UPDATE on the NRA

[CLT65]

When an org has gone bad, is it better to try to salvage it or is it better to dump it and start over with all new people? A friend of mine on the faculty of U of FL once expounded on this as we walked across campus one day about 50 years ago. (So don't ask me for a reference.) He said there was a study of that. He said when orgs or departments went bad, the best thing to do was usually to eliminate the entire department and everyone in it and start over with all new people . Often the rot started with one member and spread from there. But finding and firing or defanging that guy was usually insufficient, because the rot has become a self-perpetuating cancer by the time you realize you need to do something. There was a culture in the department that would outlast the life of the initiator. In addition, it was surprisingly difficult to identify the initiator. Often there could be one soft spoken guy who talked with one outspoken guy. It is the outspoken guy everyone would think was the initiator of the badness. But if you remove the outspoken guy the real initiator simply finds himself another outspoken guy to be his mouthpiece.

I hear what you're saying and it makes sense, but I have to wonder if eliminating the NRA and starting over might be more like tearing down the entire university, buildings and all, and starting over. I agree that a serious deep cleaning is needed, but I question the practicality of scrapping the entire structure.

 

[OldBroad44]

I think the education programs are great. If NRA was limited just to that for three years, the leadership and administration could be cut way back temporsrily, making it much easier to find new leaders who had no part in the old leadership. Then the leadership could be expanded when it was time to take on a political role agaiin. Still avoiding everyone who was part of the old leadership.

 

[Explorer1]

That article linked in the first post is very general. 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations are always subject to caps on the amount and type of lobbying/political tasks they can perform. That's why the NRA has separate organizations dedicated to distinct purposes.

No, the AG cannot take over the NRA and force it to elect anti-gun activists. The special master which the court could appoint acts as the judge's helper to fix the
non-profit's problems. Here that would include monitoring executive hiring, waste of members' donations on luxury vacations and suits, and gifts to relatives. The special master would likely be given powers to ensure the voting process is not corrupted by the entrenched group who caused the problems and resisted reforms by members.

The special master does not report to the AG, they report to the court. The SM does not choose the board.

"That article linked in the first post is very general. 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations are always subject to caps on the amount and type of lobbying/political tasks they can perform. That's why the NRA has separate organizations dedicated to distinct purposes."

Close, but not quite right. The NRA is a 501(c)4 and the NRA Foundation is a 501(c)3. The NRA has the NRA-ILA which can deal with politics and the NRA Foundation has the Friends of the NRA program for the purpose of fund raising to solely support shooting sports. Yes. almost everyone confuses the 2 and few even acknowledge the NRA Foundation is a separate corporation.