PDA

View Full Version : CRPA final board reforms


Pages : [1] 2 3

hoffmang
02-21-2012, 10:36 PM
CRPA Members, and future CRPA Members:

As some of you are aware, I have been on a mission to reform CRPA so that it can be an effective representative of we who care about competitive shooting, hunting, and the right to bear arms. The first steps were taken some years ago by allowing limited petition candidacy to the board. The second major step was taken when CRPA significantly upgraded its representative in Sacramento.

What remains are the final steps to bring the CRPA bylaws into compliance with California law and basic good governance and democratic principals for membership organizations. CRPA, in the past, was able to get pretty far off the rails and the only way those who cared about gun rights could respond was to vote with their feet. It's my belief that CRPA should be structured to be more responsive to its actual members. That structure would protect the organization members from having CRPA veer so far away from representing its members as CRPA had gotten prior to 2006. Consider this an attempt to future proof CRPA so that it can take the lead as CGF and others complete its litigation mission and retire from the battlefield.

I've proposed amendments to the bylaws of CRPA to get it closer to this ideal. The Bylaws committee recommended against adopting these amendments with no comment. I hope you find that as troubling as I do. To get a feel for why the current structure is troubling, I'd ask all folks in the gun community to take this brief survey to see if they would be "qualified" to be a candidate and stand for election to the board of directors of CRPA: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KBGKLGD

Please also ask friends, and neighbors who are or should be members of CRPA to take the same survey. I'd appreciate getting as many people to take the survey as possible before the end of the day Saturday 2/25/12 but am interested in the data that comes from that survey over the coming weeks either way.

I've attached the redline PDF version of the CRPA bylaw changes I've recommend for everyone's reference. I think some further background is required to understand why these bylaw changes are being proposed by me and what the underlying issues are.

First, some important information on California Law, namely the California Corporations Code and the type of entity that CRPA is - a non-profit mutual benefit corporation. As a corporation with "members" as that term is defined under California law, the members have rights that are very similar to shareholder rights in a public corporation. However, CRPA's corporate structure is directly analogous to a Homeowners Association. As such, members have a host of rights under California law regarding board candidacy, voting rights, the winding up of the membership corporation and other related issues. Thinking about CRPA as an HOA can be informative as you think about the rights I outline below. Becoming a member of CRPA is like buying a house in an HOA neighborhood as a matter of law.

It should also be noted that the NRA is a New York membership corporation with similar bylaw requirements under NY state law. You will see below how those requirements are mirrored by the proposal I've put forward.

In California, bylaws as they relate to board candidacy and member voting are subject to a safe harbor in the law. That safe harbor can be found in California Corporations Code § 7520 (http://law.onecle.com/california/corporations/7520.html). The Corp. Code outlines procedures that are deemed "reasonable." Deviations from the Corporations Code requirements would not be de facto "unreasonable," but would require strong evidence that they don't violate the rights of members of the corporation should those non safe harbor procedures be challenged.

There are two core rights of members that the current CRPA bylaws don't handle reasonably. First, a member has the right to become a board candidate upon objective and broad (and not subjective and narrow) criteria that are fairly and equally applicable across the entire membership. Second, all members have the right to have their candidate-specific vote count equally as against other members and the various candidates.

You will note that this is true of the NRA election process. All NRA members of a certain vintage or class can get themselves on the board ballot (either via the Nominating Committee or via petition) and all voting members can vote for any and all candidates they wish to.

At CRPA, the Activity Committee system and the limit on the number of petition candidates runs afoul of California law and fair board candidacy practices. I am confident that only a minority of all members and certainly almost no new members qualify to run for nearly 2/3 of the elected positions on the board under the Activity Committee construct (and hence I've asked you all to take the survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KBGKLGD) to see if this intuition is correct.) This is an unreasonable requirement to become a board candidate as it unfairly enfranchises those that, for instance, shoot air rifle over those members of CRPA who are not competitive shooters. Unless CRPA wishes to deny the initial membership of all non-competitive shooters, I'm confident that a court would find this to be an unreasonable restriction on the ability for a member to access the board ballot. There are no similar restrictions on NRA board candidacy.

Further, the way that petition candidacy currently works, if there are 6 incumbent petition board members then no one can effectively petition to be a candidate for the board. That alone fully violates the California Corporations Code safe harbor for petition candidacy. The Corp. Code changed in the late 1970's in response to a similar situation and litigations at the Southern California Automobile Association so it is pretty clearly the intent of the California Legislature that members be allowed to petition to be candidates for all of the board and not just a very small (or non existent) minority of the board.

Finally, the current structure of the bylaws violates every member's right to have their vote count fully and fairly. In our last election, it was quite plausible for a member to want to vote for only those people who were candidates for the Programs and Coalitions Development Committee and not for anyone who was a candidate for, say, Pistol Committee. That member is not allowed to cast her ballot in the way she wanted to based on our current bylaws. That violates her right to a fair and equitable ability to vote for the candidates of her choice. Note however that the Northern California v. Southern California geographic distinction is contemplated in the Corp. Code safe harbor as being reasonable.

Based upon my analysis, I believe that any CRPA board election we run under the current bylaws is subject to a successful challenge for invalidation by any board candidate who isn't elected, any petition candidate who can't qualify, or by any member who votes in that election and can't vote their preferred slate.

That's why I propose these bylaw revisions. However, there are some revisions in my proposal that go beyond the minimum required to cure our California Corporate Code violations. As such, I've broken a description of all of the proposed bylaw revisions into two categories: 1. changes I believe required to cure our violations and otherwise conform ourselves with NRA's bylaws and 2. those bylaw changes that I believe would be beneficial but are not required.

Changes required to obtain CA Corp Code Safe Harbor:

Limiting board access to only those who reach heightened qualification of the Activity Committees is an unfair ballot practice.

A limited number of Committee Chairman are retained to address stated concerns that certain specialization is needed to run many of the Activities delegated to those committees.

The Nominating Committee nominates candidates for Board and Committee Chairman.

Rolling forward, Petition candidates must have been 2 year consecutive members or life members. The roll forward is to alleviate the need to obtain a membership wide vote on this change as it would otherwise negatively effect the rights of members should it not roll in.

Petition candidates can petition for a board seat and/or a Committee Chairmanship. Petition candidates need only be 2 year (once rolled in) or life members or qualified for a Committee Chair. All candidates can run for both a regular board seat and a Chairmanship and if they lose the Chair then they can still win a seat but Chairman elections are not bound by the geographic restrictions.

Maintain the North/South geographic restrictions for almost all board seats.

Clarify what sorts of ballots are accepted in an election.

Changes not required but beneficial:

Lower the petition signature count required to 25. 100 is the safe harbor amount required in the CA Corp Code. 25 is more in line with the percentage of signature that should be required based on CRPA's membership size.

Moves the Legislative Policy Committee to Activity Committee status and imposes qualifications on the elected Chairman. Retains NRA observer rights on the LPC. LPC is clearly just as important to this organization as the shooting sports.

Specify that the President or Vice President of CRPA must have been a board member or committee chairman directly elected by the members at a full election and can't be an appointed board member.

Changes the term of a board member to two consecutive years. Three years could also work, but it would require a balancing formula.

Multiple clarifications where California Resident is replaced with domicile which is better defined under CA law and maintains the spirit and point of the residency restriction.

Clarify that Honorary Members can domicile outside of California

Clarify when petition forms are available.

Clarify that business of an Activity Committee shall not be done by the Executive Committee without the consent of the Activity Committee in question.

The CRPA annual meeting (https://store.crpa.org/categories.php?category=137th-Annual-Gala) will be held this weekend at the Double Tree Hilton Ontario Airport - 222 North Vineyard Avenue, Ontario, CA, 91764. It is most likely that these bylaw issues will come up around 10AM Sunday.

If you support access by all the members to the CRPA board ballot and fair elections I would ask you to do two things. Please fill out the survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KBGKLGD) I linked above as it adds real data to the debate about whether the board access restrictions are reasonable for the members and future members. Second, please send an email supporting these changes to contact at crpa.org and copy me at hoffmang at hoffmang.com.

With your help, the final step of CRPA reform can be completed and we can all trust that CRPA will remain a bulwark of our gun community.

-Gene

wjc
02-21-2012, 10:45 PM
Survey done. Not sure it'll help.

freonr22
02-21-2012, 11:00 PM
Survey done..

greasemonkey
02-21-2012, 11:22 PM
It's only reasonable that an organization which preaches that State officials should abide by current State laws should, itself, operate in compliance with State Laws.

As a CRPA member and Civil Rights activist, I'd most certainly like to see my organization abide by California Law.

oaklander
02-21-2012, 11:33 PM
Shoutout from Oakland. . .

+1, g. . .

As a CRPA member and Civil Rights activist, I'd most certainly like to see my organization abide by California Law.

:)

CRPAGunner
02-21-2012, 11:38 PM
I strongly encourage all CRPA members to take the survey...........This is YOUR organization and we want to hear from you and get your feedback.......!!!!!

Thanks for your support.............

erik
02-21-2012, 11:42 PM
It's only reasonable that an organization which preaches that State officials should abide by current State laws should, itself, operate in compliance with State Laws.

This.

(also, survey taken.)

AlliedArmory
02-22-2012, 12:16 AM
Survey taken.

Cnynrat
02-22-2012, 12:27 AM
Survey taken.

twoyellowlabs
02-22-2012, 5:00 AM
Survey taken.

SanPedroShooter
02-22-2012, 5:06 AM
Done

PCPerks
02-22-2012, 5:59 AM
Done

speedrrracer
02-22-2012, 6:15 AM
as CGF and others complete its litigation mission and retire from the battlefield.


:eek:

Retire??

Anyone else feel like (with regards to 2nd amendment rights) California will be Communist China in 5 minutes if CGF goes away?

oh, survey done

fiddletown
02-22-2012, 6:54 AM
I've taken the survey.

I've also reviewed the proposed changes to the bylaws and sent an email to the CRPA supporting those revisions.

Rock6.3
02-22-2012, 6:57 AM
Survey completed.

goober
02-22-2012, 6:58 AM
Hear, hear!!!
Thank you, Gene!

(I'll be there this weekend, of course).

hoffmang
02-22-2012, 7:44 AM
Retire??

Anyone else feel like (with regards to 2nd amendment rights) California will be Communist China in 5 minutes if CGF goes away?

We're not running away anytime soon, but CGF is an organization designed to complete a mission and come to an end. As crazy as it sounds today, there will be a time in the not too distant future that the battles that remain are limited and can fully be handled by the big boys left on the scene. Hence in many ways my desire to CRPA robust.

We've had 91 survey responses so far. Please keep them coming as this data is important and "anonymized" to the extent that I only see your IPs and answers.

-Gene

762cavalier
02-22-2012, 7:50 AM
Survey done

spgripside
02-22-2012, 8:06 AM
Survey taken and email sent. Thanks Gene.

Southwest Chuck
02-22-2012, 8:24 AM
Survey Done

berto
02-22-2012, 8:38 AM
Done. Former member. Want to come back but not doing it until these changes are made.

Drivedabizness
02-22-2012, 8:45 AM
Survey taken...don't know how much they care about the opinion of a former member.

Too much douchebaggery back in the day. Hope things get better. The vote on changes will be an indicator to me.

greasemonkey
02-22-2012, 8:56 AM
It initially surprised me how frequently I heard reactions like yours when I ask whether or not someone is a CRPA member; it was only surprising until I started digging into how my CRPA actually operates vs. what gets reported in The Firing Line.
Done. Former member. Want to come back but not doing it until these changes are made.

Wildhawk66
02-22-2012, 9:04 AM
Survey taken.

uyoga
02-22-2012, 9:06 AM
Done. As a matter of interest, I have, in the past, attempted to search for "Board of Directors" on the CRPA website, and found no list of names. I think knowing who the directors are is important. CRPA Life Member.

Californio
02-22-2012, 9:30 AM
Survey taken.

j411701
02-22-2012, 9:50 AM
Done
Thanks Gene.

BigFatGuy
02-22-2012, 9:51 AM
Done. Based on what i've learned since I joined, I suspect this will be my last year of membership in the CRPA unless I see something change.

Gryff
02-22-2012, 10:00 AM
Done. I'm a CRPA Board member, and I fully agree with Gene on this.

greasemonkey
02-22-2012, 10:13 AM
I strongly encourage all CRPA members to take the survey...........This is YOUR organization and we want to hear from you and get your feedback.......!!!!!

