Archery Talk Forum banner

An Open Letter to the NAA, its Board of Governers, and Executive Director

12K views 54 replies 29 participants last post by  CloverArchery 
#1 ·
Dear NAA, NAA Management, and Board of Governers:

I have a number of concerns regarding the operations and management of the National Archery Association. Let me start by stating that I have been a member for a long time, and I am very fond of the NAA. Nevertheless, I am concerned about a number of recent events. It is unclear whether these events are all related, but I find each to be troublesome. More troublesome still is the level of secrecy and the lack of flow of information. Many have called for more transparency, and I have to agree. The NAA is a not for profit organization in place for the benefit of its dues paying membership. It has a dual role in that it is also the National Governing Body for archery in the United States, and so it therefore also has obligations to the USOC. My concerns:

1. There is supposedly a new set of by-laws. These are published on the www.usarchery.org website, but they are described as "proposed." The old by-laws stated that any change to the by-laws requires a two-thirds vote of the membership. The new by-laws were never put to a vote of the membership, but were supposedly instead required by the USOC. Now, which set of by-laws is the NAA operating under?

2. Why have the Board of Director elections postponed? Some of the director positions expire this year (supposedly in August), and others are lame duck in accordance with an agreement with the USOC. So after August 9, 2007, will there be any properly elected directors? Who will have the authority to oversee the management of the NAA after August 9?

3. Who is on the Nominating Committee? This committee is charged with selecting the board of director candidates that the membership will ultimately vote upon. Why should the membership of this committee be secret? The selection of director candidates is probably the most important function within the management of the NAA. Why is this process done in secret? Shouldn't the nominating committee be accountable for the slate of candidates that they present to the membership?

4. Who is responsible for oversight of the finances of the NAA? This is a particularly important question in light of the recent arrest of the former director of finance on alleged embezzlement charges. I understand that former President Lloyd Brown's efforts to examine the books of the NAA were thwarted. Why wouldn't the President of the organization be allowed to look at its books?

5. Why was Lloyd Brown removed from his position of President of the NAA? Was this related to his efforts to examine the books?

6. What is the present financial health of the NAA? Can members look at the books? Isn't a not for profit membership based organization responsible to its members?

7. Why does the NAA operate in such secrecy? We are often told to trust those who represent the membership of the NAA. But in light of recent events, this is becoming more difficult.

I love archery, and I love the NAA. But I am disturbed by what I am seeing. More disturbing is the fact that there is little or no information forthcoming from the management of the NAA. As such, this is an open invitation to the NAA, its current board of governers, and its management. Please take a few minutes and answer the concerns of your membership.

Sincerely,

Chris Olsen
Member since 1988
 
See less See more
#4 ·
Why wouldn't the President of the organization be allowed to look at its books?
This is a small excerpt from the original post......while I am not a member of the NAA, nor do I know that ANY wrongdoings have occured, I can address this question...

I looked on the NAA website, and found out that the NAA is indeed a non-profit organization operating under a 501(c)(3) code with the IRS.

That means that ANY dues paying member may make an appointment to review the most current financial statements available at the legal headquarters of the entity involved. It also means that ANY dues paying member may request in writing that a copy of the same financial statements be sent to them. The 501(c)(3) entity must comply with said written request within 30 days of receipt of the request, and the entity may charge a nominal fee for copies and postage.
 
#5 · (Edited)
Chris,

I've been sitting by watching the commotions, simply left shaking my head. I'm a very interested in the health of the NAA as it was designed and intended, and I have been quite concerned over the actions and quietness of the NAA as of late.

I have to agree that these, and probably more answers need to be addressed immediately by the NAA. It would probably be prudent to give them some time to formulate a response, which would most likely be a week or so after Nationals at the earliest......a month late for these answers (if not more) unfortunately.

No one wants to call out anyone, but there comes a point that the kid gloves need to come off, and the hard questions need to be asked and answered, and corrections need made.....no matter how painfull.

Bring this letter to the membership meeting posted earlier. It needs publicly addressed.
 
#6 ·
Chris, you just outlined seven of the reasons that despite being a freakcurver most of my life I have never become a member of the NAA. I have been an NFAA member instead and I (as well as many other NFAA folks) have always felt that the NAA was an elitist club. There was always a cloak of secrecy around the NAA and I was never able to get any real info on it.

