The NRAA

[Peter Hulett]

Lynn,

Targets are on their way from SARA. Thanks for your help. No thanks to NRAA who would not even respond to a request for information about which states had ordered metric ICFRA targets.

Peter Hulett

[ger]

<quote>Targets are on their way from SARA. Thanks for your help. No thanks to NRAA who would not even respond to a request for information about which states had ordered metric ICFRA targets.

Peter Hulett</quote>

Comments like this are a direct swipe at the EO - not the NRAA as an entity as you might have intended.

Catherine is one person trying to do a job that would in reality see probably three fully occupied, and as a result of this (and some other things) is under some stress.

Comments like this are not helpful. She can well do without this sort of criticism. If you have a problem with her running that office perhaps you should take it up directly with her (or the Chairman) rather than on a public forum.

Geoff Roberts

[Woody_rod]

Fair enough Ger, but remember the NRAA IS the membership, not the other way around.

In my time in corporate management, we would accept this type of "input", and deal with it in a way which would benefit all parties, not an avenue in which to make excuses. If the person needs help, then get to that as an issue, don't crawl down the throat of someone making the problem known.

[Peter Hulett]

Point taken Geoff. NRAA Exec. has responded and apologised for the tardy reply and for that I give credit. I don't don't deal with personalities in the NRAA as I am clearly separate from the organisation. I am not a member of the NRAA and have no say in their structure or who is doing what. If a statement is seen as personal then that is unintended. My dealings with the NRAA are on the same level as those I have with Telstra or my electricity supplier. I pay them money and expect a certain level of service

[Triplejim]

Fair enough Ger, but remember the NRAA IS the membership, not the other way around.

The NRAA is a Ltd Company with 9 Members. Your membership is with your State Rifle Association who pay an affiliation fee to NRAA based upon their number of active members. JC

[Triplejim]

I pay them money and expect a certain level of service

You pay money to your State Association.....

[Peter Hulett]

James, that is incorrect.

On 2009-2010 prices I pay $260 to the Geelong Rifle Club. The Club then forwards $162 of that on my behalf to the VRA and the VRA then on my behalf forwards $33 of that to the NRAA and $33 to ATR. Semantics aside, I pay money to the NRAA, I just don't do it directly.


I am a member of the Geelong Rifle Club and the VRA but I am not a member of the NRAA. I am a customer who receives the services that the NRAA provides.

[Peter Hulett]

Further,
I don't begrudge or complain about my $33 that goes to the NRAA. I happen to think that it is too cheap and from what Geoff Roberts is saying the strain is starting to tell. The NRAA should bite the bullet and charge us at a level which is commensurate to the services that they are trying to provide.

[ger]

Further,
I don't begrudge or complain about my $33 that goes to the NRAA. I happen to think that it is too cheap and from what Geoff Roberts is saying the strain is starting to tell. The NRAA should bite the bullet and charge us at a level which is commensurate to the services that they are trying to provide.

Yes that is basically what I am saying. But there is more to it than that.

I guess I risk a severe lashing but I think that we have to start considering what we are referring to when we use the term "NRAA" - especially when in a derogatory or critical context. Are we talking about some faceless entity or something else?

BTW, what I say here is my opinion based on my lay-person observations over a few years now. But I have to admit that I am a newcomer (relatively speaking) to this sport and do not have the benefit of history that apparently goes back some years (10 or more). So any constructive "enlightenment" will be considered in the manner in which it is offered.

References to the "NRAA" - in my view at least - are references to a group of individual volunteers who comprise the Board, and one person who is employed full time to carry out the day to day operations of the organisation - the so-called "Executive Officer" (for want of a better term). With the exception of the EO these individuals are not paid to perform whatever work they do. But they are compensated for out of pocket expenses.

By in large these are good people, most of whom are still in fulltime employment. There are others such as myself who are in the same boat, although not involved in the day to day running and policy/planning aspects of the organisation. And I can assure you that I also need to scratch out a living. Whether or not you like how these people direct the NRAA is really not the issue. Anybody who wants to become a member of the Board has the opportunity each year to be nominated for election to the Board - and themselves become the donkey that everyone wants to pin a tail on to - and feel what it must be like to bear the brunt of some of the comments I have heard around the place.

It is very easy to criticise the people at the top but before one does so, perhaps one could consider how one could do things better. And perhaps put themselves forward to do so in some way.