Thanks for your support.............
Tony, perhaps you can help me flesh out why my post was deleted in reply to uyoga's comment.

It's difficult to find out who the board of directors are or how to contact them. If it weren't for the discussions and election drives that took place here on CGN, I wouldn't really know who any of the other board members were or how to contact them.

As I said in my deleted post, it would be nice to have a more open, accessible board of directors.

Done. As a matter of interest, I have, in the past, attempted to search for "Board of Directors" on the CRPA website, and found no list of names. I think knowing who the directors are is important. CRPA Life Member.

rp55
02-22-2012, 10:25 AM
done.

ptoguy2002
02-22-2012, 11:16 AM
So if and when CGF's mission comes to an end, is there a planned mechanism in CRPA or other .org to take over some of the CGF work that will continue to be needed (that nobody else does)?
Examples:

Defended Bright Spot Pawn from AW charges: http://bit.ly/7FC20j
Defended John Contos from AW charges: http://bit.ly/4wQDpv
Defended UOC-ing Marine charged in Oceanside: http://bit.ly/8o6nE5
Defended large-capacity magazine charge.
Defended Don Anderson against AW charges: http://bit.ly/6L0Ykb
Defended legal AR (Orange County Sheriff Department AR seizure):
etc
etc
etc
I fear it would just be open season again...

bwiese
02-22-2012, 11:43 AM
PtoGuy,

If and when CGF feels sufficient progress has been made to shut down (i.e, when we roll back to 1980s plus have sane CCW, etc.) we can go shooting.

There should be sufficient resources out there to Hold Position, and deal with related hunting/outdoor issues.

The Lead ammo issue is a huge one and only the NRA will be able to fight that because it's less of a 2A issue and involves significant litigation/discovery on multiple fronts in combination to political weight. Several folks on NRA board and staff (and CRPA's Joel Friedman, who's also an NRA Director, in particular) are well-equipped for this battle.

Doesn't much matter if you can have all sortsa evil features on your gun if it costs you $5/round to shoot it.

bwiese
02-22-2012, 11:44 AM
Done. Based on what i've learned since I joined, I suspect this will be my last year of membership in the CRPA unless I see something change.

From one BigFatGuy to another:

Easy now, hold your horses. I think we can/will get squared away.

Purple K
02-22-2012, 11:45 AM
Certain elements of the Board=cronyism...

wildhawker
02-22-2012, 11:57 AM
I think we can/will get squared away.

It's really perplexing that the Bylaws Committee would oppose this common-sense proposal to make CRPA a better organization. Democracy is the American way - why should CRPA members settle for less than they are entitled to?

I do agree that CRPA bylaws will get squared away - one way or another.

-Brandon

GMG
02-22-2012, 12:08 PM
Survey says = done !

cvc04
02-22-2012, 12:13 PM
Done. Good luck with your efforts.

GOEX FFF
02-22-2012, 12:19 PM
Survey complete! Thanks Gene!

GutPunch
02-22-2012, 12:51 PM
Took the survey and then signed up for CRPA.

Edit: Sig updated!

Kestryll
02-22-2012, 1:04 PM
Tony, perhaps you can help me flesh out why my post was deleted in reply to uyoga's comment.

Tony can't answer that because he has no ability to delete posts here.

I do and I did.

Why? Because I'm getting quite tired of the orchestrated little drive-by sniping posts and comments and if they continue posts won't be the only thing deleted.

Steyrlp10
02-22-2012, 1:14 PM
I'm here to help in whatever capacity that I can, so I took the survey also. My thing is that we're all on the same side since we're reading and responding to this thread. Many of you are my friends, but I wouldn't consider my friendship to cloud my view of our fight to hang onto our 2A rights.

In other words, although I am fond of many of you, that doesn't make me biased being a member of the CRPA or being part of the Board. I want what is good for all of us, and I believe that we can agree on that issue, that we are trying to improve things by getting feedback. We have to start somewhere -- even if it's baby steps :)

greasemonkey
02-22-2012, 1:25 PM
Thanks for answering, Paul, I'm well aware that Tony's not a moderator. I asked him, as my point CRPA Leader, for help in fleshing it out as you still have yet to reply to me on the last time I was banned from 2A for asking questions about CRPA. If I don't know what forum rules I've broken, how am I supposed to avoid making the same mistake in the future?

The nature of my comment being negative is hardly derived from me being snarky but in reality, speaks into the current status of the CRPA. I thought we as members were welcome to ask questions/comment on the current state of the CRPA leadership. I did no name-calling or blaming, I simply spoke into how frustrating it is for us members to contact our Board of Directors, let alone even know who they are...do you perceive that as me being inflammatory or indicative of an existing problem that needs to be fixed?

No need to shoot the messenger here, Paul, I'm just voicing the opinion of several members of my community, many of whom refuse to re-join the CRPA. If myself and my community are wrong, it seems more prudent to point out how ridiculous and wrong we are rather than delete posts, ban-hammer and refuse to reply to emails.
Tony can't answer that because he has no ability to delete posts here.

I do and I did.

Why? Because I'm getting quite tired of the orchestrated little drive-by sniping posts and comments and if they continue posts won't be the only thing deleted.

taperxz
02-22-2012, 1:26 PM
It's really perplexing that the Bylaws Committee would oppose this common-sense proposal to make CRPA a better organization. Democracy is the American way - why should CRPA members settle for less than they are entitled to?

I do agree that CRPA bylaws will get squared away - one way or another.

-Brandon

While i do enjoy your enthusiasm, i guess the past of the CRPA still has me concerned. Kinda like old Senators who don't want to give up the ability to day trade on the stock market while getting all the inside information for the their own benefit. Only time will tell. Good luck guys.

Survey completed.

Kestryll
02-22-2012, 1:30 PM
Survey taken.

I very much agree that things have to be brought in to compliance with the law, this shouldn't be an option or even up for discussion.
The law is the law and like it or not we should abide by it, if we think it's wrong we should work to change the law but until then we are bound by it.


I know my personal concern is where the balance point is between making things more accessible to the members and making getting on the CRPA Board something that can be done with $25 and a whim because I'm bored this weekend.

I agree there needs to be more access to the Committees and qualifications are limiting across the board but I also feel that there needs to be some level of qualification within the committees. All of the committees have a specialized focus and knowing how things work in the realm of that focus is necessary.
If no one on the Pistol Committee shots competition pistol what are they going to do and how are they going to make decisions that actually make sense?
And Yes, I'd apply that question to all committees, if you don't know at least a basic understanding of finance or politics or technology how are you going to serve on those committees?

My question is why does it have to be all or nothing?
Why not something like the Chairman and a Vice Chairman of each committee needs to have some practical skills that apply to that committee and the rest of the committee does not.
The knowledge is now there but so is the member input and instead of requiring some certification or another as the only means of showing practical skill or familiarity make two years on the committee as a regular member meet the criteria for 'working knowledge' to be Chairman/Vice Chairman.
This would give CRPA members access to the Committees and a path to being Chairman/Vice Chairman without having to be part of a clique or club.


Frankly I'm going to listen to the various arguments, input, opinions and concerns first before deciding where I fall on all of this but the legal aspects are not in question at all to me, coming in to compliance with the law simply has to happen.


Certain elements of the Board=cronyism...
Having attended several Board meetings as a Board member I can say this is true as is the division in to various 'blocks' depending on varying agendas and interests.

All of this is really being much harder than it needs to be and for no good reason.

Kestryll
02-22-2012, 1:36 PM
Thanks for answering, Paul, I'm well aware that Tony's not a moderator. I asked him, as my point CRPA Leader, for help in fleshing it out as you still have yet to reply to me on the last time I was banned from 2A for asking questions about CRPA. If I don't know what forum rules I've broken, how am I supposed to avoid making the same mistake in the future?

The nature of my comment being negative is hardly derived from me being snarky but in reality, speaks into the current status of the CRPA. I thought we as members were welcome to ask questions/comment on the current state of the CRPA leadership. I did no name-calling or blaming, I simply spoke into how frustrating it is for us members to contact our Board of Directors, let alone even know who they are...do you perceive that as me being inflammatory or indicative of an existing problem that needs to be fixed?

No need to shoot the messenger here, Paul, I'm just voicing the opinion of several members of my community, many of whom refuse to re-join the CRPA. If myself and my community are wrong, it seems more prudent to point out how ridiculous and wrong we are rather than delete posts, ban-hammer and refuse to reply to emails.


I know exactly what you are voicing, why, what agenda you are following and on who's behalf you are doing so.

I'm not asking for debate, I'm telling you I'm tired of it and that this does not bode well if it continues.
Since debate is off the table the only options left are keep the little digs and 'leading' comments to yourself and stick substantive discussion or find out where the edge of my sense of tolerance is.

Kestryll
02-22-2012, 1:44 PM
I thought we as members were welcome to ask questions/comment on the current state of the CRPA leadership.

You are more than welcome to ask them, go do so.

Send them an email, make a phone call, write a letter or show up at the meeting.

However this is NOT CRPA.net it is Calguns.net so you're asking in the wrong place.
Here you can ask questions all you want but if they are not civil or are asked only in a derogatory way to express an agenda rather than to get an answer then there is a problem HERE that has nothing to do with the CRPA.

You can say whatever you want to CRPA on their site, on CGN we have rules mandating civility and the response to backhanded digs at CRPA will be handled just the same as backhanded digs at The Pink Pistols would and have been handled or any other group.

Make your point civilly and without the word games, you'd be surprised how effective and less problematic that can be.

blakdawg
02-22-2012, 1:51 PM
Survey taken. I'm a CRPA member and disgusted with the level of transparency and accountability shown by the CRPA board and CGN (not CGF) with respect to CRPA.

It's ridiculous that I'm a member and I can't easily even figure out who's on the Board, much less how I might contact/interact with them on issues of concern to me as a member.

I've got plenty more to say on this, but the last time I was even moderately unkind to CRPA on CGN, my post mysteriously disappeared.

Kestryll
02-22-2012, 1:52 PM
However this is NOT CRPA.net...

Wow, speaking of which someone dropped the ball hardcore.

crpa.net is the 'Cherokee Recreational & Parks Agency'

crpa.com is the 'Connecticut Recreation & Parks Association'

California Rifle & Pistol Association predates both of these and should have secured those urls with redirects long ago!

greasemonkey
02-22-2012, 1:54 PM
I know exactly what you are voicing, why, what agenda you are following and on who's behalf you are doing so.

I'm not asking for debate, I'm telling you I'm tired of it and that this does not bode well if it continues.
Since debate is off the table the only options left are keep the little digs and 'leading' comments to yourself and stick substantive discussion or find out where the edge of my sense of tolerance is.

Well, I guess my cover is blown...I'm a Brady plant. :eek:

greasemonkey
02-22-2012, 1:58 PM
That's kind of the point, I don't even know who they are or how to contact them.
You are more than welcome to ask them, go do so.

Send them an email, make a phone call, write a letter or show up at the meeting.

However this is NOT CRPA.net it is Calguns.net so you're asking in the wrong place.
Here you can ask questions all you want but if they are not civil or are asked only in a derogatory way to express an agenda rather than to get an answer then there is a problem HERE that has nothing to do with the CRPA.

You can say whatever you want to CRPA on their site, on CGN we have rules mandating civility and the response to backhanded digs at CRPA will be handled just the same as backhanded digs at The Pink Pistols would and have been handled or any other group.

Make your point civilly and without the word games, you'd be surprised how effective and less problematic that can be.

wildhawker
02-22-2012, 2:00 PM
I know my personal concern is where the balance point is between making things more accessible to the members and making getting on the CRPA Board something that can be done with $25 and a whim because I'm bored this weekend.

Going back to the matter of law, the floor is set there. Compliance with the law is a minimum; the questions, then, become:


"How much do we really care about member participation and investment?"
"Do we trust our members to control the destiny of the organization?"
"What interests are we trying to protect? [Who/what/why are we trying to exclude?]"
"How are we going to make CRPA relevant to the quickly-changing demographics of new shooters in California?"
"How can we offer real product to our members?"


I agree there needs to be more access to the Committees and qualifications are limiting across the board but I also feel that there needs to be some level of qualification within the committees. All of the committees have a specialized focus and knowing how things work in the realm of that focus is necessary.

