this clearly is.

Thanks for your response and the info already provided.

I have no roll with NRA. I speak only for myself.

I'm not on the ballot or Bod. My interest is to see NRA regain its strength and influence to protect the Second Amendment and provide programs for the membership.

[Krogen]

Originally Posted by SethHaan

I have no roll with NRA. I speak only for myself.

I'm not on the ballot or Bod. My interest is to see NRA regain its strength and influence to protect the Second Amendment and provide programs for the membership.

You tell us who/what your aren't. Tell us who you are. Why should we believe or trust your observations? You have zero credibility because you don't give any credentials. A quick search on the 'net shows nothing about a person named "Seth Haan." So who the heck are you? Personally, I think you're hiding under a pseudonym and are here, and on other forums, just to stir things up.

[Matt_X]

I draw the same conclusion as @Krogen

Originally Posted by SethHaan

I have no roll with NRA. I speak only for myself.

I'm not on the ballot or Bod. My interest is to see NRA regain its strength and influence to protect the Second Amendment and provide programs for the membership.

This morning you pop in and choose to only to answer the same question from 2/2 that you answered before.

Originally Posted by woodsltc

It appears to me that Seth Haan (if that's a real person) may have some "splaining" to do. Interesting read below: Don

Who Is Seth Haan Really? -

Originally Posted by SethHaan

It seems that the trigger pull on many S&W pocket revolvers is very heavy. Can this trigger pull be lightened with just the replacement of springs?

It seems to me this question was generated by someone who did google search fishing for an ice breaker.

[ladder13]

SETHHAAN is really helping Jeff and the reformers, we should thank him.

[woodsltc]

Originally Posted by SethHaan

I have no roll with NRA. I speak only for myself.

I'm not on the ballot or Bod. My interest is to see NRA regain its strength and influence to protect the Second Amendment and provide programs for the membership.

Wayne, Wayne .....Wayne LaPierre...is that you???


Don

[JeffKnox]

I don't want to take over your forum with more "He said -- He/She/They said," but I do think some of these things need to be answered.
First the $200 million dollars figure.
Yes, I was a bit cavalier and imprecise in my wording above. The $200 million figure is an approximation of what the NRA has paid to Brewer Attorneys and Counselors (plus the bankruptcy attorneys Brewer recommended) over the course of the past several years, with the bulk of that money going toward things related to the overall Wayne LaPierre scandal. I lumped it all together into "protecting Wayne," and that's not perfectly accurate.
YES, I absolutely blame the NRA Board for "fraudulent acts" that were concealed from them by bad actors.
It was their job to know.
What Seth conveniently leaves out is that it was Wayne and his hand-picked attorney who were leading up the course corrections and the righting of the ship, while the Board continued to follow him around like puppies. Seth says repeatedly that the Board took corrective action as soon as the "fraudulent acts" were discovered...
Corrective actions and changes began in 2018, mainly involving demands that NRA vendors provide more detailed invoices for some of their charges, and snowballed from there. But throughout all of that, including after the major expose' was published in The New Yorker detailing much of LaPierre's chicanery, and the subsequent revelations of specific spending from Ackerman McQueen, including the $270k on suits from Beverly Hills, the luxury apartment for the beauty queen intern, and the private jet travel to the Bahamas and around the country, Wayne was kept in charge!!! Whistleblowers were fired, driven out, attacked, and ignored. Directors who asked inconvenient questions were ostracized and pushed off the Board, even Ollie North, who Wayne had begged to quit his million-dollar job with FOX News to take a position with Ackerman McQueen so he could become the President of the NRA, was accused of extortion and an attempted coup for suggesting that Wayne should step down, all while Wayne and his lawyer remained firmly ensconced.
Wayne was never fired from the NRA. He was never asked by the Board to step down. He was repeatedly reelected to the EVP position, even as all of this damning information kept being uncovered and verified. When someone actually had the cojones to nominate Allen West as an alternative candidate to run against him for EVP, only 2 or 3 Directors voted for West, while the vast majority voted to keep Wayne in control.
They didn't know... How stupid do they think we are?
I invite interested readers to go back and read my articles before and during this whole mess, where I pointed out details of the chicanery, laid out options for the Board to respond, and offered predictions on what would happen based on that response. Right after the 2019 Members' Meeting, I said the Board had two choices: Get rid of Wayne and clean up their act, with apologies to the membership and thorough, transparent audits, OR circle the wagons around Wayne and keep circling right down the drain. You know what they chose. (But they didn't know!)
I repeatedly argued that the NRA's position in court should be "We were the victims!" I called for them to do a thorough internal investigation/audit, identify the dirty-work, dump the perpetrators, and claim victim status, but instead they chose to keep insisting that the whole thing was just politically-motivated attacks and sour grapes. The best they could muster was the admission that "some mistakes were made," while continuing to insist that Wayne had done nothing wrong.
The first time I heard any claim from the NRA or their lawyers that they were "victims of a few unscrupulous executives and vendors," was during the actual jury trial in February 2024, almost 5 years after this whole mess was exposed.
But you see... They DIDN"T KNOW!!!
Regarding reducing the size of the Board.
I've given this issue considerable thought over many years. My objective is accountability with checks and balances.
After watching the way things work in the NRA, I've seen too often how the game is played. The vast majority of NRA members don't vote in NRA elections. They either aren't paying attention, don't think they know enough about the candidates or issues to be of any value, or they just don't see it as very important. Among the 5% to 7% who do vote, the vast majority get almost all of their trusted information about NRA matters from NRA magazines. Only a very few are paying attention to outside voices like mine, and most of the big gun publications have always been to afraid of offending the wrong person to wade into NRA politics, which means that whoever controls the NRA magazines, has the potential to control NRA voters. While we all hope the magazines would remain neutral and fair, that has not been the case historically. Also, a vendor who is receiving millions of dollars from the NRA, has a vested interest in making sure that the people who keep those millions flowing, remain in power, so they are often willing to spend some money to keep the taps open.
That's why my rough draft of a new Board structure includes an Advisory Council (or Advisory board, or Advisory Committee, whatever you want to call it) that is mostly (or completely) elected in representative fashion, like the House of Representatives, by their local constituents. If I'm the Rep. from Arizona, I'd be directly accountable to the members in Arizona.
That, along with shorter terms and some sort of term-limit structure, would assure accountability and responsiveness, unlike the current 76-member, all at-large process we have been operating under.
I think those highly accountable Advisors would be in a better position to vet candidates for the Managing Board than an open election that could be manipulated by the EVP or vendors, but I'm not married to any of the ideas I've suggested on this subject. I'm just throwing out my (well thought-out) ideas as a starting point for a discussion that I think needs a whole lot of serious discussion. I'm a big believer in "iron sharpens iron," and would like to see these ideas discussed and debated -- not in order to see my ideas adopted, but to work all of the ideas down into the best workable solutions for our members.
All I'll say about NRA's "battle-hardened attorneys" is that they were charging us something like $2 million a month, would bring two or three attorneys, at around $900 to $1500 per hour, and a couple of paralegals or other staff, to every meeting, hearing, conference, and phone call, and they have a track record of losing cases.
In the case of Chris Cox's severance package, Chris had a contract guaranteeing him a couple of years in severance pay, which added up to about $2 million dollars. I personally don't think he should have had that guaranteed severance package, but that's what was in his contract. When he tried to claim it, the NRA and Brewer went to war to deny it to him. They spent something like $8 million in the legal battle trying to avoid paying that $2 million. Then after they had lost, they sued the attorneys that had arbitrated the dispute. What an excellent idea (I said facetiously). In the end, Cox got his $2 million plus all of his attorney fees, and it only cost the NRA something north of $10 or $12 million to get there. But the Brewer firm got paid.
Well, once again I have failed in my attempt at brevity.
I'll close by noting that I remain consistent in my support and opposition regarding Board candidates. I opposed all long-term incumbents. Supported a few short-term incumbents, and almost all of the new candidates, including some of the "Old Guard's" new candidates. What a terrible partisan hack I am. I guess it's just my "bitter old man" coming out.
Sorry to clutter your forum with all of this mess. I hope I'm being helpful.
As always, if you have any questions, feel free to ask and I'll try to answer.
Jeff

