NRA Sues Ackerman-McQueen, Ackerman-McQueen Tries to Oust LaPierre at Meeting

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don’t mind paying a seven figure salary if I’m getting seven figure salary results. For that matter, Wayne can buy a yacht and a house on Lake Como if he delivers. However, if the NRA has been delivering those kind of results, they’ve done a poor job of communicating it to their members.

[Tony Z]

You have to wonder if the NRA pays any attention to opinions on online gun forums. Does anyone remember ever getting any sort of survey from the NRA asking for opinions of the job they are doing? Does the NRA even have a "customer service" email or phone number where opinions can be submitted?

I again am stating we need to explore "clawing back" our forward paid dues. The NRA will be forced to listen to members if their income is hurt.

[5whiskey]

You have to wonder if the NRA pays any attention to opinions on online gun forums

In the eyes of the nra, we probably aren’t at a critical mass sufficient to justify their attention. Take here, THR, arfcom, calguns, glocktalk, and a few other of the most used forums... I would wager 90% of the posts in the past year on these forums combined have come from less than 20000 people. That’s a thimble of water in the swimming pool compared to 5 million NRA members. We have to start effectively rocking the boat outside our echo chamber of ardent 2A supporters to get any attention.

[Tom Servo]

You have to wonder if the NRA pays any attention to opinions on online gun forums

I imagine they have a dim idea of what the internet is, but they just hire a few interns to deal with it.

Comments on gun forums and social media don't really have an effect on anything.

[J.G. Terry]

Demand some basics-Audit and Accountability: The problem with the NRA has been generally named. It's time for some specific answers. Anytime you have that much money involved with no accountability sharks will swarm. Time to put in some sound conservative management in place. Start with audit and accountability. I would not be surprised some of the high flyers caught some legal charges.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I imagine they have a dim idea of what the internet is, but they just hire a few interns to deal with it.

You've seen the intern picture. Think about why some are hired.

Some of the higher folk in the ILA are quite aware of the Internet. Cox is now an enemy.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

You've seen the intern picture. Think about why some are hired.

I haven't seen it. And a couple of internet searches didn't bring it up. Got a link?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Search on NRA intern - images

[Aguila Blanca]

Search on NRA intern - images

Search results in a lot of links to "404 page does not exist" errors.

Looks like there's a concerted effort to make this intern disappear.

[Mainah]

Looks like there's a concerted effort to make this intern disappear.

Didn't know if I should post this quote here, or here: https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=602536

[TDL]

Using an on-line inflation calculator, a salary of $190,000 in 1995 equated to $317,033,54 in 2018. So between salary and other compensation, it appears that LaPierre's total compensation package is worth about four times as much now as it was when he was made Executive VP. I'd say that's extremely unusual for a non-profit, member organization.

It is not extremely uncommon for the top not for profit to have about one million dollar executive compensation with bonuses. Especially if related to development (fundraising). Head of PBS gets over a million per year. The head of Mitre, a fair sized non profit got $3.5 in the 990 I am looking at. Head of Cystic Fibrosis $1.3 million.

I don't have a problem with an effective NRA head making a million or two a year in DC if they are both effective at communicating and fundraising and can lead an effective strategy. I don't know how much fundraising LaPierre can take credit for but I don't consider him effective at communicating beyond part of the base and consider him a negative outside of the base.

I would say that in the big picture that unless an internal group arises that will address this crisis the NRA is in big trouble simply due to the fact that it has extremely powerful and profoundly more monied enemies in the gun control lobby..

There is an extreme danger of a protracted and fatal civil war. If you notice many of the NRA critics here -- and on gun forums we have a self selected unrepresentative group -- think the NRA is not firm enough, whereas that may not at all be the case among contributors or rank and file members, or gun owners.

NRA did not take its position on bump stock or especially on red flag out of an organic tendency to compromise, but rather because these were extremely high momentum and massively popular legislative efforts, where reducing the effect, and NRA did achieve reduced effect, were reasonable tactics and goals.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TDL

It is not extremely uncommon for the top not for profit to have about one million dollar executive compensation with bonuses. Especially if related to development (fundraising). Head of PBS gets over a million per year. The head of Mitre, a fair sized non profit got $3.5 in the 990 I am looking at. Head of Cystic Fibrosis $1.3 million.