If no one on the Pistol Committee shots competition pistol what are they going to do and how are they going to make decisions that actually make sense?
And Yes, I'd apply that question to all committees, if you don't know at least a basic understanding of finance or politics or technology how are you going to serve on those committees?

CRPA still has an identity crisis, of sorts, to work through. I suspect that by allowing members to really become part of the equation, we'll see CRPA evolve over the next 5 years into something that has a more refined committee and interest structure.

My proposal, which is a few steps beyond Gene's, prospectively addressed these issues and built in a revised framework. However, and I agree with this, right now we need to focus on getting the core issues resolved (like compliance with Cal. Corp. Code and fair elections). We can't even seem to get the Bylaws Committee to get behind common-sense reforms so we don't get sued!

My question is why does it have to be all or nothing?
Why not something like the Chairman and a Vice Chairman of each committee needs to have some practical skills that apply to that committee and the rest of the committee does not.

That is how Gene's proposal operates. (The one that the Bylaws Committee made an official recommendation against.) It's a balancing of interests, yes. However, his meeting in the middle is far more in the middle than mine would be. I think it's extraordinarily reasonable and balanced.

All of this is really being much harder than it needs to be and for no good reason.

This is no different than a grassroots effort to clean up Congress or any other such thing. It's the new blood vs. the establishment, and entirely predictable (and predicted; you probably remember that, years ago, [when I first ran the board petition and election campaigns] we anticipated resistance to correcting the bylaws and making the elections democratic and accessible for the members).

-Brandon

Kestryll
02-22-2012, 2:04 PM
I've got plenty more to say on this, but the last time I was even moderately unkind to CRPA on CGN, my post mysteriously disappeared.

I'm a little curious as to what post you are referring to.

I have just scrolled through every post you've made in the past year looking for either CRPA references or deleted posts/threads and all i found was this one which is still very much there.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=7398061&postcount=32

What went missing?

blakdawg
02-22-2012, 2:15 PM
I'm a little curious as to what post you are referring to.

I have just scrolled through every post you've made in the past year looking for either CRPA references or deleted posts/threads and all i found was this one which is still very much there.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=7398061&postcount=32

What went missing?

There was an earlier thread - it started with a similar discussion of bylaws and bylaw changes inspired/promoted by CGF/CGN people, then *poof* the whole thread disappeared. I didn't expect that so I unfortunately didn't save a copy. I don't think my contribution was particularly important or memorable but I was sorry to see the whole thing disappear - I remember it as explaining a lot (in a helpful way) about what was really going on with CRPA and the different committees and generally the governance structure, which I've found relatively hard to understand, despite having been a member off and on for 15 years.

berto
02-22-2012, 2:16 PM
That's kind of the point, I don't even know who they are or how to contact them.


Indeed. I didn't renew my membership beacause it seemed CRPA wasn't responsive. I couldn't figure out who was on the board or why they were on the board. When I asked for a copy of the bylaws I received nothing. Gene's link is the first time I've seen them. Transparency and accountability.

Kestryll
02-22-2012, 2:17 PM
That's kind of the point, I don't even know who they are or how to contact them.

This is definitely something that needs to be addressed and should be brought up at this upcoming meeting.

In fact as a member of the Communications and Technology Committee I will bring this up Friday at our committee meeting and see what steps need to be taken to establish and publicize a 'Contact Us' for the CRPA Board.

Kestryll
02-22-2012, 2:20 PM
There was an earlier thread - it started with a similar discussion of bylaws and bylaw changes inspired/promoted by CGF/CGN people, then *poof* the whole thread disappeared. I didn't expect that so I unfortunately didn't save a copy. I don't think my contribution was particularly important or memorable but I was sorry to see the whole thing disappear - I remember it as explaining a lot (in a helpful way) about what was really going on with CRPA and the different committees and generally the governance structure, which I've found relatively hard to understand, despite having been a member off and on for 15 years.

Interesting, even if the thread was deleted your post should still show up in an Admin Search.

I'm curious as to what happened now so I'm going to keep poking around and see what I can find.

taperxz
02-22-2012, 2:24 PM
This is definitely something that needs to be addressed and should be brought up at this upcoming meeting.

In fact as a member of the Communications and Technology Committee I will bring this up Friday at our committee meeting and see what steps need to be taken to establish and publicize a 'Contact Us' for the CRPA Board.

I felt the same way in regards to communication years ago and stopped contributing. I rejoined recently on Brandons urging to do so and am looking to see some positive change.

What i don't like to see is delayed emailings from them. Example: Already 3 pages on a topic here and then CRPA sends the mailing out a week later.

Sometimes, the bickering between the two orgs end up here also.

FWIW i'm really talking only about the communications aspect and how they are handled/conveyed. NOT one group over the other.

Kestryll
02-22-2012, 2:30 PM
I felt the same way in regards to communication years ago and stopped contributing. I rejoined recently on Brandons urging to do so and am looking to see some positive change.

What i don't like to see is delayed emailings from them. Example: Already 3 pages on a topic here and then CRPA sends the mailing out a week later.

Sometimes, the bickering between the two orgs end up here also.

FWIW i'm really talking only about the communications aspect and how they are handled/conveyed. NOT one group over the other.

Well, I've managed to figure out how to set the 'Reminder' on my iPhone and set it to remind me about a 'Contact Us' link on Friday 5 minutes after the C&T meeting starts so I'll see what I can get done.


ETA: I just read that back to myself and realized how bad that sounds, web admin and communications and technology committee member and I've pleased with myself for figuring out the Reminders on my iPhone.
Yeah, that instills confidence...

CRPAGunner
02-22-2012, 2:35 PM
Let's keep things in perspective here. All of us want the same thing; a strong, secure, modern CRPA that is transparent, inclusive of all gun owners and a force to be reckoned with in Sacramento. Making sure that the Association runs in accordance with all applicable laws and codes is a given. That is not even up for debate.

The only question is how do we make things better? We are all on the same side, yet there are times when we are more than willing to eat our young! We are not always going to agree on every issue. However, we can agree to work together in the common interests of all of us. The antis really don't have to do anything to fight us. We are perfectly capable of fighting and destroying each other! Divide and conquer. It's been a very effective tactic since Alexander the great. I much prefer the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I support Gene's survey and the purpose behind it. I have no problem with receiving feedback from our members under any circumstances. In fact, I welcome it. As KESTRYLL already mentioned, I have no power or influence in what posts get deleted and what remains. That's not my call.

However, it is very disingenuous for some people to say that they don't know how to contact CRPA or who the officers or Board of Directors are etc. All that information is only a few mouse clicks away and has been posted many times on CGN.

Greasemonkey, I have encouraged you several times to contact me directly if you have any questions or concerns about CRPA. I would be more than happy to relay your concerns to whoever you direct me to. Please be honest and don't post that you have no way of contacting CRPA, its officers or its board members. That is simply not true!

Kestryll
02-22-2012, 2:37 PM
yet there are times when we are more than willing to eat our young!

But they're so tender and tasty!!!

CRPAGunner
02-22-2012, 2:43 PM
But they're so tender and tasty!!!

I absolutely LMFAO !!!!!!!

Thanks.......I needed that !!!

taperxz
02-22-2012, 2:46 PM
Well, I've managed to figure out how to set the 'Reminder' on my iPhone and set it to remind me about a 'Contact Us' link on Friday 5 minutes after the C&T meeting starts so I'll see what I can get done.


ETA: I just read that back to myself and realized how bad that sounds, web admin and communications and technology committee member and I've pleased with myself for figuring out the Reminders on my iPhone.
Yeah, that instills confidence...

I phone has a reminder? :facepalm: One more thing i need to learn. I've only had one since they came out with the original.

blakdawg
02-22-2012, 2:48 PM
I think it would be really helpful to understand to what extent it's considered appropriate for CRPA members to informally discuss CRPA internal politics here on CGN - if it is not appropriate, can anyone suggest another forum where it would be appropriate?

If there is a CRPA forum, I've never seen it or heard it mentioned.

taperxz
02-22-2012, 2:53 PM
I think it would be really helpful to understand to what extent it's considered appropriate for CRPA members to informally discuss CRPA internal politics here on CGN - if it is not appropriate, can anyone suggest another forum where it would be appropriate?

If there is a CRPA forum, I've never seen it or heard it mentioned.

IMHO and obviously its not my site, discussion would be fine if all the rules of the forum are followed. CRPA members and staff can certainly join in and if you look hard enough they have their own thread already.

blakdawg
02-22-2012, 2:56 PM
However, it is very disingenuous for some people to say that they don't know how to contact CRPA or who the officers or Board of Directors are etc. All that information is only a few mouse clicks away and has been posted many times on CGN.

I know how to contact the general office of the CRPA. I don't know who is on the board or how to contact them individually.

Google doesn't seem to know, either - although a Google search did reveal a CRPA Board online forum at http://crpabod.org/ and the Board of Directors Policy Manual at http://store.crpa.org/images/2011%20Activity%20Committee%20Elections/CRPA%20Board%20of%20Directors%20Manual%20-%20Rev.%20Feb.pdf .

If this information is "a few mouse clicks away", please post a link. I can't find it. Google can't find it, and as far as I can tell Google does a very good job of indexing CGN.

berto
02-22-2012, 3:52 PM
However, it is very disingenuous for some people to say that they don't know how to contact CRPA or who the officers or Board of Directors are etc. All that information is only a few mouse clicks away and has been posted many times on CGN.

Rather than get in a pissing contest about what was available, when and where it was available, and to whom it was available, I'll offer a suggestion. Send a list of board members and the bylaws to each member. Email is easy though mail is necessary in order to reach those offline. Such a packet can easily be sent with the items in the welcome pack. An easily found link on the website is another possibility. If such info is "members only" then perhaps it can be behind a login screen.

I want to rejoin. I expect a CRPA that follows applicable law (this shouldn't even be up for debate), provides governing documents to its membership, and provides membership with a list of those running the organization.

readysetgo
02-22-2012, 4:01 PM
Survey done.

From the survey:
8. Do you have demonstrable arms collecting and exhibition experience and prior experience in groups or organizations promoting such?

I don't know if there's anything "demonstrable" about me, actually not even sure I know what that means!

Was it just me or was that a survey to lower my self esteem? Since I was forced to answer NO to everything. :shrug:

fiddletown
02-22-2012, 4:07 PM
...Was it just me or was that a survey to lower my self esteem? Since I was forced to answer NO to everything. :shrug:I answered "no" to a lot of the questions, but I don't feel my self esteem affected. It's just that the survey asked about experience I don't happen to have. It didn't ask about experience I do have, but there's no reason it should if my own experience isn't relevant to the issues being addressed by the survey.

freonr22
02-22-2012, 4:14 PM
Are you NRA certified anything? Was weird .

Bigtime1
02-22-2012, 4:28 PM
Survey Complete.

greasemonkey
02-22-2012, 4:51 PM
Let's keep things in perspective here. All of us want the same thing; a strong, secure, modern CRPA that is transparent, inclusive of all gun owners and a force to be reckoned with in Sacramento. Making sure that the Association runs in accordance with all applicable laws and codes is a given. That is not even up for debate.

However, it is very disingenuous for some people to say that they don't know how to contact CRPA or who the officers or Board of Directors are etc. All that information is only a few mouse clicks away and has been posted many times on CGN.

Greasemonkey, I have encouraged you several times to contact me directly if you have any questions or concerns about CRPA. I would be more than happy to relay your concerns to whoever you direct me to. Please be honest and don't post that you have no way of contacting CRPA, its officers or its board members. That is simply not true!

The Bylaws Committee's actions seem to refute your claim in the first paragraph that we all want a transparent, inclusive CRPA.

To clarify, Tony, are you saying that I alone am being dishonest or do you mean to include everyone else in the thread who has echoed the same thing I've stated? I appreciate that you continually offer yourself as a point contact; however, that's not what we members are asking for. We're asking for transparency on who our board members are and how to contact them or at least their respective committees.

Also, if we don't have access to who's on what committee and what each committee/board member has accomplished or dropped the ball on, how are we supposed to make an informed decision come time to vote?

jrwhitt
02-22-2012, 5:19 PM
Life Member here - answered the survey. Really disappointed to hear that a commitee would reject a proposal without any explanation whether or not they agreed with it or not. Even more disappointed to hear that they apparently are OK with being out of compliance with the law !