[somorris]

Thank you again, Jeff.

I think one issue the membership has had is no one on the Board has ever communicating with us like you have here. He magazine was just fluff for the most part, always painting things as rosy. Your post is long, but outstanding reading. I am hopeful you and others who feel like you do can right the ship for us. Thank you so much for our time and efforts on my behalf!

[Mark Shuell]

Here’s the number of Directors at various large companies.
Proctor & Gamble——-24
Intel—————————18
Dow Chemical————12
Merck————————-13

I’m not sure of the perfect number of Directors, but it’s way less than 76. I’m a guy who sat through countless meetings at large companies. I came up with a mathematical formula for the effectiveness of large meetings. “The amount you accomplish at a meeting is an inverse proportion to the number of people AT the meeting”.

[Matt_X]

That's a useful a comparative. Might also look at other non-profits, such as Trout Unlimited and the NCAA. Non-profits often need a slightly different board profile than manufacturing corporations.

[Matt_X]

Speaking of which, it would be good to hear what those running for the board think about the programs like this one.




While this may not be the most immediate concern, I would hope the new board has the vision to recognize how much of the future depends on programs. Would like to hear about how to turn this around.

[norm]

I will never again trust the nra

[Krogen]

I had a tough time following links to Jeff Knox's endorsements in this thread. I did eventually find them via Google. Here's (yet another) link to his endorsements. Hopefully the link remains functional.

NRA Board Election 2025 Endorsements: Future of NRA is in Members’ Hands

[murphydog]

Just mailed my ballot today. Encouraging everyone to do your own due diligence and vote.

[16thVACav]

Originally Posted by JeffKnox

All I'll say about NRA's "battle-hardened attorneys" is that they were charging us something like $2 million a month, would bring two or three attorneys, at around $900 to $1500 per hour, and a couple of paralegals or other staff, to every meeting, hearing, conference, and phone call, and they have a track record of losing cases.

