Peter Hulett wrote: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