I sincerely hope that the end result of this (as well as a big shake up for positive reasons at the NFAA) will be a united archery association for the USA.........why can't we all shoot under the same roof? Lets hope it all ends well.

Matt
 
#7 ·
It might be an idea to begin collecting signatures for that letter to demonstrate how widespread those concerns are among the membership.
 
#8 ·
It seems that we are at a monumnetal apex in the history of the NAA (and the NFAA). NOW is the time to turn this around for the good for all concerned. Chris, I'm with you on this.
 
#9 ·
Chris, Great topics, I forwarded this to Brad Camp. After speaking to him in person today he told me he has prepared a statement to be released regarding each of your questions. He told me he is awaiting board approval and then would send it to me to post. Glad to see is is willing to work on the transparency problem. :)
 
#11 ·
Get the facts right, or read again:

Section 11.8 Amendments. Subject to repeal or change by action of the members, the power to alter, amend or repeal these Bylaws and adopt new Bylaws shall be vested in the Board of Governors, provided, however, that (i) any such action by the Board of Governors shall require an affirmative vote of two thirds of the votes cast and (ii) no change to these Bylaws shall eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member, unless such change is adopted by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of such class. An effort to repeal an action of the Board of Governors by the members may take place only at the annual members meeting, and can occur only upon approval by no less than two-thirds of the members present in person or by proxy.
 
#17 ·
You can get to the new bylaws by going onto the USArchery site and going to the "About USA Archery" page. Here you will find a link to the new bylaws.

There's a little slight of hand because they are dated as December of last year although they include amendments passed in May that are intended to take effect in August.

Also cast your eyes on Section 7.5.1. Replace the names there with any ethnic group and you will see how totally overreaching the new provisions are.
 
#14 ·
Don't stop reading Section 11.8 after "...with the Board of Governors". It follows that "...(ii) no change to these Bylaws shall eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member, unless such change is adopted by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members.." It seems pretty plain to me that the new classes for voting members, indeed limits the rights of a significant number of members. Under the new by-laws, the rank and file member will be represented by only one board member, whereas in the past, this class voted for 8 board members- two from each region. I do not see how this can be interpreted to not limit a class of voting members.
 
#16 ·
The new and old bylaws are on the NAA Web page at www.usarchery.org.

New: http://www.usarchery.org/files/USAA_Bylaws_5-14-07.pdf
From the Homepage click on "About USA Archery"

Old: http://www.usarchery.org/files/naa_bylaws.pdf
From the Homepage click on "Rules and Regulations"

The new bylaws did not "eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member" so did not require a vote of the membership.

The bylaws were developed along the guidelines of the USOC but were initiated prior to the USOC mandate. The bylaws were posted on the web page for member review and comment. Most suggestions were taken, including the addition of the "At Large" Board seat for members not belonging to another class. The Board then approved the bylaws. Since then, the board has amended the bylaws twice. The first time was to remove the voting rights of the remaining 4 Board members as required by the USOC in their letter. Recently they were amended to change the timeline for a later vote at the request of the Nominating and Governance Committee.

I am only stating the facts here as I feel I am entitled to do as a Board member. I have so much more to say, but I'll keep my opinions to myself for now. I hope that keeps me out of trouble. I'll wait to see Brad's response to the letter.
 
#18 ·
There once was an NAA till the bad wolf ...

I wish the NAA well. Things like this is why I switch to the NFAA this year. The NAA may soon be a very small organization. In my mind it will take a lot to turn this train around and right now it headed for empty tracks. Good luck RK and Jane, if your not successful can you please turn off the lights.:wink:
 
#28 ·
The NAA has provided a formal response to my letter, and it is here for anyone that wishes to read it:

http://www.usarchery.org/files/NAA_Response_to_Membership_8-3-07.pdf

First, I want to thank Mr. Camp and the Executive Committee for formulating a response in such a prompt and informative manner.

