Seriously. We frequently get these gushing posts from newbies who don't know the history of problems folks have with the NMLRA, and they always seem to degenerate into NMLRA bashing. (Not that I'm saying NMLRA-bashing is undeserved.) Let's flip that around: what would it take to restore the NMLRA's credibility with the many folks who aren't locals?
The NMLRA is a 501(c)(3) that the IRS categorizes as a "Fishing and Hunting Club". No surprises there. The NMLRA's Mission statement reads, "TO PROMOTE, SUPPORT, NUTURE AND PRESERVE NMLRA'S AND OUR NATION'S HERTIAGE IN THE SUPPORT OF MUZZLE LOADING THROUGH RECREATIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL VENUES SUCH AS MATCH COMPETITION, HUNTING, GUN MAKING, SAFETY AND HISTORICAL REINACTMENTS". (When writing something like that, maybe they should have someone proofread it. People notice things like all the spelling problems, and that does affect community perception.)
As far as I can tell, the NMLRA has never released the results of an independent audit or financial review. I can't tell if it a review like that has ever been done. That doesn't mean there hasn't been such an audit or review, or that there has been malfeasance, but it doesn't mean there hasn't been.
It becomes more of a concern when you realize that if the NMLRA has a conflict of interest policy, they won't release it. When members are seeing the children of BOD members get hired by the NMLRA, or receive scholarships, this is a problem. And who knows if the NMLRA has any kind of document retention policy that could be used to find answers to questions like this?
Those things matter when folks are considering donating money or leaving a bequest to a charity. The NMLRA is trying to get a $1,000,000 endowment. As national organizations go, this is small potatoes (I know of a couple of larger local rifle clubs that have that much, and let’s not even consider some of the trapshooting organizations). The odds of the NMLRA reaching this goal would improve if they had policies and practices like these in place (like other reputable charitable organizations do). I know of a coupe of guys who just made $50K donations to local rifle clubs and trap clubs, but you can bet those organizations had their ducks in a row first.
One complaint I've heard about the NMLRA that I found rather amusing is regarding the practice of selling "bricks" with a name on it to pay for various improvements to the facilities. I've heard people say they'd donate money, but the only way to do so is to pay for a brick that they'll never travel to see. Yeah, I don't get it . . . but it points to the major complaint people seem to have: for the most part the NMLRA acts as a local organization, not a national organization. Everything is focused on Friendship, and on drawing people to Friendship.
The majority of current (and probably past) members don't attend the matches there, and maybe never will. (For example, with 13,000 members they only get 1,000 people to attend the matches at Friendship.) The NMLRA response has always been that folks who want something local should work to set it up locally, which isn't a bad response. . . except for the perception that the NMLRA has a pattern of taking things over, drawing out all the funds, and ending whatever the local event was. There may be legitimate reasons for this, but the NMLRA doesn't publicly provide timely answers explaining why things end. There's no excuse for it to take 2 years to get an answer as to why the NMLRA decided to end a program, but the NMLRA has never been good at communicating with members.
It would help if instead there was a public policy that laid out what it took to get NMLRA support for a local activity (e.g., a match or class): What that support would be, how long the support would last and what the criteria would be for ending that support if it didn’t go well, and what the NMLRA would get in return. Imagine that: the national organization actually working with and supporting local groups. Wouldn’t that be great?
Imagine if, for example, the other local rifle-building classes got even a tenth as much publicity as the Western Kentucky classes did at start up. But the perception is that since they aren’t even remotely close to the Friendship area, they have no chance for support. I don’t know how correct that perception is; I do know that the four years we requested info on how to get support in the form of publicity for the local gunbuilding seminar, we never received a response.
The NMLRA has a terrible reputation for ignoring the needs of members in order to focus on improving the range facilities. How much has been spent on improving the shooting facilities over the last 30 years while the organization ignored Federal law in the form of the ADA? From the outside, it looks like there is no excuse other than deliberate action to explain why the entire facility isn’t ADA compliant—and that is supported by public statements made by BOD members over the years.
We’ve heard here from Mr. Fleener that he can’t do anything about what has been done in the past, he’s focused on things now and in the future. he has a good point, but given the NMLRA’s history on this, if the BOD wants to have any credibility going forward they need to appoint an ADA compliance officer.
And why, in the day of online attendance at everything from court hearings to kindergarten graduations, is traveling to Friendship Indiana the only way to attend BOD and membership meetings? Why do members have to be there in person to vote on amendments to the Bylaws, or apparently, to read the Minutes of the BOD meetings, since those are no longer being posted online for the membership? Can't the BOD find a 10 year old kid to set it up?
