nra watchdogs?

[center mass]

I started something on Ambackforum-gun zone section about keeping current with NRA politics--who to vote for in BOD elections etc. Got some good info and Mr. Cotton was well recommended. I would be interested in everyone's opinion, look for NRA watchdog heading. I'm very interested in Mr. Cotton's thoughts on the whole thing especially. Short version- how does rank and file know who is doing the job for NRA and who isn't? Not sure where to post this, just put it where it needs to go. It seemed to be a Federal issue.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Short version- how does rank and file know who is doing the job for NRA and who isn't?

I wish I had a good answer for you, but I don't. Please forgive the long "lawyer" answer, but I don't know how to respond without a short discussion of the NRA Board/Committee structure and function.

The NRA Board of Directors (BOD) is comprised of 76 members, 25 elected each year for a 3 year term and 1 elected at the Annual Meeting for a 1 year term. All Board Members are assigned to one or more committees and committee assignments can change. Board Members get to request committee assignments, but there is no guarantee you'll get it, unless you've been there for a long time.

The best description I've seen of the BOD is that we operate like a Legislature. That is, the majority of the work is done in committees, with the full BOD giving final approval or disapproval to committee recommendations, after additional debate, if necessary. There simply are not enough hours in a year for the entire 76 member BOD to consider each and every issue facing the NRA.

So the question of who is pulling their weight in committee is virtually impossible for even BOD members to evaluate for all 76 directors. I know who shows up and contributes on the committees of which I am a member and I have a pretty good idea who is a "no-show" at the full meetings of the BOD. But I really have no way of knowing what is going on in other committees.

I know there is a perception that the NRA Nominating Committee exists solely to protect incumbents, but this is not the case, for several reasons. First, the Nominating Committee changes every year, I don't think anyone ever serves two years in a row. Secondly, the members of the Nominating Committee are elected by the full BOD, so the members have the opportunity to debate views on candidates. I can say I've never seen anyone seek to be on the Nominating Committee. It's a terrible job, because you have to select so few candidates from a great number of qualified and dedicated people. This last year there were a number of sitting BOD members who were not re-nominated, so I cannot imagine anyone would actually seek a seat on that Committee!

The value of the Nominating Committee, in my opinion, is its ability to address the very issue you raise; i.e. to evaluate the contributions made by various BOD members. They can get input from Committee Chairmen and review other information. Often it's not a question of who is contributing and who is not, but are there new candidates that may be in a position to offer something unique to the Board. I understand the concern some NRA Members have about the function of the Nominating Committee, but I don't know of a better way to evaluate the contributions made by sitting BOD Members and the potential of new members. I feel the "checks and balances" element exists in the form of requiring a completely new Nominating Committee be formed each year.

So how does an NRA Member look at the ballot and cast an informed vote? All I can do is tell you what I did over the years, before I was elected to the BOD. I would focus primarily on the candidates nominated by the Nominating Committee, for the reasons I stated in the preceding paragraphs. I would then look to see what each person had done for the RKBA cause, as set out in their bios. I would then look at candidates not recommended by the Nominating Committee to see if there was something about their experience that overshadowed the Nominating Committee’s recommendation. As an attorney, I'm sure it comes as no surprise to anyone that I have always had a strong interest in legal issues facing gun owners. My bio reflects this interest and I suppose I focused on candidates with similar backgrounds when I was voting.

In fairness, I have to say that the NRA is an organization that has over 175 programs totally unrelated to our legislative efforts. While politics, legislation and gun laws are my areas of focus, the strength of the NRA lies in its members, many of whom are far more interested in one or more of NRA's 175 programs than in the legislative arena. It is for those folks that dozens of fine, dedicated BOD Members direct their efforts on various committees like the competition committees, hunting committees, Range Development Committee, etc. So while my calling is to the battle for gun owners rights, I do not diminish the contributions made by BOD Members in other areas. Indeed, therein lies the strength of the NRA; we have enough dedicated people to address all of these areas. Some work to bring new people into the ranks of gun owners, while others battle in the political and legal arenas.

Let me also say that BOD Members do not agree on every issue and every action taken by the NRA. In my opinion, the greatest value can be derived from a committee (or organization) when its members engage in honest, spirited debate on matters before it and come to a consensus to recommend to the full BOD. As with all BOD/Committee Members, there are times when my position prevails and times when it does not. One thing is as certain as the sun rising in the east, when the debate is over and the vote is in, you will never hear me gloat when my position prevails, nor complain when my position is rejected. I have too much respect for my fellow BOD members to do so. But far more importantly, I firmly believe that the national media is itching to exploit any division within the NRA, real or imagined, and this can only work to the detriment of the NRA and ultimately all gun owners.

Regards,
Chas.