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

[RecordKeeper]

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

[Archerone]

Chris,
I second your motion!

[Dave T]

Well said!

But what else would you expect from someone who shoots a Best Zenit (big smiley face goes here)

Dave
(who has a Best Moon and a Best Mercury)

[Big Country]

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.

[Huntmaster]

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.

[flntknp17]

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

[Hutnicks]

It might be an idea to begin collecting signatures for that letter to demonstrate how widespread those concerns are among the membership.

[target1]

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.

[BHNTR1]

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.

[Archerone]

Originally Posted by BHNTR1

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.

I am real interested in the ByLaws answer specially when it takes a vote of the membership to change them.

[Lloyd]

Originally Posted by Archerone

I am real interested in the ByLaws answer specially when it takes a vote of the membership to change them.

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.

[RecordKeeper]

Lloyd, thanks for posting.

Where can we find these bylaws?

[Archerone]

Originally Posted by Lloyd

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.

Lloyd,

I stand by what I said. There has been an anouncement of ByLaw changes but no mention of an affirmative vote of two thirds of the membership to make them stand. The quiet way it is being done is so to take advantage of the short time the membership has to learn about it. Small turn-out at the Nationals/annual members meeting makes voting the change easy. It is an old political trick. Sad to say it usually works.

[BAF]

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.

[Archerone]

Originally Posted by BAF

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.

Very good point! It is a legality point which probably will not get challenged.

[Lloyd]

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.

[SpaceMan]

Originally Posted by Recordkeeper

Lloyd, thanks for posting.

Where can we find these bylaws?

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.

[Sky Warrior]

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.

[bsu_beginner]

Whatever happened to the days of "just lettem shoot?" . why does it have to get so political?

[oldreliable67]

Originally Posted by bsu_beginner

Whatever happened to the days of "just lettem shoot?" . why does it have to get so political?

Any time there is money involved...

[CM JOAD]

Originally Posted by oldreliable67

Any time there is money involved...

... and power!

[RecordKeeper]

Details regarding the Nominating Committee and the nomination process are now posted on the USArchery website:

http://usarchery.org/html/NominatingGovernance.html

[BHNTR1]

Originally Posted by Recordkeeper

Details regarding the Nominating Committee and the nomination process are now posted on the USArchery website:

http://usarchery.org/html/NominatingGovernance.html

Good to see some info is finally starting to flow!!!!!

[stodrette]

Originally Posted by Recordkeeper

Details regarding the Nominating Committee and the nomination process are now posted on the USArchery website:

http://usarchery.org/html/NominatingGovernance.html

Nothing like having to restart, eh RK?

[azarcherymom]

These are good people on the nominating committee. I hope good things come from this and we can all move forward.

[limbwalker]

... and power!

Huh?

John.

[AKDoug]

Huh?

Not real power, John. Just perceived. Don't believe it? Try changing an NFAA state or sectional director. Some of these guys hold on like they think they are the President of the United States. It's amazing sometimes.

[RecordKeeper]

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_R...hip_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

[Hutnicks]

Originally Posted by Recordkeeper

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_R...hip_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

Excellent. Have you submitted this offer in writing as well? A formal yea or nay would be nice.

As Alice said "Curiouser and Curiouser".

[Archerone]

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.

[RecordKeeper]

Originally Posted by Archerone

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.

[RecordKeeper]

Originally Posted by Hutnicks

Excellent. Have you submitted this offer in writing as well? A formal yea or nay would be nice.

As Alice said "Curiouser and Curiouser".

I have submitted this. But the venue of communication that I have chosen is indeed ArcheryTalk.com. I believe this is the most powerful archery related communication tool available. My bet is the NAA will see it.

I actually have a subforum set up and ready to activate. I'm thinking about how to moderate it, and whether to make it a realtime live forum or a forum where the moderator has the ability to approve posts before they become visible. I want to think this through carefully to make it an effective communication tool rather than a place for bashing. I think that would be very discouraging and counterproductive. I'm willing to work with the NAA to establish an effective line for communication via ArcheryTalk.com.

If this works out, we can look into establishing similar subforums for other national level not for profit archery related organizations. This is just in the thinking pot stage right now though.

[Archerone]

Originally Posted by Recordkeeper

I wondered about that too, Archerone. That particular part of the responses to my letter was vague and incomplete at best.

Now I get it! NAA responses now will be transparent/incomplete to us all!

[FLarcherymom]

Originally Posted by Recordkeeper

I want to think this through carefully to make it an effective communication tool rather than a place for bashing. I think that would be very discouraging and counterproductive.

I agree with your mind set here. We don't need another NAA bashing forum.

[BHNTR1]

Originally Posted by Archerone

Now I get it! NAA responses now will be transparent/incomplete to us all!

I truly doubt that this is how it will be, Transparent has a totally different meaning when used in the context and described!!!

[Hutnicks]

Originally Posted by Recordkeeper

I have submitted this. But the venue of communication that I have chosen is indeed ArcheryTalk.com. I believe this is the most powerful archery related communication tool available. My bet is the NAA will see it.

I actually have a subforum set up and ready to activate. I'm thinking about how to moderate it, and whether to make it a realtime live forum or a forum where the moderator has the ability to approve posts before they become visible. I want to think this through carefully to make it an effective communication tool rather than a place for bashing. I think that would be very discouraging and counterproductive. I'm willing to work with the NAA to establish an effective line for communication via ArcheryTalk.com.

If this works out, we can look into establishing similar subforums for other national level not for profit archery related organizations. This is just in the thinking pot stage right now though.

I think I would follow up with hardcopy and have a couriers sig, for my own reference but thats just me.

The moderation issue will be a critical negotiation point I believe. But it is just that, a negotiation point. Perhaps a shared moderation schedule with NAA having a right to remove or veto a post could work. A brief post with a reason for removal of a post may prove usefull as well in that particular type of forum. As well, a few of the "rules of warefare) may require modification or abrogation entirely. Entered into with an attitude of co operation between both parties this could be a forcefull and informative venue.


Now, how do we keep bowhunters from posting classifieds there?

[Archerone]

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.

[FLarcherymom]

Originally Posted by Hutnicks

I think I would follow up with hardcopy and have a couriers sig

RK: Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't your open letter to the NAA only posted on this forum and never sent in hardcopy to the NAA? If that is the case, why would you do anything but the same here?

[BHNTR1]

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.

[gonehuntin]

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.