(Granted we have only heard one side - but I trust what Gene reports as accurate)

mud99
02-22-2012, 6:26 PM
Survey Complete.

I'm a bit lost in the details, however I don't think Gene has ever let us down.

To be truthful, I have no idea what goes on at all with CRPA, I only recently got a membership so I could buy Garands from CMP.

I would hope they are using the money I paid them wisely - the bumper sticker is nice but not that nice.

blakdawg
02-22-2012, 6:29 PM
Here's a link to a saved copy of the thread I mentioned earlier -

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzuDXQ308KnoYzBlNDUxZDgtMDkyZS00MmQwLWJiZ TItZjIzYjljYWQ0MTQ0

My recollection is that there was additional information about the internal workings of CRPA before the thread had "fertilizer" removed.

blakdawg
02-22-2012, 6:48 PM
I wouldn't exactly call this "a few mouse clicks away", but I was able to find a copy of the CRPA and the CRPA Foundation's recent tax returns. Those returns disclose the officers and directors of the organizations.

Copies of the returns are available at: https://parrhesia.com/2012/02/22/california-rifle-pistol-association/

The Form 990 for CRPA for the period 10/1/2009 through 9/30/2010, signed 2/15/2011 by John Fields, lists the following persons:

Walt Mansell, President
Tony Montanarella, VP
Jim Shea, Secretary
Robert Cobez, Treasurer
Bob Anderson, Director
George V. Barr, Director
Mike Barranco, Director
Luis Bernardez, Director
Randy Bimrose, Director
Bruce Colodny, Director
Dennis Dadian, Director
Steven Dember, Director
Paul Dougherty, Director
Leslie Easterbrook, Director
George Emmerson, Director
Joel Friedman, Director
Thomas Gaines, Director
Mike Glembourtt, Director
Gene Hoffman, Director
Jason Horn, Director
David Kisler, Director
Douglas Koehler, Director
Cole McNeal, Director
Michael Miller, Director
Marc Monene, Director
Ronald Morales, Director
William Pennell, Director
Arlin Penner, Director
Nile Ragusin, Director
Dirk Seeley, Director
Gerald Setty, Director
Ben Slater, Director
Tony Tello, Director
Tom Thomas, Director
Tim Wheeler, Director
Bill Wiese, Director
Herb Williams, Director
John Yarborough, Director
Bob Zio, Director
John Fields, Executive Director ($102,043 reportable compensation)

The Form 990-EZ for the CRPA Foundation for the period 7/1/10 through 6/30/2011, signed 11/14/2011 by John Fields, lists the following persons:

Tony Montanarella, President
Arlin Penner, Vice President
Jim Shea, Treasurer
Steve Helsley, Secretary
Robert Cobez, Trustee
John Fields, Executive Director
Walt Mansell, Trustee
Chris Conte, Trustee

Bolillo
02-22-2012, 6:53 PM
Well done, Gene. Survey done & email sent to contact@.

Mrbroom
02-22-2012, 6:55 PM
Survey done.. will sign up with CPRA in two weeks.........

jdberger
02-22-2012, 7:35 PM
I wouldn't exactly call this "a few mouse clicks away", but I was able to find a copy of the CRPA and the CRPA Foundation's recent tax returns. Those returns disclose the officers and directors of the organizations.

Copies of the returns are available at: https://parrhesia.com/2012/02/22/california-rifle-pistol-association/

The Form 990 for CRPA for the period 10/1/2009 through 9/30/2010, signed 2/15/2011 by John Fields, lists the following persons:

Walt Mansell, President
Tony Montanarella, VP
Jim Shea, Secretary
Robert Cobez, Treasurer
Bob Anderson, Director
George V. Barr, Director
Mike Barranco, Director
Luis Bernardez, Director
Randy Bimrose, Director
Bruce Colodny, Director
Dennis Dadian, Director
Steven Dember, Director
Paul Dougherty, Director
Leslie Easterbrook, Director
George Emmerson, Director
Joel Friedman, Director
Thomas Gaines, Director
Mike Glembourtt, Director
Gene Hoffman, Director
Jason Horn, Director
David Kisler, Director
Douglas Koehler, Director
Cole McNeal, Director
Michael Miller, Director
Marc Monene, Director
Ronald Morales, Director
William Pennell, Director
Arlin Penner, Director
Nile Ragusin, Director
Dirk Seeley, Director
Gerald Setty, Director
Ben Slater, Director
Tony Tello, Director
Tom Thomas, Director
Tim Wheeler, Director
Bill Wiese, Director
Herb Williams, Director
John Yarborough, Director
Bob Zio, Director
John Fields, Executive Director ($102,043 reportable compensation)

The Form 990-EZ for the CRPA Foundation for the period 7/1/10 through 6/30/2011, signed 11/14/2011 by John Fields, lists the following persons:

Tony Montanarella, President
Arlin Penner, Vice President
Jim Shea, Treasurer
Steve Helsley, Secretary
Robert Cobez, Trustee
John Fields, Executive Director
Walt Mansell, Trustee
Chris Conte, Trustee

Oh. That's old.

Notice that you don't see me, Liz, Brandon, Paul, Pat, Kevin, etc. on that list (essentially the CGN delegation).

Survey sent.

hoffmang
02-22-2012, 7:55 PM
I answered "no" to a lot of the questions, but I don't feel my self esteem affected. It's just that the survey asked about experience I don't happen to have. It didn't ask about experience I do have, but there's no reason it should if my own experience isn't relevant to the issues being addressed by the survey.

If you read my proposed bylaw amendments and look at the items that used to be required you will see that the questions directly track the Activity Committee candidate requirements.

It does not surprise me at all that many of you who are current or former members don't actually qualify for candidacy to the board of directors..

Also, note something very important - I'm talking about candidacy. Nothing here means that you would win an election. That would take the classic ingredients that would make you electable to the membership including a good resume, maybe even some of the current legal requirements, and certainly some accomplishment in the gun community.

As the CRPA bylaws stand today, were Don Kates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates) (the father of the modern gun rights movement) to move back to California and run for the CRPA board he would not qualify for any Committee and would be handily beaten by someone running unopposed for Air Gun Activity Committee who no one has ever heard of.

-Gene

wildhawker
02-22-2012, 8:11 PM
Even parrots know that a structure which would likely deny Don Kates is just wrong.

-Brandon

AJAX22
02-22-2012, 8:25 PM
I thought Matt corwin was on the board as well (backwater ops)?

And I thought William Wilkins was on the board too....?

I'll have to ask them

hoffmang
02-22-2012, 8:31 PM
I thought Matt corwin was on the board as well (backwater ops)?

It is my understanding that Matt Corwin has never actually come onto the CRPA board. I do know he's done some volunteer work for some of the Committees and potentially some assistance to the ED.

-Gene

Bolillo
02-22-2012, 8:43 PM
If you read my proposed bylaw amendments and look at the items that used to be required you will see that the questions directly track the Activity Committee candidate requirements.


Which brings up the question; does the distribution and focus of the existing Activity Committees, and the associated candidate requirements, adequately represent the larger majority of CA gun folks? Will that Committee mix be adequate to carry CRPA into the future?

If the majority of the shooters in CA were to be called somewhat casual (go to the range every month or two, trips out to BLM land for plinking with an AR), how are those type of folks to be best represented in the existing or proposed CRPA structure?

oaklander
02-22-2012, 9:02 PM
Oh. That's old.

Notice that you don't see me, Liz, Brandon, Paul, Pat, Kevin, etc. on that list (essentially the CGN delegation).

Survey sent.

Whew - good catch!! I thought I was going to have to remove an entry off my bios. . .

:)

oaklander
02-22-2012, 9:08 PM
I think it would be really helpful to understand to what extent it's considered appropriate for CRPA members to informally discuss CRPA internal politics here on CGN - if it is not appropriate, can anyone suggest another forum where it would be appropriate?

If there is a CRPA forum, I've never seen it or heard it mentioned.

My non-legal-advice opinion is that it's OK. There ARE some things that are considered confidential, but groups could not grow and change if basic and non-confidential matters of corporate governance were not open to proper discussion and input.

taperxz
02-22-2012, 9:15 PM
If CRPA does not change, it WILL lose members. Why can't CGF replace the void? Not saying I am advocating it, just wondering. Why bail out something that doesn't work or should I say will end up not working?

wildhawker
02-22-2012, 9:40 PM
If CRPA does not change, it WILL lose members. Why can't CGF replace the void? Not saying I am advocating it, just wondering. Why bail out something that doesn't work or should I say will end up not working?

1. CGF is a group of volunteers that are doing what it takes to [A] win, and [B] help others aligned with our cause to win. None of us want to work 20-100 hours a week for free forever.

2. CGF wasn't designed or intended to exist in perpetuity.

3. I think CRPA can evolve into the organization for individuals that we need to exist long into the future given that it doesn't continue to lock out members and maintain silly rules and structures. This isn't 1950.

If the CRPA chooses to not do the right thing this weekend (e.g. vote to make bylaws compliant with the law, remove artificial barriers to elections, and other core remedies as found in Gene's proposal), it's an entirely different calculus.

-Brandon

Monte
02-22-2012, 10:12 PM
Survey taken.

Connor P Price
02-22-2012, 10:18 PM
Survey taken, I will be interested to see how this all plays out.

taperxz
02-22-2012, 10:31 PM
1. CGF is a group of volunteers that are doing what it takes to [A] win, and [B] help others aligned with our cause to win. None of us want to work 20-100 hours a week for free forever.

2. CGF wasn't designed or intended to exist in perpetuity.

3. I think CRPA can evolve into the organization for individuals that we need to exist long into the future given that it doesn't continue to lock out members and maintain silly rules and structures. This isn't 1950.

If the CRPA chooses to not do the right thing this weekend (e.g. vote to make bylaws compliant with the law, remove artificial barriers to elections, and other core remedies as found in Gene's proposal), it's an entirely different calculus.

-Brandon

While I agree with your scenario, I didn't necessarily mean to continue in its current structure:)

Rumline
02-23-2012, 12:07 AM
If CRPA does not change, it WILL lose members. Why can't CGF replace the void? Not saying I am advocating it, just wondering.
[...] I didn't necessarily mean to continue in its current structure:)
I see where you are going with that, but IMHO the two orgs have very different yet complimentary mission statements. In my uneducated and overly simplified viewpoint, CRPA should be the go-to organization for Calfironia firearms enthusiasts, be they hunters, competitive shooters, recreational shooters, people interested in self-defense, gunsmiths, reloaders, etc. Whereas the CGF should be like the legal / political attack dog, on the front lines with their steamroller. CGF is still (and should be!) plugged into CRPA through common board membership and I believe a committee, if not anything more official.

My vote would be to fix / burn-out-and-rebirth CRPA rather than abandon it.
Why bail out something that doesn't work or should I say will end up not working?
Why does your statement make me think of "too big to fail"?? ;)

451040
02-23-2012, 1:13 AM
survey taken

bronsht
02-23-2012, 5:11 AM
Done!
bronsht

taperxz
02-23-2012, 7:29 AM
I see where you are going with that, but IMHO the two orgs have very different yet complimentary mission statements. In my uneducated and overly simplified viewpoint, CRPA should be the go-to organization for Calfironia firearms enthusiasts, be they hunters, competitive shooters, recreational shooters, people interested in self-defense, gunsmiths, reloaders, etc. Whereas the CGF should be like the legal / political attack dog, on the front lines with their steamroller. CGF is still (and should be!) plugged into CRPA through common board membership and I believe a committee, if not anything more official.

My vote would be to fix / burn-out-and-rebirth CRPA rather than abandon it.

Why does your statement make me think of "too big to fail"?? ;)

Because most things aren't and CRPA is not too big! In fact in past recent years they have become irrelevant. Indeed making a rise lately but still on the bubble IMHO.

Please don't mistake my views as not supporting them either. Its just my observation of PAST performance.

fiddletown
02-23-2012, 9:08 AM
...In my uneducated and overly simplified viewpoint, CRPA should be the go-to organization for Calfironia firearms enthusiasts, be they hunters, competitive shooters, recreational shooters, people interested in self-defense, gunsmiths, reloaders, etc. Whereas the CGF should be like the legal / political attack dog, ...CGF as a tax exempt organization under IRC 501(c)(3) is very limited as far as what it may do in the way of lobbying or political activity.

tango-52
02-23-2012, 10:56 AM
Survey done. Life member. Not into competition, just self defense.