Jeff -

I'd like to comment on this sentence, and perhaps help you and others understand why this occurs, not only at the NRA but also at other organizations where people from different companies meet and discuss common issues.

I was chairman of a subcommittee for an industry group based in Washington DC. The subcommittee was made up of representatives from a number of different companies, most of which were based in the US. Every meeting, dinner, and conference call involving the members of this subcommittee was attended by at least one attorney, who monitored our discussions and generated notes which were archived.

The purpose of this practice was to ensure we had a valid defense and explanation of our actions should the government ever charge us with price fixing. There were many other subcommittees dealing with various issues within our industry, and all followed this practice.

I was a subcommittee member of a different industry group, and it also had attorney participation whenever representatives from different companies within that industry met. Again, it was a defense to allegations of price fixing.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any other statements from you or the other posters in this thread. I just wanted to point out that there are legitimate reasons for this practice, other than running up a large legal bill.

[stansdds]

Originally Posted by murphydog

Just mailed my ballot today. Encouraging everyone to do your own due diligence and vote.

I put my ballot into the mailbox last night.

[BluedRevolver]

Originally Posted by SethHaan

I have no roll with NRA. I speak only for myself.

I'm not on the ballot or Bod. My interest is to see NRA regain its strength and influence to protect the Second Amendment and provide programs for the membership.

You are lying. You are clearly acting under the auspices of your clique of BoD, if not an outright member. Your "we" language gives it away. There is an entire page exposing you. I see you on pistol-forum and elsewhere doing the same thing.

[JeffKnox]

Originally Posted by somorris

Thank you again, Jeff.

I think one issue the membership has had is no one on the Board has ever communicating with us like you have here. He magazine was just fluff for the most part, always painting things as rosy. Your post is long, but outstanding reading. I am hopeful you and others who feel like you do can right the ship for us. Thank you so much for our time and efforts on my behalf!

We are working on better communications.
It's starting with bringing the Board into the 21st century by creating an online space where we can access core documents and our "read-ahead" stuff for the next meeting, rather than having NRA mail us each a thick book of documents every couple of months.
From there, I hope to see a new Members Only website where members can access Directors and committees in a forum-type setting.
Hell, if HandEjector can manage this forum, how hard could it be? ;-)
Of course the Association always wants to put forward it's best face in public, but I agree, members need to know what's really going on, and Directors should be much more accessible.

[JeffKnox]

Originally Posted by 16thVACav

Jeff -

I'd like to comment on this sentence, and perhaps help you and others understand why this occurs, not only at the NRA but also at other organizations where people from different companies meet and discuss common issues.

I was chairman of a subcommittee for an industry group based in Washington DC. The subcommittee was made up of representatives from a number of different companies, most of which were based in the US. Every meeting, dinner, and conference call involving the members of this subcommittee was attended by at least one attorney, who monitored our discussions and generated notes which were archived.

The purpose of this practice was to ensure we had a valid defense and explanation of our actions should the government ever charge us with price fixing. There were many other subcommittees dealing with various issues within our industry, and all followed this practice.

I was a subcommittee member of a different industry group, and it also had attorney participation whenever representatives from different companies within that industry met. Again, it was a defense to allegations of price fixing.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any other statements from you or the other posters in this thread. I just wanted to point out that there are legitimate reasons for this practice, other than running up a large legal bill.

You're absolutely right that lawyers serve an important purpose, and I understand that. My heartburn is over the number of lawyers involved, the costs being charged, and the lack of substantive results.
Ollie North was raising questions about their billings and efficacy all the way back in 2018. He tried to set up a special committee to look into the billings, but the LaPierre loyalists painted it as North trying to undermine the lawyers for the benefit of Ackerman McQueen, the PR firm.
I firmly believe the NY lawsuit could have been avoided, had the Board had good legal representation, good leadership, and the good of the organization as their top concern. After the suit was filed, it didn't take long for the judge to take dissolution off the table, and at that point, again, I believe the NRA could have gotten the mess settled and done with in short order. Instead, they kept fighting, filed for bankruptcy without even consulting the Board, were tossed out of bankruptcy court, and kept fighting right up to the bitter end, 5 years later. Paying somewhere between $2 million and $3 million PER MONTH to the lawyers for the entire time.
I know, it's easy to look back and say "You guys should have..." because hindsight is 20/20, but I was predicting all of this and giving this same advice back in 2018, 2019, 2020, through 2024.

[Sistema1927]

Thanks to the discussion here I have marked my ballot and put it in the mail.

[Matt_X]

Originally Posted by SethHaan

...and provide programs for the membership.

That was the point of my question. It was not, and IMO should not, be an inward looking organization with programs only for members. (ref.: the Mission Statement, in article II of the Bylaws)

Originally Posted by Matt_X

Speaking of which, it would be good to hear what those running for the board think about the programs like this one... Would like to hear about how to turn this around.

Those patches were from a program that was open to the public.

In 1960 there were over 333,000 participants in just the 50 foot Jr. Marksmanship program. In 2004 the program was down to 9,000 adult and youth partipants. The way I read the article that is 9,000 participants for all "courses-of-fire ranging from Air Pistol to High Power Rifle."