The National Rifle Association is basically the 800-pound gorilla of the gun debate, at least when it acts like it. While I've been extremely critical of Wayne LaPierre's tenure running the organization, and with good reason, the truth was that he got stuff done. Still, he was removed from his post by a court; one that also suggested the board of directors be shrunk.
As it stands, there are a lot of people on the board, and that can provide a lot of cover. It also means that individual elections don't matter as much as they probably should because there are so many on the board.
Unfortunately, according to board member Dick Fairburn, there's an issue at work preventing that from happening. Egos.
I came away from the September BOD meeting feeling that much of the opposition to Bill Bachenberg’s reduction proposal was a “Me” issue. If the proposal had been “their” idea, more of the opponents might have supported the reduction. But since President Bachenberg hadn’t consulted them, some were offended. Bruised egos can be very painful.
I was not consulted on President Bachenberg’s plan, but that did not surprise or offend me. My reading of the plan convinced me it was simple, straightforward, and in line with my personal thoughts on the matter. For that reason, I supported the board reduction proposal and will continue to do so. Thinking that a committee will make the plan more workable or less painful to those board members who might not get re-elected is a fool’s game in my humble opinion.
Warren Bennis, an American pioneer in leadership studies, once said, “Just as no great painting has ever been created by a committee, no great vision has ever emerged from the herd.” A camel has been described as a horse designed by a committee.
If you want an even better example of the unworkable nature of “group think” we need look no further than the 1,000-page convoluted laws passed by the US Congress. Yet the nature of the NRA Board of Directors, unlike smaller for-profit corporate boards, is to allow committees, using Roberts Rules of Order, to kill simple, easily understood changes.
The proposal was to reduce the number of board members elected each year by 10, which would reduce the board down to 46 in a somewhat gradual way. Fairburn said another way considered was through attrition, which is the option he would have supported had it made it to the table.
It didn't, though, and this would reduce the board just the same, but in a controlled manner.
Regardless, if Fairburn is right, then we have a problem. As it is, good ideas shouldn't be permitted to die via committee. That's how a lot of good, pro-gun laws get throttled, thus allowing milquetoast politicians to pretend they're pro-gun without having to vote on a single pro-gun measure.
Likewise, good ideas that might hurt someone connected somehow can be shuffled off to the right committee where people will forget about it ever existing.
In fact, the number of committees is part of where Fairburn has an issue with the NRA's organization, namely arguing that it made more sense for a competition shooting-based organization than one focused on preserving the right to keep and bear arms.
I can't speak on that one way or another, but I do know that he's got a valid point about how some good proposals can be allowed to die via the status quo.
Personally, I think even 46 board members is too many for an organization, but as I'm not that privy to the inner workings of the NRA, maybe that's a necessary number. I tend to think that any number that can't sit at a single table is excessive, but none of the groups I've helped run have the membership of the NRA, even today.
But if egos are standing in the way of reforms, the members need to know so they can start voting accordingly.