The difference is that those are not member organizations.

NRA did not take its position on bump stock or especially on red flag out of an organic tendency to compromise, but rather because these were extremely high momentum and massively popular legislative efforts, where reducing the effect, and NRA did achieve reduced effect, were reasonable tactics and goals.

We have only the NRA's word on that, and right now their word is worth nothing in this corner.

[Tony Z]

Why do I belong to the NRA? Not for their magazines, not to go to their shows, etc., not to wear their hat or patches.

Why? To represent my opinion of absolute protection of the Second Amendment as written by the founding fathers of this nation.

[4V50 Gary]

Aguila Blanca - it's not unusual for a non-profit to pay big bucks to top people. It's not right, but it happens all the time. San Franciscograd spends $300 million on homeless and much of it goes to various groups that support the homeless. I wouldn't be surprised if the top executives collect the vast majority of the money given to them by the city.

[Tom Servo]

Well, they're shutting down NRATV. I guess its 17 viewers will have to go elsewhere for Dana Loesch's litany of culture-war rantings.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Well, they're shutting down NRATV. I guess its 17 viewers will have to go elsewhere for Dana Loesch's litany of culture-war rantings.

That's a good thing overall. The NRA should concentrate on the 2nd and not dilute the message with general politics.

[Mainah]

I guess its 17 viewers will have to go elsewhere for Dana Loesch's litany of culture-war rantings.

But it's a potential victory for the beet industry: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/oq2c/superbe...ng-dana-loesch

[Tom Servo]

And, this afternoon, Chris Cox officially resigned. No word on his replacement yet.

[Mike38]

Why do I belong to the NRA? Not for their magazines, not to go to their shows, etc., not to wear their hat or patches.

Why? To represent my opinion of absolute protection of the Second Amendment as written by the founding fathers of this nation.

In my opinion, unfortunately, they are not doing an adequate job of said absolute protection. It would be worse without them, but they certainly could do better.

[Ricekila]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nra...lobbying-group

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Ricekila

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nra...lobbying-group

I don't understand this part:

Cox’s resignation came within hours of the NRA officially severing ties with Ackerman McQueen, the Oklahoma-based public relations firm with which it’s been embroiled in a legal tangle over expenditures.

I thought the NRA had officially severed ties with Ackerman-McQueen weeks ago, when they sued them. In fact, I'm pretty certain that one of Ackerman-McQueen's claims in their countersuit was that the NRA had terminated their contract without following whatever due process was [allegedly] built into it.

[Aguila Blanca]

The following message from Wayne LaPierre to NRA instructors (of which I am one) arrived in my inbox today. He makes some right-sounding noises, but I don't get any real sense that the words mean anything:

Dear NRA Instructor,

As many of you may know, we have been evaluating if our investment in NRATV is generating the benefits needed. This consideration included the return on investment and the cost and the direction of the content. Many members expressed concern about the messaging on NRATV becoming too far removed from our core mission: defending the Second Amendment.

So, after careful consideration, I am announcing that starting today, we are undergoing a significant change in our communications strategy. We are no longer airing live TV programming. Whether and when we return to live programming is a subject of ongoing analysis.

The NRA will continue and improve our service on social media channels and our flagship website, www.nra.org, your trusted resource of information. Our many web sites will continue to showcase new and archived videos, as we reorganize much of this information in a way that better serves our key audiences.

What necessitated the change now is our conclusion that our longtime advertising firm and website vendor failed to deliver upon many contractual obligations it made to our Association. The NRA will always hold our vendors to high standards and ask that they maximize their value to the Association. No exceptions.

Looking ahead, you can expect great things from your NRA. We will energize our messaging strategy, become more cost efficient, and promote the NRA's singular focus like never before. Simply put, our messaging strategy will advance the NRA's core mission: to serve our members and fight for our Second Amendment.

– Wayne

[themalicious0ne]

I'd have to agree with you. 5 paragraphs and the only mention of anything towards preserving the 2A, was in their twice mentioned, "mission statement".