Stonewalker
02-23-2012, 11:19 AM
hm.. survey taken. I'm new to the CA gun rights world and a new member to CRPA. Looking forward to seeing how things play out.

Kestryll
02-23-2012, 11:52 AM
Here's a link to a saved copy of the thread I mentioned earlier -

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzuDXQ308KnoYzBlNDUxZDgtMDkyZS00MmQwLWJiZ TItZjIzYjljYWQ0MTQ0

My recollection is that there was additional information about the internal workings of CRPA before the thread had "fertilizer" removed.


That helped, I found it.

It was moved to a holding area that does not get indexed in the Search at the request of the OP.

wildhawker
02-23-2012, 12:06 PM
Survey done. Life member. Not into competition, just self defense.

Exactly. Most Californians and CRPA members are not shooting silhouette, airgun, or NRA high power matches.

Is CRPA a shooting club for good ol' boys who play these ultra-niche games, or is it a member organization that serves the entirety of California gun owners? If so, how? I'm afraid I'm still [genuinely] asking this question, which is as frustrating as it is troubling (for me, anyway; YMMV).

Here's a quick graphic to represent why this reform is a necessary, and indeed, crucial, first step:

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2012/2/23/67a6fd16-1078-4fa2-b06f-913514bcc5c2.jpg

[Pardon the bottom of the graphic being cutoff.]

-Brandon

Californio
02-23-2012, 12:19 PM
Good Graphic - Picture says a 1000 words.


Exactly. Most Californians and CRPA members are not shooting silhouette, airgun, or NRA high power matches.

Is CRPA a shooting club for good ol' boys who play these ultra-niche games, or is it a member organization that serves the entirety of California gun owners? If so, how? I'm afraid I'm still [genuinely] asking this question, which is as frustrating as it is troubling (for me, anyway; YMMV).

Here's a quick graphic to represent why this reform is a necessary, and indeed, crucial, first step:

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2012/2/23/67a6fd16-1078-4fa2-b06f-913514bcc5c2.jpg

[Pardon the bottom of the graphic being cutoff.]

-Brandon

Librarian
02-23-2012, 1:12 PM
Also note: the relative number of California gun owners who have ever heard of Calguns or CGF is also represented by that same-sized green dot.

blakdawg
02-23-2012, 1:29 PM
Also note: the relative number of California gun owners who have ever heard of Calguns or CGF is also represented by that same-sized green dot.

According to CRPA's tax filings, they have approximately 40,000 members.

According to http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/memberlist.php?&order=asc&sort=username&page=1867 , at the moment there are 93,342 members.

Of course, a dues-paying member isn't the same thing as a person who filled out a registration on a message board.

FastFinger
02-23-2012, 1:37 PM
Also note: the relative number of California gun owners who have ever heard of Calguns or CGF is also represented by that same-sized green dot.

I can vouch for the veracity of that statement. Last year I volunteered at the CRPA booth at Raahauge's Gun Fair. A beautiful day and an impressive number of people lined up waiting for the gates to open.

Since I had a captive audience I walked the line handing out CGN info and CRPA trial memberships. At the same time I asked most of them if they had ever heard of Calguns or the CRPA. Now keep in mind these were people who clearly knew about the gun fair and taken the time to get there early, so it's safe to assume they were California gun owners who were a bit more aware and motivated then most other CA gun owners. Despite that I was shocked at the number of people who had never heard of either organization! I'd say at least 80% had no clue of our existence!

Now Calguns is a fairly recent group, but CRPA has been around for over 100 years! It's fair to ask, in fact as a board member it's my responsibility to ask, "Why isn't every California gun owner a member of - or at least aware - of CRPA?"

To the extent that the current corporate organization structure of CRPA is responsible for the less than ideal membership and impact of CRPA isn't fully clear, but what is clear is that moving forward we must make that changes that will allow our organization to address the needs of today's California gun owners - not the whims of a select few or the firearm community of years past.

Culture, community, politics, laws, pastimes, even the color of guns has changed, sometimes radically. We deserve a CRPA that recognizes and adapts to those changes.

wildhawker
02-23-2012, 2:15 PM
Q: Why does an organization with an ~$1M annual operating budget (and a parent/affiliate org, NRA - THE largest by far, and one of the largest member orgs in the world) have this problem?

A: Lack of product, vision, and execution.

And yet, those who know quite a bit about product, vision, and execution are finding resistance to even those common-sense first steps to make the bylaws legally compliant and the organization accessible (and accountable) to its members.

-Brandon

I can vouch for the veracity of that statement. Last year I volunteered at the CRPA booth at Raahauge's Gun Fair. A beautiful day and an impressive number of people lined up waiting for the gates to open.

Since I had a captive audience I walked the line handing out CGN info and CRPA trial memberships. At the same time I asked most of them if they had ever heard of Calguns or the CRPA. Now keep in mind these were people who clearly knew about the gun fair and taken the time to get there early, so it's safe to assume they were California gun owners who were a bit more aware and motivated then most other CA gun owners. Despite that I was shocked at the number of people who had never heard of either organization! I'd say at least 80% had no clue of our existence!

Now Calguns is a fairly recent group, but CRPA has been around for over 100 years! It's fair to ask, in fact as a board member it's my responsibility to ask, "Why isn't every California gun owner a member of - or at least aware - of CRPA?"

To the extent that the current corporate organization structure of CRPA is responsible for the less than ideal membership and impact of CRPA isn't fully clear, but what is clear is that moving forward we must make that changes that will allow our organization to address the needs of today's California gun owners - not the whims of a select few or the firearm community of years past.

Culture, community, politics, laws, pastimes, even the color of guns has changed, sometimes radically. We deserve a CRPA that recognizes and adapts to those changes.

Kestryll
02-23-2012, 2:48 PM
A: Lack of product

I have heard this phrase repeatedly over the past year or more yet I've never had anyone explain what this means.

What is the 'Product' being referred to in this phrase?

Glock22Fan
02-23-2012, 3:03 PM
Survey taken.

snip . .
I agree there needs to be more access to the Committees and qualifications are limiting across the board but I also feel that there needs to be some level of qualification within the committees. All of the committees have a specialized focus and knowing how things work in the realm of that focus is necessary.
If no one on the Pistol Committee shots competition pistol what are they going to do and how are they going to make decisions that actually make sense?
And Yes, I'd apply that question to all committees, if you don't know at least a basic understanding of finance or politics or technology how are you going to serve on those committees?

snip . .



But Paul, in most elected positions (think POTUS, Senators, etc.) anyone can stand and the electorate uses its judgement to decide whether they want to elect someone who knows what the score is, or someone who doesn't. Why should this be any different? The only exceptions I would say is where professional qualifications are required to do the job (legal, accounting, WHY?) As for committee chairpersons, perhaps rather than being directly elected, they should be appointed by the consensus of the committee in question from its own members?

On the other hand, bearing in mind how much some of our very top officials really do know about how to do their jobs, perhaps I'm arguing that it should be D.C. that we should be attempting to change.

Mmm.

Librarian
02-23-2012, 3:10 PM
I have heard this phrase repeatedly over the past year or more yet I've never had anyone explain what this means.

What is the 'Product' being referred to in this phrase?

Valid question. Important question.

In this sense, 'product' refers to what a visitor or member could expect to take away from use or participation.

The Calguns first page says The California Firearms Owner's Home On The Internet
Working Together To Preserve Our Freedoms At the 10,000 foot level, that's our 'product', I think.

Compare to the CRPA 'about us' page (http://blog.crpa.org/?page_id=56), where it says, in part, Founded way back in 1875, the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) is an organization of sportsmen dedicated to the preservation of our American heritage. In this age of constant political attacks on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms for legitimate purposes, the CRPA is the state organization dedicated to protecting firearm freedoms and promoting shooting sports solely in the State of California.The bolded part may be the 'product'.

wildhawker
02-23-2012, 3:21 PM
I have heard this phrase repeatedly over the past year or more yet I've never had anyone explain what this means.

What is the 'Product' being referred to in this phrase?

Well, that is sort of the problem. Shouldn't gun rights organizations, and their leaders and directors, know what gun rights [and their] products are? (Or, more fundamentally, is CRPA a shooter's club for niche interests or a full-service gun rights org? Shouldn't a ~$1M/annual operating budget really offer significant returns to the membership and our cause?)

In my mind, the products of a gun owner member organization are substantive and fundamentally this:


More guns.
More gun owners.
More active shooters.
More shooting activities structured for the majority of members/shooters. (See graph above.)
More gun owner support.


-Brandon

GOEX FFF
02-23-2012, 3:34 PM
I've been a CRPA member for a many years. I've seen it's up's and downs. But nothing will make me stop supporting mine and other's 2A rights in the best way I can. Even if that is just keeping my membership current to help boost numbers. I see the greater good of supporting our mission, far beyond any "hard-to find contact links", or "junk mail" to that of which seems to take precedence over the bigger picture here, where bailing out is the only answer for some. I'm of type that will go down with the ship if it springs a leak, not hop in the first life boat that hits the deck.
I know that with some maintenance that grand ship will sail again at full mast.

But I digress....

This Reform is the exact reason why we should all live by "our" motto today -
VIRES EX PLURIBUS so that we may no longer be the oppressed CA gun owner we have become in the history of a CA domineering anti-gun bureaucracy.

Doing other is futile, as there is NO strength in closed paths or "good ole boy" gateways were only the few and the "stale"? exists.
With the new fresh minds we have today, there is too much to lose if we falter each other, and SO much to gain if we ALL stand together, United.

I support this reform 1000%. Its only for the greater good for ALL CA gunnies of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the "Golden" State this place once was.

hoffmang
02-23-2012, 4:35 PM
What is the 'Product' being referred to in this phrase?

Let me contrast a couple of the "products" CGF has brought gun owners:

1. Much of the board helped popularize OLLs.
2. Shepherding the bullet button into existence and defending it legally.
3. Getting Sacramento shall issue
4. Cleaning up a bunch of counties' issuance.

I think when people ask about CRPA's product they kind of scratch their forehead.

CRPA doesn't independently spend enough money on lobbying to have more than a supporting role to CA-NRA in Sacramento. That's good and a massive improvement from when they/we worked at cross purposes, but real product would be to start coming up with ways to drive more dollars to helping drive a legislative agenda.

CRPA offers a legal guide, but it's a bit dry and a bit out of date - or at least so conservative that one would have no idea one could own an AR.

CRPA doesn't really show up as a path to firearms sports much. Maybe that's regional here in the bay area for me, but if I wasn't aware of CRPA, the only place I would have seen it is on an 8.5x11 on the bulletin board at my range/club.

It's a crowded field where NRA is more prevalent in CA than they are in e.g. Texas or Illinois where the TRPA and ISRA are the bigger fish. As such CRPA over the long haul is going to have to find actual deliverables that are not "me too" of things being done well be others and that drive value for competitors, sportsmen, and those interested in self defense.

Training is one of the areas that there are real opportunities - but those things take real work.

Getting the folks who can do innovative new work to commit to CRPA has a lot to do with trusting them and their vote in the first place.

Also, on another comment, any member is qualified to run for the board. Not any member is qualified to win an election. That's the way our Federal and State elections work. It's how the NRA works. I remain at a loss for what meritorious argument is that differentiates board candidacy at the NRA from board candidacy at the CRPA.

-Gene

freonr22
02-23-2012, 4:58 PM
In the future, would it be more of a CRPA role to interact with Dr. Piazza type legal issues, instead of CGF? I say this with the utmost ignorance of the dynamics and people involved.

It is an innocent question, and one that many many 2nd Amendment rights Americans may not even contemplate, but once brought to their attention, who should they turn to in the future. That was just an example. Ab962, etc, etc. will the CRPA s future mission/role take place of or should take place of the CGF?

Many California gun owners don't know due to interest, level, or publicity, or obliviousness about quite a significant portion of what I have witnessed on this CGN forum in my short stay.

It seems to my limited understanding that the movers and shakers of California's civil rights 2a division are asking a large organization for assistance, and what I am reading is there is much resistance.

Am I understanding that right? Again, I am a newb.

Thank you everyone for your efforts and successes and sacrifices.