That said, I do have a couple of suggestions/offers that the NAA, its Executive Committee, and Board of Governers may wish to consider:

1) I'm extending an invitation to utilize ArcheryTalk.com as a secondary communication tool in adition to www.usarchery.org. USArchery (its representatives, employees, committees, committee members, and board members) can establish their own username(s) and post here in the FITA Forum,

2) The same individuals can send any desired communications through me and I will be happy to post them on ArcheryTalk.com for them, and/or

3) I may even be able to establish a specific subforum to this FITA forum (much like the FITA classified forum) that can be used specifically and only for communications from USArchery to its members.

If USArchery is interested, please let me know and let's see what we can work out. Information flow is the key to good relationships and fewer misunderstandings.

Sincerely,

Chris Olsen
ArcheryTalk.com Administrator
 
#29 ·
Excellent. Have you submitted this offer in writing as well? A formal yea or nay would be nice.

As Alice said "Curiouser and Curiouser".
 
#30 · (Edited)
Chris,
I really wonder if the removal of Lloyd was part of the standard unspoken secrecy code about not speaking out about problems within the NAA.

Mr. Brown was removed from his position for communication and misrepresentation issues. His removal had nothing to do with the association books.
I have always liked Lloyd and he was one of the first NAA persons that helped me/Angela through the first rough years of dealing with the NAA bureaucracy. I have not always agreed with him but appreciated his point of view. I feel he has done archery and our youth a great service through the years.

The NAA does not operate in secrecy. We are constantly moving to a more transparent
organization. There are mechanisms in place that will allow more open and frequent
communication with the different groups within our membership. We encourage the
membership to speak directly to your representative of the board if you have any questions.
That statement does not help in making this letter creditable. Too much history of it.
 
#31 ·
Chris,
I really wonder if the removal of Lloyd was part of the standard unspoken secrecy code about not speaking out about problems within the NAA.



I have always liked Lloyd and he was one of the first NAA persons that helped me/Angela through the first rough years of dealing with the NAA bureaucracy. I have not always agreed with him but appreciated his point of view. I feel he has done archery and our youth a great service through the years.



That statement does not help in making this letter creditable. Too much history of it.
I wondered about that too, Archerone. That particular part of the responses to my letter was vague and incomplete at best.
 
#37 ·
The NAA has a website and, if it chooses at anytime, can give information on weekly progress and upcoming issues they are addressing. Damage control is not progress and vague statements like politicians dancing around a issue keeps us from trusting their output.
 
#39 ·
FLAMom,, RK and I have had several discussions regarding many of the issues with the NAA and the current embezzlement issue. These talks led me to a face to face meeting with Brad Camp this past week. It was at that time I made him aware of this letter and forwarded it to him via email.
 
#40 ·
I see Brad Camp's response to that letter as; business as usual.

The NAA has always operated under a cloak of inaccessibility and secretcy toward the very membership that they are supposed to serve.
They have always behaved as though they only serve the most elite of the elite athletes.

The shame of the whole thing is it is impossible to know how many valuable members they have discouraged or downright pushed away, people that had talent, and a passion to be a part of what should have been a once in a lifetime opportunity. People that had ideas and the talent and ability to have contributed not only to the NAA to make it a better organization, but to help fulfill our Olympic dream.

The general membership has never allowed any accessibility or insight into the workings of the organization, the NAA has in the past been aloof and distant, and by the tone of Brad Camp's letter, remains so today, to everyone except those that are the same familiar circle of cronies. This has been so since I can remember.

The very idea that the NAA agreed to farm out programs that had the potential to help them to raise funds, and should have been the tool to raise the bar on the manner and methods that they utilize to recruit and train coaches, along with the only real resource of youth they had...should really make one wonder... they should have taken some of our money and developed these programs themselves...

Then to add insult to injury; we now learn that while they were raising our membership dues and tournament entry fees; (reflecting some pretty health increases,,,I might add, thus making it very difficult for families to afford to become a member and participate in the NAA organization and activities... (especially struggling families) some of them were actually skimming that money for their own use???? Come on!

How sad for all of us, especially the NAA.

As the Executive Director, isn't Brad Camp; like any other Executive Director in charge of any large organization, I would think he is ultimately as responsible as the lady accused of taking our (not their!!!!!!) money, and should be held accountable as well.

