Those of you, who have been SASI or NCFGA members, for a while, know that, annually, we provide our members with recommendations, concerning those who, in our opinion, are the best choices, for the NRA board.
       For those reading this list, for the first time and who may not be familiar with SASI or NCFGA, they are, respectively, the county sportsmen's/women's federations, in and for Suffolk and Nassau Counties, in NY.
       Please feel free to distribute this list, as far and wide as you deem appropriate. The more people who understand what this election is about, the better chance we have of improving NRA's BoD, now and in the future.
This year, as in the last several years, we have the great pleasure of advising you that the recommendation list was jointly compiled, by both organizations, as well as the fact that both organizations concur, on all recommendations. Our criteria is stringent, because we believe you should have only the best qualified, on the NRA board.
Our choices are made from among those candidates, whom we feel best represent the interests of the membership of NRA, not necessarily those who are picked by the NRA's Nominating Committee or those who the NRA's officers might like to see on NRA's board.
NRA is a major corporation, growing and becoming more complex, every year. Dues income, alone, produces more than $185,000,000, each year. Add to that, the income of the NRA Foundation, the NRA Endowment, NRA-ILA, product sales, investment income and NRA's broadcasting network, plus other, "miscellaneous" items and you have a corporation, the annual budget and assets of which are at or approaching a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000), per year. That's bigger than many of the "name brand" corporations and larger than most firearms manufacturers.
The purpose of a Board of Directors is to set policy, for the corporation, which is, implemented, by the officers of that corporation. Directors must be able to evaluate, influence and understand the short-term and long-term, national and international ramifications of the multimillion dollar decisions they make. Those directors must, therefore, possess appropriate academic and experience qualifications. Being a "nice person" or a "qualified and dedicated shooter" do not, of themselves, make one qualified, to manage a major business operation.
In NRA's case, all directors are unpaid (except for expenses) and all officers and other employees are paid. NRA senior officers are, typically, paid six figure salaries, per year. They are paid, to be officers, full time. To allow any of them to also become directors would involved considerable conflict of interest. Consequently, for that reason and that reason only, we have never endorsed a sitting NRA officer or other NRA employee, for the board.
NRA's needs, this year, as in many years past, are for qualified, executive talent. Consequently, only candidates with academic and/or practical experience, in business management, finance, law, influence gathering and/or with significant, national recognition or political prestige, should be considered. Those candidates, with professional or educational criteria, such as MBAs, LLBs/JDs, CPAs, ChFCs, etc. and/or qualifying experience, i.e.: managing substantial business entities, at the executive levels, are what NRA needs most, for the business management side of the operations. Next, are those with national political recognition and national respect, who know how to get things completed, in the political arena.
It's a tough set of criteria, for making choices and, sometimes, it requires that folks, who we may like, personally, don't get our recommendation, solely for lack of the best educational or experience credentials.
NRA is, no longer, just a competitive shooting organization, with nothing to manage, except match schedules and match rules. Today, almost every program NRA implements involves millions of dollars. We need people who properly understand the best ways of doing that. The NRA's board has, because of smart voting, gained a little, most years. That pattern needs to continue and to be encouraged.
You are not required to vote for the maximum of 25 candidates and, in those years when we cannot recommend 25, we strongly suggest that you not vote for all you can. By voting for others, just to round out your 25, you are diluting the votes, for the strongest candidates and, at the same time, sending a message that you will consider and accept less than the best candidates. This is one of the few years, in which we can recommend a full 25 qualified candidates, for whom to vote.
SASI's and NCFGA's joint recommendations, in alphabetical order, are:
William H. Allen
Thomas P. Arvas
Clel Baudler
David E. Bennett
J. Kenneth Blackwell
Dan Boren
J. William Carter
Ted W. Carter
Anthony J. Chimblo, III
Patricia Clark
Allan D. Cors
Charles L. Cotton
David G. Coy
Erik Estrada
Joel Friedman
James Gilmore, III
Roy Innis
Curtis S. Jenkins
Eddie Newman
Timothy W. Pawol
Peter Printz
Steven C. Schreiner
Tom Selleck
Leroy Sisco
Linda Walker.

Comments are closed