[Aguila Blanca]

My problem with LaPierre's message is that he tries to lay ALL the blame for profligate spending on Ackerman-McQueen. If he wanted to set an example for becoming more cost efficient and requiring that all parties maximize their value to the association ... he should lead by example and announce that he is reducing his salary by 50 percent, and that from here on he'll pay for his own suits and shoes.

Besides, the "core mission" of the NRA isn't protecting the Second Amendment. The NRA is, I believe, a 501(c)(3) organization. That means "not-for-profit, educational." The core mission of the NRA is education -- firearms safety education, and marksmanship education.

[TDL]

The difference is that those are not member organizations.

Many membership organizations get most of their funds from extant endowment and member dues. NRA does not, it gets most of its funds from major fundraising, and that is not comparable to most membership organizations. Very substantial bonus compensation is given to leadership that demonstrates success in that aspect. NRA also a top ten size and scope national public policy advocacy organization, with policy advocacy outside the normal level of most membership organizations.

It isn't Kiwanis or Lions club, or Sons of Italy. Nor is it like major membership based professional organizations. It is locked up in policy and advocacy fights of extremely high magnitude, public attention and impact -- with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars spent by itself, its allies and its opponents every cycle.

I am not concerned at all with the top executive at such an organization, based in one of the most expensive areas of the country, getting reasonable compensation of one to 1.5 million.

Nor is it per se a problem to use of outside vendors for specialized work. What happened at NRA was a lack of transparency, a severe conflict of interest, and a corrupting factor of the purchase of services, with the service provider vendor then kicking back perks and tangible benefit to the person in charge of negotiating the contracts. That is unethical and may well be illegal activity.

That this happened over quite a few years and that normal audit process, board or other officers with fiduciary responsibility did not catch it and we only saw it after a board fight, where the vendor may have turned from inducements to threats, also means NRA audit practices failed at the macro level.

We have only the NRA's word on that, and right now their word is worth nothing in this corner.

I'm in DC, and I used to be with a major association as head of public affairs (that means comms, PR and and abouthalf my time on government relations including some IRS defined lobbying). I have property in Virginia and am in touch with my State House Delegate and Senator, and US Rep and Senator. NRA together with VCDL did weigh in on Red Flag strongly in Richmond.

My brother-in-law is down in Florida and he actually testified in Tallahassee where that bill absolutely did undergo significant changes in committee that would not have been inserted had the NRA and local groups not pushed strongly.

Again the NRA does have a severe problem. A severe set of problems. They are actually common to associations with the advent a few decades ago of outside specialized task vendors, especially management companies, that can create unethical practices; with board members supporting one management company -- and the management company getting enough power to actually influence the internal board politics and insure its friends stay on the board.

yes, it can make sense to get rid of your magazine and newsletter guy or department, and replace it with an outside company that specializes in production, distribution and advertising sales in that. But at a certain point, if you also have them handle content and editorial, that outside company may be tweeking editorial policy in your newsletter to support he people on the board who are controlling/overseeing those contracts.

In NRA's case it is possible that an entire constellation of feedback loop problems occurred: a) give lobbying, legal, some internal communications (one of the magazines) and NRATV to a very powerful vendor; b) give so much money that the vendor could possibly create what may be a slush fund of its own accord, or have some in the NRA force them to create a slush fund; c) have the vendor then use the publications to advance its board or management allies and or distribute tangible perks to the same; d) have woefully inadequate auditing or board attention.

On the positive side, this road has been hoed in a lot of organizations (albeit with much less public attention) before, it is not that uncommon, and there are solutions. My recommendation:

1) Find a way in the bylaws to force either an emergency meeting of membership with a board revote creating a new board with no connection to this
2) board should be smaller and include mostly/only people who have served on actual boards, where you have to attend, vote, demonstrate some concern and expertise over fiduciary aspects.
3) toss LaPierre, Cox,
4) certainty not replace them with North, who was with Ack-Mac himself
5) severe ties with Ack-Mac

I think at the least we will see LaPiere go. he has to go. Otherwise we are going to be run over by a freight train. We will need a semi-outside sourced"gray hair" guy with no connection to any of the cast of characters. But there is also an obvious problem with this huge packed board. I got people on the 120 unit condo board I head with way more experience and attentiveness. NRA can always create an honorary do-nothing second board if it wants to reward/recognize people.