Quote:
The NAA does not operate in secrecy. We are constantly moving to a more transparent
organization. There are mechanisms in place that will allow more open and frequent
communication with the different groups within our membership. We encourage the
membership to speak directly to your representative of the board if you have any questions

To Brad Camp, In view of all that is happening, and has happened, your comment is an insult, sir. The members deserve a clearer more honest explaination than a vague reference of a "mechanism is in place". What is this mechanism... exactly how will it work?

That answer was the same tired old answer we have been subjected to from the NAA, for just about ever...... it is still about as clear as mud.....The time has passed that you can effectively pass the buck with the same ole statement directing us to "our represenative of the board".

IF???? we have questions? We do have many questions, and you owe to us as the Executive Director of OUR organization to answer them in a timely manner and freely with the truth.
 
#42 ·
I think that it is time that the membership posting here starts to define "Transparency".

I am quite interested in hearing in definite terms exactly how the org should conduct business and disseminate information in a manner which is deemed acceptable to the membership.
 
#44 ·
This is a fair question....definately one that the NAA should have asked. We should open the lines of communication with our membership to include all athletes, and coaches out there,,,,,,to invite them to assist in exploring, and developing the ideas that so the people have. Talented people that have been available to them over the years that have come up with ideas to generate fund raising, develop recruitment of potential elite athlete programs, procure additional outside support, etc. Instead, they have closed ranks, which has created and promoted an "us against them" attitude toward the very resources that is their most valuable asset. Hard to get and keep good help like that!

It is reasonable to expect that we must honor the desires and wishes of the USOC and anyone else that oversees and provides so much major support to us... but, I bet that the USOC has never dictated to the NAA that they must remain unaccessible to the general population, to work only from within. I don't think for a moment that the USOC has mandated that NAA only is allowed to focus on the uppermost level of the elite... they are obviously concerned that we haven't developed a solid system to draw from for our future elite athletes and coaches, or the educational system we need in order to find and develop them. The fact that the best we could do was to go outside our own country, and spend so much money to acquire someone else to come in and try to show us how to define a program, for not only our athletes, but our entire teaching system, really is pitiful... what HAVE we been doing for the last decade... ? Doesn't look like much to me... what are we doing to make a positive change?

Dishonoring the only coach that brough home gold for us in the last decade, in such a public way... (shameful, how embarassing for us as a country)...making it virtually impossible for him and all the many other excellent American coaches to have any constructive imput or activity into the development of our programs... then justifying this unacceptable public display by blaming others for the problems. I don't think this is the way the USOC has ruled we should behave as NGB.
 
#45 ·
The NAA has evolved into an archery subsidiary of the USOC. It is run like an independent business or somewhat like government agency. The members are like shareholders waiting for news from the company about their investment. Shareholders are only notified about major changes to their investment. The shareholders do not have rights to know about day to day operations or are they involved in future direction. Not to say that the company does not use committees to further its' input to its shareholders while the company does what it wants. This way there will be always be a few that agree that the committee was responsible for the direction the company uses based upon the committee's decisions.
Now I will go to the subsidiaries of the NAA( Judges, JOAD, Coaches, Etc.). They are run better than the company because they show results. They are free to communicate with each other within their group as long as they just deal with their missions. Parent Company business discussion is held to the minimum. It is not good to go off track.
The Company wants input/output from each subsidiary. That is how they base their progress to the Master corporation(USOC). Each Subsidiary has a Spoke person with a place of importance in the Company. The Company wants to keep privacy over it's business so they aways keep a gag order and personnel screening in their ByLaws over each Subsidiary Spoke person. Shareholders have rights but are limited to annual meetings, as per ByLaws, which are always located inconveniently to the majority. Only active members that travel to that location can vote in these meetings.

The NAA can not grow with all the controls it has in place. The ByLaws need to be sent out for discussion to each State. The NAA membership needs to give input into these ByLaws and make changes that benefit the voting rights and open discussion of the overall membership. The overall membership needs to vote on them.

The USOC chases away independent sponsors with their National contracts. I found a National sponsor in the past but NAA /USOC conditions drove them away. The NAA needs to look hard on how to get Sponsors to wean itself from the USOC total control.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top