The NRAA is a Limited Liability company and is therefore a corporation subject to the Corporations Act. As far as I know. It is not a non-profit organisation like a Club or even an "Association" that operate under relevant "associations" Acts. The NRAA is a company that has nine shareholders. That's it. Nine. Who are they? Well, they are nine State and Territory Associations who each have a "Delegate" who vote each November or December (at an AGM) for who they want on the NRAA Board. Supposedly these "Delegates" are instructed by their Association on who of the candidates to vote for. That's the theory anyway. When was the last time you were asked about who you would like on the Board? Have you ever been told by your Association who was nominating for a position on the Board?

I digress.

My point is that yes, I think that the NRAA requires more funding in order to operate in a manner expected by the shooters of this country, as a national governing body. However, in my view, it can't obtain any more funding other than by either increasing capitation fees on its "Members" (The S&T'S) and therefore ultimately from the S&T members (the point James was trying to make). Or it can increase other revenue streams.

What other revenue streams? Well, the NRAA is a conduit for projectiles, factory ammunition, and up until recently had a virtual monopoly (I suppose) on target aiming marks and faces. Well, a monopoloy of sorts. But I am not convinced that whatever these other "revenues streams" are are enough. My observation is that whilst the NRAA as a company, theoretically supposed to be profit motivated (if for no other reasons but for taxation purposes), is not being operated as a normal "Company" would be as it is hamstrung in this area. Like with taxes, raising capitation fees is a sensitive action and not taken lightly. Likewise, fees and charges for any other services or product it deals with - ultimately paid for by an ever diminishing number of active shooters in this country. I have heard it said that the NRAA is not supposed to operate at a profit. I am not sure if this is the case but I sincerely hope it is not. For lots of good reasons it has to meet its overheads, and capture a bit beyond that to remain viable. Chewing into any capital (like savings in the bank) is not an option to stave off any increase in operating revenue. Unless, of course, a return on that capital can be realised in the future.

I think the model on which the NRAA company is based is flawed. The "Company" has nine shareholders who it can be argued have little if any vested interest in the ongoing viability (and profitability) of the company they supposedly have shares in. They are not (it seems to me ) interested in what return they may have in this "investment" (being "shareholders") as there doesn't seem to be any actual investment to get a return on. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that in some cases S&T's actively compete against the NRAA in some area. This doesn't make sense to me. The reasons for this go back some years - before my time - so I can't really put forward any history as to why we have this structure. But I think it should change.

Anyway, the bottom line is that as a national governing body of a sport (it doesn't matter how many participants there are in it) it has many tasks to perform. Many issues to deal with. For the most part this is (and for some years has been) done by five directors and one paid person who is supposed to implement the policy of those directors. Plus run the office, negotiate deals, act as a secretary, do the banking, deal with "customers" and "shareholders", and a multitude of other tasks. I have seen her myself on numerous occasions - like a one-armed paperhanger she is. And this is not to say that the Directors have spare time on their hands! They can get very busy also.

My opinion (for what it is worth) is that there is work - especially over the next 18 months or so but probably beyond - for at least one more fulltime person in that office. There are currently measures to have someone to help out in the office in Belmont at least part time. But whatever happens, extra bodies equals more overhead that have to be paid for. How are the directors to do this when they are effectively hamstrung (as it seems to me) when it comes to conducting a business (which it arguably isn't in reality) that is not supposed to turn a profit?

Having said all that - at risk of inducing a severe caning from probably multiple directions - I feel that capitation fees might have to rise. I also say this not being privvy to the latest balance sheet of the organisation. But if so, it would have to be in the context of the Strategic Plan that has been under development for some time now. Shooters would have to see some value for their extra money. This really goes without saying. But additionally, I think that alternatives to this should be properly explored and where warranted, carried out.

While at it perhaps the subject of national membership (like the SSAA does it) instead of State/Territory based membership could be examined (I'm looking for the soap...).

So yes, Peter, I agree that perhaps we need to be paying more for what we have so that the jobs - whatever they are - can be done efficiently and properly without exposing the persons at the helm to risk of vilification and wanton criticism - such as I hear on frequent occasions.

I now will go and find my bullet-proof armour...

Geoff Roberts

[Peter Hulett]

Geoff,
You won't get any whacks from me. I agree with most of it. If you want service you have to pay for it and I think we don't pay enough to our National Body. Also any Club, Association or Company that does not budget for an annual operating surplus is in dreamland. Surpluses are not profits and even it is put aside to help to cover periods of extra workload such as we have now it is sound financial practice.

I have more fingers than there are Equivalent Full Time administrators of this sport in Australia. It is run at all levels by volunteers. However I don't believe that because I am a volunteer that I should be immune from criticism if I don't do the job properly.