Kestryll
02-23-2012, 5:31 PM
Okay, I'm far more familiar with the term 'product' as being a tangible asset or item of value such as Chevy's product would be automobiles.

So in this usage 'product' is being used to describe a service or benefit as opposed to an actual physical product.

For terms like this I'm far more of a 'retail/wholesale' type of person where a store or trade goods company (sears for example) sells a product and a tradesman (Plumber) sells a service hence the question.

wildhawker
02-23-2012, 6:06 PM
There are definitely physical products that fit into the broader usage of the term 'product' as I've used it here and elsewhere; for example, a truly useful guide for current and prospective gun owners would certainly be a valuable tangible product. [It would be duly helpful if that guide pointed to real services and opportunities applicable to the majority of California gun owners.] But, yes, 'product' [to me] is inclusive of both services and physical deliverables.

-Brandon

Okay, I'm far more familiar with the term 'product' as being a tangible asset or item of value such as Chevy's product would be automobiles.

So in this usage 'product' is being used to describe a service or benefit as opposed to an actual physical product.

For terms like this I'm far more of a 'retail/wholesale' type of person where a store or trade goods company (sears for example) sells a product and a tradesman (Plumber) sells a service hence the question.

taperxz
02-23-2012, 9:30 PM
Somewhere, someone in CRPA or members must see a product involved within the organization. What's important with a product is the "value" of said product.

CRPA may very well have a product but don't seem to distinguish the return on investment of their product to there customers, at least IMHO.

tzotzo
02-23-2012, 9:47 PM
Done, thanks Gene.

curtisfong
02-23-2012, 10:28 PM
I don't understand the confusion.

Product = results.

greasemonkey
02-24-2012, 6:10 AM
I know exactly what you are voicing, why, what agenda you are following and on who's behalf you are doing so.

I'm not asking for debate, I'm telling you I'm tired of it and that this does not bode well if it continues.
Since debate is off the table the only options left are keep the little digs and 'leading' comments to yourself and stick substantive discussion or find out where the edge of my sense of tolerance is.

You make it sound as if I'm carrying out some sinister plot of satan's minions, Tony said flat out that I'm lying (and has yet to recant, even in light of Blakdawg's posted findings that concur with or rather expand on the point I made); and yet I'm asking the same question that several others have been asking...what gives??

tenpercentfirearms
02-24-2012, 10:41 PM
Anyone who wants to go to the banquet Saturday night, I have an extra ticket for $50. e-mail me. sales@taftguns.com. It should be fun.

otteray
02-25-2012, 12:14 PM
Done!

oaklander
02-26-2012, 1:10 AM
I was unable to make the Board Meeting because I am broke!

One of the reasons I am broke is because I am now doing from 20 to 40 hours of pro-bono per week on the Oakland anti-violence stuff.

One thing I can tell people is that there is a LOT of room right here in Oakland for "in-reach." This would include teaching responsible firearms use to the vast majority of Oaklanders who ARE law-abiding citizens, and who simply want to protect self and family. Or go hunting, or target shooting, etc. . .

There are many urban areas where we can essentially BRING back the law abiding culture that existed in those areas before gun control took guns out of the hands of normal people, and put them into the hands of criminals. . .

The anti-violence stuff I am doing is all about us Oaklanders trying to figure out how to stop the wrong people from pulling the trigger - and our civil rights movement RIGHT HERE is poised to offer encouragement for the right people who want to legally pull the trigger, whether for armed self-defense, target shooting, whatever. . .

If any of you have read Winkler - we, right here, can undo the damage that Mulford did.

BUT - it's hard to do this kind of work without a backing organization - and only larger organizations with larger budgets can even DO this kind of work, in the way that most of us would like (extensive).

CRPA is poised to perhaps become a leader in bringing law abiding gun ownership back to the cities, where it has been displaced for far too long. Now, in many parts of California - the criminals have taken over the topic - and it's high time to reverse that trend. . .

My sincere hope is that the reforms happen, and that CRPA moves forward to become a leader. And not JUST a leader, but a historically-poised leader. A leading organization to fully bring our state in the civil rights of the 21st Century. . .

This CAN happen. . . With YOUR help. . .

mag360
02-26-2012, 1:25 AM
I'm all for doing what oaklander is talking about!

greasemonkey
02-26-2012, 8:36 AM
So...how'd it go?

Rock6.3
02-26-2012, 10:42 AM
So...how'd it go?

Great question, I've been wanting to ask it since late last night.

I'm hoping the celebration after the meeting/dinner went way into the early morning hours and that the CalGuns crew has been safely recovering before beginning their drives home.

wildhawker
02-26-2012, 12:02 PM
The meeting is still in session. We will report more soon.

-Brandon

dantodd
02-26-2012, 1:31 PM
The meeting is still in session. We will report more soon.

-Brandon

Are we there yet?

wildhawker
02-26-2012, 2:15 PM
No. Effectively, the board punted until the next meeting. There were not the 2/3 needed to adopt Gene's proposal as amended on the floor. More to follow.

-BC

hoffmang
02-26-2012, 2:41 PM
More soon. Still in the meeting.

-Gene

dantodd
02-26-2012, 2:46 PM
Would very much like to become a life member......

I await the next meeting I suppose.

HowardW56
02-26-2012, 5:51 PM
That's a LOOOONG meeting...

goober
02-26-2012, 6:10 PM
That's a LOOOONG meeting...

I had to leave before it was done (but after the scheduled end time) and felt guilty leaving folks still slogging through minutiae.
My apologies for departing early, friends...

mag360
02-26-2012, 6:46 PM
bummer that I had to work tonight.

oaklander
02-26-2012, 7:15 PM
I just realized that this is LITERALLY a "who gets to sit at the best table" issue.

If certain people join the CRPA table, then the CRPA gets to join the best table.

Right now, most civil rights groups ARE fully in the seat of the renaissance of our civil rights in this country.

Rights ARE being restored, and not JUST the main one (the right of defense).

The issue is simple, and I think that both Tony and John would agree with me.

As obviously, would everyone else. . .

We ARE hunters, target shooters, etc. . . BUT, most of us are much more than that. Based on what I have learned from talking with MANY Calgunners, AND just general gun owners - we tend to be on the side of making our own country a better place to live. AND - our group is really good at doing this in a way that causes little disruption. . .

I don't want to use this post to get way into the larger political issue here - but basically, us law abiding gun owners tend to be active in politics in general, and we like to see our country restored to greatness. I know this is a bold statement, but just think about YOUR friends.

MOST of you are active on certain political issues - and from what I know - it cuts across party and everything. YOU just like to see fair results, and you want our country to right itself.

It is something I noticed, and that is why I can usually get along with just about everyone I meet. The reason is that MOST people are like this. For waaaaay tooooo loooong - a small segment of this country simply sent us towards what can only be described as a bland socialism.

As a country, I think we are now fixing that - and our coalition here, is very much a part of it - and NOT JUST on the gun issue (that is by effect, not design).

We will always need niche associations, but I think OUR vision for CRPA is much broader than that. It would be the vision of being somewhat like a permanent version of CGF, but at a statewide level, and with a huge grassroots. It would co-exist WITH CGN, but perhaps with a focus on reaching people who may not be as included to use the forums.

DISCLAIMER!

I was at the ER until 12AM this morning for something related to that stupid kidney stone - and I didn't sleep well this morning. And I am grumpy! SO - I could be way off - but this is kind of what I think could be a good unifying theme here for trying to visualize what I THINK (me only) are the issues. . .

jdberger
02-26-2012, 9:02 PM
I had to leave before it was done (but after the scheduled end time) and felt guilty leaving folks still slogging through minutiae.
My apologies for departing early, friends...


Coward.

hoffmang
02-26-2012, 9:43 PM
I'm beat so this is the very short version.

There were two structural errors in my proposal that quite correctly kept some of the supporters of a more democratic structure wary to support the change with out correcting those. Also, there was much confusion by both the bylaws cmte and myself - partially due to a horribly corrupted word document. As such, the bylaws committee was not able to adequately review the proposal initially.

At the end of a multi hour debate, I decided that we needed more time than we had on the floor to fix the two issues that the proposal had so I've tabled it for the next meeting in the summer. I was pleasantly surprised by the broader support and changed minds this proposal received on the broader board. Also, I think the survey was valuable. I'm posting an overview of the results of the survey in this post.

I will have an updated proposal available very shortly. It remains to be seen whether the bylaws committee approves of that version, but I have higher expectations of the entire board. However, should the board rejection a corrected version - that would reflect poorly on the organization's trust in it's own members. The passage of this by the required 2/3s is by no means a foregone conclusion.

-Gene

goober
02-26-2012, 9:57 PM
Coward.

yup. jus' plain yella :chris:

Librarian
02-26-2012, 10:01 PM
... partially due to a horribly corrupted word document.

To err is human. To elevate an error to a large tragic mess requires a computer.

(I've taught word-processing to college freshmen.)

Narcdogk9
02-29-2012, 11:19 AM
I attended the CRPA board meeting this past weekend. It amazes me that anything got accomplished with all the nit-picking and grand standing that went on. It sounded at times like two five-year-olds fighting over a rubber ball. As far as the CRPA not following the law, I am quite sure the CRPA's attorney (he was in attendance and I'm sure he's not cheap) would not let that happen and I'm sure CRPA is in compliance with California law.

Now to the by-laws, why would anyone want to be on a committee they knew nothing about? If you're not a competitive shooter why would you want to be on that committee? It would be like me wanting to be on the IT committee when I can barely turn on my computer. I would just be a voting body and not be able to contribute anything.

However, you can be an "advisor" who is an individual who is not a Director, but is a volunteer who assists the CRPA on whatever committee that person is interested in. This advisor has a "voice but no vote."

Now maybe that is what all of this is about, getting people into committees to vote on a certain agenda. That's why I oppose changing the by-laws. If you don't qualify for a committee, you don't get on. So that's it that's my feelings except I think the Executive Board of the CRPA are doing an outstanding job.

jdberger
02-29-2012, 11:51 AM
It goes beyond committee assignments.

Perhaps it's better to think of it as a Congress. People get elected to the body at large to represent the membership. The Directors then can serve on certain committees that they have an interest in. However, they don't need "ruling body certification" to serve.

For instance, a certified air-gun guy could serve on the Smallbore Committee without having completed the tasks for NRA certification. He/she could still assist with organizing matches, post match events, publicity, etc. And even though they weren't familiar with the minutiae of Smallbore competition, they could still be an ambassador for the sport. Perhaps, with time, they might decide to shoot some matches and run for the Chairmanship or Vice-Chairmanship of that Committee. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman remain "certified experts".

Of course, that applies nicely for the shooting disciplines. Unfortunately, the way that the organization is currently structured, there isn't much room for the organizer, the political activist or the legal expert. You would think that an organization which focuses a large proportion of its spending on legal/political work would have a proportionaly representative Directorship. Sure, we have some overlap, but not much.

Finally - democracy is important. Organizations that puport to represent their membership should have some way for membership to elect Directors that best serve the needs and desires of the membership.

governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The membership should also have the ability to change the leadership if it's determined that the leadership is headed in the wrong direction - or even if the leadership should become destructive to the goals of the organization.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --

These are the principles we use to organize ourselves. Our membership organizations - especially organizations that seek to defend and expand civil rights - should do the same.

(By the way - thanks to folks like Narcdog who took the time to attend the meeting. I'm sure that many of the folks there would have much preferred to have been doing something productive like fishing)

wildhawker
02-29-2012, 12:17 PM
I attended the CRPA board meeting this past weekend. It amazes me that anything got accomplished with all the nit-picking and grand standing that went on. It sounded at times like two five-year-olds fighting over a rubber ball. As far as the CRPA not following the law, I am quite sure the CRPA's attorney (he was in attendance and I'm sure he's not cheap) would not let that happen and I'm sure CRPA is in compliance with California law.

Now to the by-laws, why would anyone want to be on a committee they knew nothing about? If you're not a competitive shooter why would you want to be on that committee? It would be like me wanting to be on the IT committee when I can barely turn on my computer. I would just be a voting body and not be able to contribute anything.

However, you can be an "advisor" who is an individual who is not a Director, but is a volunteer who assists the CRPA on whatever committee that person is interested in. This advisor has a "voice but no vote."

