The Anti-Hunter Amendment

Minimum qualifications

FBecigneul said:
Here's a question to no one in particular:
What qualifies a person to get your nod for president or Board member?
Must that person be a world class shooter?
Must that person be run of the mill shooter?
Must he or she be a shooter at all?
Must he be a he?
Is the ability to negotiate settlements a plus?
Is Mr. or Mrs. Congeniality necessary?
Must a person have been a member for three years?
Is a law degree a plus or minus?
Is organizational history needed?
That's more than one question but I was on a roll. I guess what I'm asking is what should the make up of the Board look like?
Click to expand...




An Action oriented person with good interpersonal skills. Written and oral communication skills are mandatory. Related Experience is extremely helpful but when your candidate pool is limited to unpaid volunteers, then you have to go with the person who expresses a strong interest in service to organization goals.

Any current member on Francis' list could fit that profile.


Glenn
 
Before I go any further let me introduce myself because many of you don’t know me, and one’s credentials as a benchrest shooter seem to be important to this discussion. I’ve been a member of NBRSA since the early 2000s, except for a year or two when my membership lapsed because I didn’t get a renewal notice. I’m a member of River Bend Gun Club and have been shooting in the club’s monthly benchrest matches since 2001. I’d estimate that I’ve shot in at least 80% of the club’s benchrest matches during the past 17 years.

I want to discuss two things: the proposed rule and the way Hunter (Bill) has been treated here.

Regarding the proposed rule:

Rules have two functions: (1) to guide each member’s behavior, and (2) to preclude an organization from treating its members arbitrarily. If you want to condition board membership on someone having been a member continuously for at least the three years immediately preceding running for election, then please say so. If you want someone to be an “active member,” or “active shooter,” or whatever, then please say so, and while you’re at it, please define what you mean by that. At least one registered match per year? One registered or unregistered match? It’s easy to be specific and it will avoid arguments later on.

I respectfully suggest that the board spend a little more time thinking about what exactly it wants to accomplish, and then it should say what it means and say it clearly.

Now I want to address how Bill has been treated here.

I’ve been shooting benchrest with Bill for many years and I count him as a friend. He comes to every benchrest match at River Bend, even the January and February matches when the weather is brutal. He works hard at helping run our matches. He’s a friendly, sociable, likable guy.

What has Bill done to deserve all this hostility? He hasn’t ridiculed anyone, or insulted anyone, or called anyone any names. What he’s done is this: he’s expressed his opinions and has advocated for change. That’s it. It’s acceptable conduct in a democracy.

Now consider how he’s been treated in this thread:

He’s been told he had a “hissy fit.”

He’s been told to “Fing GROW UP.”

He’s been told he’s “been trying to grind an axe for way to long and he has not been doing it in the best interest of the organization.”

He’s been asked what he actually thinks he deserves that others do not.

He’s been accused of ongoing rants.

He’s been told that if he doesn’t like it, he should leave.

All because he had the audacity to express dissenting opinions and advocate for change.

I’ve discussed these issues with Bill at some length. Bill has no axe to grind, no more so than anyone who takes a position on anything. He doesn’t want special treatment. He has expressed his opinions respectfully. He shouldn’t be ridiculed or punished for that. Just because someone disagrees with him, that doesn’t mean Bill has bad motives. It just means they disagree.

There’s a huge irony in this thread: despite the attacks on Bill for raising issues with the proposed rule, his posts on this subject have stimulated a lengthy and constructive discussion of what qualifications a director should have. That’s a good thing, no matter what your position is one way or the other. It’s also a lesson on why we should encourage – not discourage – dissenting opinions.

I hope that next time people will remember it’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

Dave Rabin
 
Sometimes, change is a good thing ! Bill just wants to make a positive differents for Southeast shooters & NBRSA
Bill has always worked and gave his time at matches run at River BEND .Over and above most. Thanks BILL for all you do.
 
I saw that the anti-Hunter amendment passed unanimously! The announced reasoning was:

1. "So that the person running has been involved for consecutive years and therefore more up to date on the organization."

2. "This has never been a problem until this election when a member decided to run after a lapse in years of membership."

My rebuttal: Baloney! Consecutive years of membership immediately prior to running is no assurance that someone is "up to date on the organization" -- the voters should have the opportunity of deciding that issue. Furthermore, just what was the problem with me deciding to run after a less-than-one-year lapse in membership? The real reason for the amendment is that I have been very vocal in my criticism of some of the recent actions of the BOD.

So, the question: Do I renew? I'm reminded of Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football >>> http://pratie.blogspot.com/2005/09/charlie-brown-and-lucy-and-football.html
 
Hunter said:
I saw that the anti-Hunter amendment passed unanimously! The announced reasoning was:

1. "So that the person running has been involved for consecutive years and therefore more up to date on the organization."

2. "This has never been a problem until this election when a member decided to run after a lapse in years of membership."

My rebuttal: Baloney! Consecutive years of membership immediately prior to running is no assurance that someone is "up to date on the organization" -- the voters should have the opportunity of deciding that issue. Furthermore, just what was the problem with me deciding to run after a less-than-one-year lapse in membership? The real reason for the amendment is that I have been very vocal in my criticism of some of the recent actions of the BOD.

So, the question: Do I renew? I'm reminded of Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football >>> http://pratie.blogspot.com/2005/09/charlie-brown-and-lucy-and-football.html
Click to expand...

You can pay a few years in advance. I usually do 2 or 3......
 
Wilbur said:
Renew your membership!
Click to expand...

Wilbur, I will continue shooting -- maybe with those wind flags I'll be as good as you one day. In the meantime, I'll refrain from posting any more NBRSA-related stuff on the forum.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top