One of the main problems in the perception that shooters have of the NRAA is what I alluded to in my post above. I don't feel that I am a part of the NRAA. I am a part of my Club, my DRA and the VRA. However I shoot under rules decided by the NRAA on targets determined by the NRAA. I shoot in representative teams in competitions controlled by the NRAA and I have shot overseas under the NRAA banner. But my relationship is distant and it is the structure that makes it distant as well as the one-way communication. There is a survey up and running on the website at the moment but it restricts itself to demographics. A company that is not interested in the perception its customers have of it? How strange.

[littlebang556]

Operating with sole income from a small database of members is always going to be a difficult task.
This is of course experienced by all the various clubs across the country.

We need to make the sport more publically recognised.

Other sports have developed a large sponsorship pool by promoting the sport to the public in a positive manner.

We see millions of dollars in golf, tennis, cricket...to name a few....why cant we work towards a similar scenario in our sport.

With the introduction of electronic targets across the country there will soon be the oportunity to further utilise this....
Internet based...youtube, facebook, twitter....bomard the bloody lot.
Club websites are just beginning to surface as ways for the public to interact with clubs.
The technology is upon us and we just need some sort of plan to harness it Nationally.
Once we have a big enough audience TV is not out of the question...this alone will give many company's another angle to advertise....its all positive.

Some will think I am stark raving mad but we all need to expend some energy to the future of our sport.

Those with good ideas...start implementing some at club level.
Start those websites (many free ones available) and email links to all in you address books.

Post ideas on places like www.yarlooprc.webs.com & www.ozfclass.com
Join their forums...contribute.

I have some ideas but we need a massive brainstorming to get many many more.

Cheers

Rob Alman

[AlanF]

Perhaps there is a problem with the commercial model of the NRAA, and it is underfunded for executive resources, but I would also like to see the work spread more widely, to sub-committees composed of ordinary members. Using the various Internet communication methods, it has become much quicker and cheaper than in the past to farm tasks out. The Board can set directions and strategy, and Executive can delegate tasks to willing members and sub-committees. I realise this happens to some extent now e.g your webmaster and statistician role Geoff - I would like to see it expanded into more areas of activity currently undertaken by the Board and Executive.

Alan

[littlebang556]

It is my understanding (and I may be wrong) that delegates are paid a very small allowance to travel to meetings...could this be averted with the use of conference like software?
A one off setup cost may leave a few dollars in the coffers.
If this was the case there may even be a few more people putting their hands up to become delgates with little disruption to everyday life.
There must also be other uses for such.

Regards

Rob

[timothi3197]

Most excellent website littlebang556, someone has put a lot of work in and is to be congratulated.

Grass roots efforts like this build sports not national administration and that is sometimes forgotten when there is talk about raising fees etc etc etc.

Perhaps the NRAA should be rationalised and more put on the individual states and clubs rather than over administering? What do we really get for our money?

[ger]

I think everyone would agree that there has to be some kind of national governing body - for any sport and not just ours. In our case it's the NRAA (Ltd) - an organisation that is masquerading as some kind of company. I am not sure if it has any charter or in fact anything that specifically outlines what it's real role is (such as a Business Model/Plan). I think I might try to find out. I know it has a Constitution. I also know that the NRAA President has been working on a Strategic Plan but I haven't seen it yet - only one chapter that applies to me.

I agree that it might be possible to divest some of the functions currently carried out by the NRAA (or expected to be carried out by the NRAA) out to the S&T's. But first of all I think some debate (such as this I suppose) needs to be embarked on and some analysis carried out on what a national governing body really needs to do. A look at some others (sports) might be helpful.

If there _is_ a business model defined that is being followed, then I'm not it is working too well. But not because of the personalities involved but rather because of the underlying structure. All of us (the Board and those such as myself who have close links) are simply trying to do our best under the circumstances.

Having said that, I am not all that convinced that many shooters actually care (or even know) about the NRAA. Let alone how it is made up and what it is expected to do. But I think they would notice if it wasn't there any more.

I would be most interested to find out what the rationale was ten or so years ago behind the restructuring of the "NRAA" from an Association (I suppose) to a Limited Liability Company as it is now. I am especially interested to have confirmation that back then the cash was divided up and distributed equally to the S&T's - the new "shareholders" of the new "company'. Quite substantial amounts apparently. But when the "company" entity was formed, that money didn't appear to be invested back into it in order to capitilise it. Is this correct? If so, it could explain why some things are the way they are right now.

I wasn't around (in the sport anyway) when all this happened but there are plenty of people around who were. I am interested in finding out the history of the organisation as I am starting to find it fascinating.

And I am also interested in prolonging it's life span...

Geoff.