Now maybe that is what all of this is about, getting people into committees to vote on a certain agenda. That's why I oppose changing the by-laws. If you don't qualify for a committee, you don't get on. So that's it that's my feelings except I think the Executive Board of the CRPA are doing an outstanding job.

You sound an awful lot like few members of the board of directors who oppose democratic reform that I know. In fact, considering your post's stunning lack of logic, you could very well be one of those board members...

You - and the CRPA membership body - should take comfort that your views are not shared by the majority of respondents. I am quite confident that time and attrition will make your views the embarrassing relic of California gun rights' bad old days that they are quickly becoming.

-Brandon

Narcdogk9
02-29-2012, 4:13 PM
No Brandon your wrong, I'm not a board member, just a life member of CRPA. I just don't like the fact that you and a few others seem to want to take over CRPA for want ever reason. So since we also have the 1st Amendment I can voice my opinion. I think others may feel the same way but are to polite to say anything, I'm not. :oji:

blakdawg
02-29-2012, 5:11 PM
I think the core question is whether CRPA is or should be a participant in the effort to protect the second amendment, or if it's just a bunch of hobbyists.

If people want to have a shooting club that's essentially identical to a model railroad club or a basketball league or a quilting circle or whatever, I think that's great and I hope they have a lot of fun doing it.

That's not what the CRPA's literature says - so it seems crazy that, as Gene pointed out a few days ago, the current CRPA governance structure effectively says that people who are doing and have done truly amazing things to advance the cause of the 2A in California get "a voice but not a vote" because they're not competitive shooters, but some 13-year old who's really good at shooting an air rifle can be elected to decide how a $1M lobby/litigation budget will be spent.

hoffmang
02-29-2012, 5:16 PM
No Brandon your wrong, I'm not a board member, just a life member of CRPA. I just don't like the fact that you and a few others seem to want to take over CRPA for want ever reason. So since we also have the 1st Amendment I can voice my opinion. I think others may feel the same way but are to polite to say anything, I'm not. :oji:

I find it amusing that you've bought into the silly argument that we want to take it over. Do you support unelected leadership supposedly running a membership organization? So what happens if those unelected leaders end up being effectively anti-gun like they actually used to be?

-Gene

taperxz
02-29-2012, 5:51 PM
No Brandon your wrong, I'm not a board member, just a life member of CRPA. I just don't like the fact that you and a few others seem to want to take over CRPA for want ever reason. So since we also have the 1st Amendment I can voice my opinion. I think others may feel the same way but are to polite to say anything, I'm not. :oji:

You have the first amend. And, I have my wallet. If no change is made they lose the money in my wallet. One of the reasons why any life membership is bogus. IMHO

wildhawker
02-29-2012, 5:56 PM
No Brandon your wrong, I'm not a board member, just a life member of CRPA. I just don't like the fact that you and a few others seem to want to take over CRPA for want ever reason. So since we also have the 1st Amendment I can voice my opinion. I think others may feel the same way but are to polite to say anything, I'm not. :oji:

You're right, you're not a board member. You're just married to a board member, who happened to vote against reform.

Why don't you have the courage to put your name on the positions you support and advocate?

-Brandon

goober
02-29-2012, 5:57 PM
No Brandon your wrong, I'm not a board member, just a life member of CRPA. I just don't like the fact that you and a few others seem to want to take over CRPA for want ever reason. So since we also have the 1st Amendment I can voice my opinion. I think others may feel the same way but are to polite to say anything, I'm not. :oji:

It's unfortunate that the proposal of bylaw changes that would help make the CRPA BoD more representative, democratic, and responsive to its members is being viewed as some sort of attempt at overthrow or takeover, as some kind of coup.
Rather than considering how well the current BoD structure, nominating, and election/appointment system really serves the Association and (most importantly) its members, some have chosen (or allowed themselves to be convinced) that there is some sort of evil plot or conspiracy at hand, rather than a sincere effort to improve the way CRPA operates, and also help safeguard it against some of the crises of the past.
It would be interesting (but at this point impossible) to know how much of this willingness to believe in such a "sinister" plot is due to a ranting abuse of the bully pulpit that occurred at this meeting, as opposed to what attitudes would have been had that tirade not taken place. Of course there is no way to tell, the bell can not be un-rung.

blakdawg
02-29-2012, 6:03 PM
If anyone who was at the meeting this past weekend were inclined to type up a short summary of what happened and didn't happen, I'd be happy to read it.

wildhawker
02-29-2012, 6:27 PM
If anyone who was at the meeting this past weekend were inclined to type up a short summary of what happened and didn't happen, I'd be happy to read it.

I am going to take some time to gather my thoughts before posting any summary of the weekend. Even with Gene and me being as "sinister" as we are, the "conspiracies" will just have to wait a little while longer.

-Brandon

greasemonkey
02-29-2012, 6:46 PM
Well, you and Gene certainly do have a 'stigma' of substantive work product in the fight to re-establish our rights here in CA...which one would think would be a welcome breath of fresh air into such a well-established shooting club, er, Civil Rights organization. Of course I say stigma tongue-in-cheek.

I shouldn't single out only Gene & Brandon, it's not like they're the only ones on the CRPA board that are legitimately active in the RKBA fight who would like to see the CRPA become even more effective.

I am going to take some time to gather my thoughts before posting any summary of the weekend. Even with Gene and me being as "sinister" as we are, the "conspiracies" will just have to wait a little while longer.

-Brandon

Mass Torpor
02-29-2012, 6:53 PM
I find it amusing that you've bought into the silly argument that we want to take it over. Do you support unelected leadership supposedly running a membership organization? So what happens if those unelected leaders end up being effectively anti-gun like they actually used to be?

-Gene

It is plausible that Gene does not want to take over the board.

oaklander
02-29-2012, 7:47 PM
It is plausible that Gene does not want to take over the board.

That's exactly the point. It needs to be open. Right now, it's not open.

Membership Organizations literally ARE the membership. Right now, based on some of what I am hearing for the first time, it appears that CRPA is not actually open.

That's just me, and I would welcome other lawyers to chime in. . .

OK - I read back a few threads, and someone brought up the fact that Chuck Michel has not been queried on certain points that have been made about how the rules are currently structured. I have actually been asking for someone to opine, and Gene, of all people nailed it, in my personal opinion.

I actually do not think that Chuck has opined, and I do not think he has officially been asked to opine. I am certain however, that he would substantively agree with Gene. Again, I am speaking as a Board Member, and NOT as an attorney, I do not represent CRPA in that fashion. And my opinions here are my own. Quite frankly, I have been too busy trying to bring peace and self-defense rights back to Oakland.

AND - if we can get the changes we need. The people of Oakland themselves can start participating in OUR CRPA.

This is not conjecture, and I would like to see CRPA start doing more urban inreach. Statistically, most CRPA members, especially the newer ones - ARE FROM URBAN AREAS. They are not from hunting areas, or places where folks do many of the activities described in the survey.

This means that people like ME FOR EXAMPLE, are generally not represented on the board.

THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE - and the simple reason is that urban areas are where we need the most help restoring our civil rights!!!!

Look at the map - and it's not just blacks, it's all races - when it comes to our rights. The CITIES are where we have the worst guns laws and policies, and thus THE CITIES are where our leadership must be well-represented.

By "city," I mean the more urban parts of the state. . .

http://bit.ly/zeu7ib

Historically, the gun laws in this country come out of clashes between diverse cultures, ideas, and political structures. I know I am sounding like a college professor, and I have actually BEEN asked to speak on this EXACT TOPIC. It was my law school alma mater. That's University of California Hastings College of the Law. It was a top 20 school when I graduated from it, and it's held its own since then. Our focus at that school is on JUSTICE - and I will tell you what, the guns laws are some of the clearest vestiges of a government gone wild that I have ever seen. Make no mistake - we ARE RIGHTS advocates here, and it's just JUST about getting cool toys.

It is about restoring a right, and a right that pre-existed BEFORE the constitution, and before written laws - for that matter. It's the right of self-defense.

AND - if anyone thinks that hunting is different - it's the same. The right to provide for your family off the land is so ingrained in our culture as to be without any reproach. What we are talking about here is a right that is like any other right - IT NEEDS AN ACTIVIST ORGANIZATION TO MAINTAIN IT AND FIGHT FOR IT.

And yes - I said it - ACTIVIST.

bwiese
02-29-2012, 8:10 PM
Oak,

Chuck M does CRPA-Foundation stuff.

This particular structural matter for CRPA is handled by one of their outside counsel, Michael Houston.

To other posters including Narcdogk9 - the idea there is a 'takeover' is nonsense. The idea that the people sitting in various positions (including
myself, Gene, other board members and execs) must have the bylaws supporting their existence and cross-eligibility (could the Prez be elected a
board member? not with some of the crazy committee rules!). Being organizationally sound at the fundamentals is necessary if we're gonna be
looking at antigun organizations in the future ;-)

Having sound bylaw structure that actually supports/validates the existing structure is also useful for making future Big Donors feel comfortable.

oaklander
02-29-2012, 8:12 PM
Oak,

Chuck M does CRPA-Foundation stuff.

This particular structural matter for CRPA is handled by one of their outside counsel, Michael Houston.

Excellent!

I respect Chuck, and that is why I want to make clear that the other poster's assertion that this has been run through CRPA "management" is incorrect.

Let me clarify. The way the current structure is set up appear to be very much not in keeping of what I thought 501(c)'s (membership orgs in particular) were supposed to be about. I got too busy working on Oakland stuff to spend the 20 to 40 hours of research AT LEAST that it would take to get me to Gene's speed up on the particulars. And Gene is better than most lawyers I have met, anyways. SO - that means two things (1) I honestly CAN'T give a legal opinion, but (2) just common sense tells me that Gene is right. . .

And it matches up with some things I have personally noticed, and that I won't post on the forum. . .

SO - in sum, I would put the odds of ANY lawyer disagreeing with Gene's analysis at about 1000 to 1. . .

And THAT is why I want another lawyer to come in here and challenge me to be incorrect. I like a good fight now and then. . . Intellectually, that is. . .

And that's part of the problem - people aren't thinking long term - like we are. . .

fiddletown
02-29-2012, 9:16 PM
...THAT is why I want another lawyer to come in here and challenge me to be incorrect. ....Sorry, Kevin. Can't help you there. I think you're correct.

Gray Peterson
02-29-2012, 10:12 PM
You're right, you're not a board member. You're just married to a board member, who happened to vote against reform.

Why don't you have the courage to put your name on the positions you support and advocate?

-Brandon

Oh **** :facepalm:

oaklander
02-29-2012, 10:30 PM
Sorry, Kevin. Can't help you there. I think you're correct.

LOL,

I am hoping I am wrong. Sadly, we all are right.

oaklander
02-29-2012, 10:39 PM
Oh **** :facepalm:

I saw that too!

My only thought was:

"Oh no, he didn't!"

And THIS is why I wanted to go down there for the Board Meeting. I really just wanted to talk to some of the folks, and try and help them understand what needs to happen. It's totally not anything sinister. Essentially, we just need the organization to be in compliance with how it was supposed to be. We are actually trying to fix it.

And I challenge ANY rational person to disagree with me, or point out why we are wrong. I have waited long enough, and I have been trying to stay out of this - but for heaven's sake, the CRPA is seriously important to our future rights, and needs to be brought into the front lines. The membership WANTS that, and that is what is being heard.

That is my prayer. Rights are serious business, and it is our moral obligation to protect them, by any means necessary.

And my use of that phrase was only half-ironic. Our country, the nation we LOVE, can't even stably exist without this right. This right is what allowed the 1960's civil rights movement to work. It defended the workers of all races.

We ARE rights people dammit, and anything that stands in our way - well, it really needs to be examined.

That means that we use the system - as designed - to fix the system. It always works, by the way - and that is why we are still the greatest nation on Earth.

I know this is a big stretch, linking the things together - but seriously - what we are doing IS THAT important, AND that patriotic. We ARE the good guys and the good gals, and that is why our rights movement is growing. And many people who never really thought of themselves as rights advocates are coming together. What we are seeing now is a miracle, and it is our obligation to bring our fellow advocates along with us, as we restore this right.

