So far, I’ve gotten three email replies and two formal responses to our letter to the NRA Board of Directors regarding the resolution on conflicts of interest and financial mismanagement. The responses from NRA Board Member David Keene and NRA Secretary John Frazer are below. Both gave me permission to share these here (and I’d like to thank them both for that). See whatcha think.
I’ll do my best to stay on it. Rome wasn’t built in a day. 🙂 Meanwhile, I still welcome anyone who wishes to have his/her name added to our original letter (here’s how to add your name). The more names, the better. #savethenra #changethenra
EDITED TO ADD…
One more thing. I replied to Mr. Keene to ask him three follow-up questions:
I have three questions, if you don’t mind.
First, you mentioned that there are few board members with financial ties to Ackerman McQueen. The question in my letter still stands: are those board members willing to abstain from any discussion of the resolution I referenced in my letter?
Second, the resolution was referred to the Board, but with no discussion date or deadline. Do you know when the matter will be addressed? Can we assure the members that referring it to the board means it will still be addressed and not forgotten?
Third, may I have your permission to post your letter on my blog (www.FrontSightPress.com)?
He replied with a response to my third question (his response was “sure”). He declined to address the first two questions.
3 comments on “The Letter – First Two Responses”
The resolution from the Meeting of Members was referred to the Ethics Committee. That was fine until you realize that one of the most strident voices opposing it, Marion Hammer, serves on the Ethics Committee.
It is interesting and unfortunate that David Keene paints any criticism of NRA operations as a threat from outside forces. From where I sat at the members meeting, I saw a critical resolution introduced and supported by NRA members. Of course, he’s been on the board for 20 years, so not sure what else to expect.
In terms of Frazer’s response, he’s got a very narrow (and perhaps legally correct) understanding of “conflict of interest.” My understanding of the letter you sent was that people on the board who are being criticized for not doing their jobs in overseeing the operations are in a conflict of interest situation if they consider that same criticism.
Narrow and legalistic readings are a good vehicle to bureaucratically stifle dissent, though.
Comments are closed.