-------

Sorry to be so preachy. I have lost neighbors and friends because they could not defend themselves. I am working in Oakland to restore this right. It WILL save lives. It will also bring peace. This is not some idle chatter about some 501(c)4. This is about our future, and involves literal lines between life and death. If we restore the right incorrectly in this state, we could deprive people of their rights of self defense. That causes them to become victims. And die.

bwiese
02-29-2012, 10:40 PM
Also, note something very important - I'm talking about candidacy. Nothing here means that you would win an election. That would take the classic ingredients that would make you electable to the membership including a good resume, maybe even some of the current legal requirements, and certainly some accomplishment in the gun community.


That's why it's not a takeover. A real takeover involves set-up guaranteed winners.

The proposal just squares things such that board membership population is not limited to some fairly narrow categories or one 'catchall' category that really is a placeholder attempt to 'fix'.

The Exec staff - all good people - are not even necessarily qualified to be Board members, which is a very very strange situation.

Aside from the 'representative democracy' takc, all we're asking is to "fix the weirdness". It doesn't even involve any people change, it just makes the rules align with the way the Board & Exec are populated today.

It's just about making things Square. Large Donors like squared away organizations.


As the CRPA bylaws stand today, were Don Kates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates) (the father of the modern gun rights movement) to move back to California and run for the CRPA board he would not qualify for any Committee and would be handily beaten by someone running unopposed for Air Gun Activity Committee who no one has ever heard of.Wonderful point.

CRPAGunner
03-01-2012, 12:09 AM
Interesting discussion.

All comments, positive and negative have been duly noted. Thanks for the feedback!

It would be very inappropriate for me to comment on anything that happened last weekend on a public forum such as this, so I won't .........I appreciate your understanding...........

oaklander
03-01-2012, 12:10 AM
[Gene talking about Don Kates]

Wonderful point.

Me and Gene joke about ESP. . .

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Kates1.html

Note that the keyword here is civil rights, and that is why NRA now uses that phase more than it used to. The issue is settled, it has ALWAYS been civil rights - and now we have the Supreme Court agreeing with what we knew all along. . .

And people like me, and Gene, Brandon, Kes, JD, Goober, Grease, Andrew, and Bill - AND ALL OF YOU - are the caliber of the people we want on this issue. I have met Mr. Kates (http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=739), and he would fit in fine with the mass majority of CA gun owners who DO view this as a civil right. The key now is to simply bring fairness to the fore, so that the CRPA can be poised to gain its rightful place in our political landscape on this issue.

This is all about gain and forward. It is not about loss and backwards.

And like Bill said, it's not some massive upset. Rather, a rule change that will bring fairness, and apparently some legal closure, to this issue.

dantodd
03-01-2012, 5:27 AM
Interesting discussion.

All comments, positive and negative have been duly noted. Thanks for the feedback!

It would be very inappropriate for me to comment on anything that happened last weekend on a public forum such as this, so I won't .........I appreciate your understanding...........

One of us doesn't understand what is going on.

Was this a meeting where you discussed and voted on issues directly impacting us, the members of the CRPA? Wasn't this meeting open to members?

If so, then it is entirely appropriate for members to hear your feedback here, isn't that sort of..... your job?

dantodd
03-01-2012, 5:31 AM
Amazing how bold people are when they think they are anonymous. But they show their true colors when they actually have to put their name to their bravado.

You're right, you're not a board member. You're just married to a board member, who happened to vote against reform.

Why don't you have the courage to put your name on the positions you support and advocate?

-Brandon

ETA: the obligatory :gene:

Narcdogk9
03-01-2012, 7:19 AM
Oh, I guess everyone wants to know who I am well I'm Rod Smith a retired Richmond Police Officer and yes I am married to a CRPA board member. Now next question?

taperxz
03-01-2012, 7:25 AM
Oh, I guess everyone wants to know who I am well I'm Rod Smith a retired Richmond Police Officer and yes I am married to a CRPA board member. Now next question?

What does being a retired cop have to do with anything? Who is your spouse, name? Position?

Narcdogk9
03-01-2012, 8:19 AM
So Taper I guess being anonymous doesn't apply to everyone. :43:

Steyrlp10
03-01-2012, 8:21 AM
What does being are retired cop have to so with anything? Who is your spouse, name? Position?

I have not responded until now in the hopes to not cause more friction amongst all of us although I respect everyone's right to his/her opinon on CGN. (Thank you, Kes for giving us an area to do so.)

Tap, my husband's profession was mentioned only because it appears that some people are interested in finding out who he is other than being a Calgunner. As for me, I'm Liz Smith -- no big secret. Some of you may know me from the Vallejo Gun Shows where I help at the CGN Booth and at Richmond's IDPA Regional last year. (Again, thank you to Kes, Bplvr, and the rest of the volunteers for training me in running booths.)

And yes, I did vote in the negative. I was not happy about it and am still saddened at how things are going right now.

However, I was not the only Director to do so, based on what I heard from all the people who took the podium to speak. My position is on the Pistol Committee and Multi-gun Committee.

I am not here to fight with my friends or make enemies simply because I disagree with some things that have transpired in Ontario.

greasemonkey
03-01-2012, 8:24 AM
What does being are retired cop have to so with anything? Who is your spouse, name? Position?
Everything. We are talking about the California Retired Police Association here, right?
:D

jdberger
03-01-2012, 9:12 AM
There's no need for this to turn into a monkey poop fight.

Narcdog expressed his opinion. It's entirely possible for folks to disagree politely. Actually, I'd think that it's the preferred method of discourse.

I'm not clear on why it's become so difficult for us to engage others with whom we disagree with a measure of respect. I think it reflects poorly upon us as a community.

*************

Tony, with the exception of the part of the meeting in executive session, I think that it would be very appropriate for the President of a member organization to discuss things that happened and were debated at a Directors Meeting with the membership. As mentioned above, it was open to the public.

It is, after all, their organization (even if they don't get to choose who runs it).

Californio
03-01-2012, 9:48 AM
I gave in December to the CRPA Foundation because their involvement in California 2nd Amendment cases.

I have been on a Board like this that had By_Laws that were out of date and needing of update. Corporation Laws change yearly and require constant vigilance. Most Board Members don't even have the capacity or the desire to keep current, let alone understand why. The mentality of oh no not another requirement, but if you are going to have an Organization it must be current and include all members.

Organizational By-Laws are a Legal Speciality but it goes with the territory, and CRPA must comply with current Law.

I and another Board Member dragged an Organization kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, in the end it served all the Members not just a few. Change was a ***** but worth it in the end.

I would hate to see CRPA dragged into Court because they did not want to comply with the current Law.

My continued support of CRPA depends on it evolving into a Large RKBA organization that commands respect in Sacramento and advocates for all members.

My family was among the Founders of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club in the late 1800's as well influential members of the Fish and Game Commission in the early 1900's. Its more than hunting, its about the erosion of the RKBA in California during my lifetime.

Narcdogk9
03-01-2012, 10:24 AM
Greasemonkey

You mean we're not talking about CRPA California Retired Police Association ? Oh my red face......:facepalm:

cindynles
03-01-2012, 10:25 AM
Interesting discussion.

All comments, positive and negative have been duly noted. Thanks for the feedback!

It would be very inappropriate for me to comment on anything that happened last weekend on a public forum such as this, so I won't .........I appreciate your understanding...........

I have not responded until now in the hopes to not cause more friction amongst all of us although I respect everyone's right to his/her opinon on CGN. (Thank you, Kes for giving us an area to do so.)

Tap, my husband's profession was mentioned only because it appears that some people are interested in finding out who he is other than being a Calgunner. As for me, I'm Liz Smith -- no big secret. Some of you may know me from the Vallejo Gun Shows where I help at the CGN Booth and at Richmond's IDPA Regional last year. (Again, thank you to Kes, Bplvr, and the rest of the volunteers for training me in running booths.)

And yes, I did vote in the negative. I was not happy about it and am still saddened at how things are going right now.

However, I was not the only Director to do so, based on what I heard from all the people who took the podium to speak. My position is on the Pistol Committee and Multi-gun Committee.

I am not here to fight with my friends or make enemies simply because I disagree with some things that have transpired in Ontario.

Well, as a dues paying member of the CRPA, I can tell you that I do not feel represented by the current set up of the of the CRPA.

I will also say that until reforms are made I am cutting the CRPA off from my checkbook. The $ that I normaly send (every time I get a request I mail in a check) will go to another gun rights foundation. Those envelopes from the CRPA are going straight into the trash. I am sure that the NRA and the CalGuns Foundtaion will put the money to better use.

And yes I really am a member (#263556).

Gray Peterson
03-01-2012, 10:52 AM
Deleted

Kestryll
03-01-2012, 12:35 PM
Rather than jump on you needlessly as some have I'm going to ry to address your questions.


Now to the by-laws, why would anyone want to be on a committee they knew nothing about? If you're not a competitive shooter why would you want to be on that committee? It would be like me wanting to be on the IT committee when I can barely turn on my computer. I would just be a voting body and not be able to contribute anything.
This is frankly one of the inherent checks that exists in opening up the Activity Committees to open elections.
Unless they had an interest in the focus of a Committee most CRPA members wouldn't bother to get on them.
However those that do have an interest but are not 'qualified' are still CRPA members, the people who pay our bills and who we are suppose to serve, and should still have a method of getting on these Committees.

One of the essential aspects of this whole discussion goes back to your own comment, "I'm a CRPA member..".
As such you should have every right, just from being a member, to serve on any Activity Committee and have a voice in what YOUR Committee as a CRPA member does.
You said yourself that from watching things it's amazing that anything gets done, would you like the opportunity to change that?
Do you feel after watching it that you as a member have a say and a voice?
Would you like to have one?


However, you can be an "advisor" who is an individual who is not a Director, but is a volunteer who assists the CRPA on whatever committee that person is interested in. This advisor has a "voice but no vote."
An 'adviser' is essentially someone who volunteers to work for a Committee, they're good enough to work for CRPA for free but not good enough to be on a Committee or to have a clear path to getting on the BoD that wants them to help if they want to.

You're right, an 'adviser' has a voice but no vote on that Committee, they are asked to volunteer time and effort to help a Committee but can have no say in the Committee that decides what use will be made of their own efforts?


Now maybe that is what all of this is about, getting people into committees to vote on a certain agenda. That's why I oppose changing the by-laws. If you don't qualify for a committee, you don't get on. So that's it that's my feelings except I think the Executive Board of the CRPA are doing an outstanding job.
I think you may have missed some essential points.

The issues of Committees and Directors are two different things.

One proposal was to allow CRPA members, not Directors just regular members, to sit on Committees as CRPA members and not as Directors.
This would mean that they DO have a vote within the Committee but DO NOT have a vote at the BoD meetings.
They are Committee members without being Directors.
The Chairman of each Activity Committee would be a Director and required to meet qualifications in the field of his/her Committee and frankly I believe that there should be a position of 'Vice Chairman' that has to meet the same requirements.

Another proposal was to allow CRPA members who are either Life members or have been members at least 2 years consecutively to gather 100 signatures from CRPA members and place their name on a ballot to become a CRPA Director.
This does not mean they would be automatically elected nor does it mean the CRPA Nominating Committee would have to endorse them. Quite the contrary I would expect the Nominating Committee to do their due diligence and recommend against someone who was provably detrimental to CRPA being elected.

In effect what this combination of proposals would do is create a core Board of Directors that are NOT elected such as the Executive, Finance, Legal & Political, etc. Committees and allow a specified number of 'open' seats to be filled by CRPA members who wanted to have a say in THEIR organization.

Committees would be comprised of Chairman/Vice Chairman who ARE Directors and Committee members who are NOT Directors by default but can be if elected.


This is my understanding of these proposals and their effects after having read them and asked enough questions to be deemed excessively annoying by both Gene and Tony. :43:
I hope it helps to make some things a bit clearer and if I'm wrong in some points I have no doubt someone will be along promptly to correct me! ;)


CRPA isn't bad right now but it has the potential to be great and it will only be great if our members step up and become active and engaged and that will only happen if we as Directors serve our members as they deserve to be served and offer them the opportunity to step up and serve their fellow members as well.

As long as I'm doing my job as a Director to serve the membership to the best of my ability, having to be elected is no concern.
Honestly, if I'm not serving the members that pay the bills I want them to kick me to the curb and replace me with someone who can do better.

Because as a Director or not, as a Life member I'm not willing to settle for 'not bad' or 'good', I want 'Great.'

Kestryll
03-01-2012, 12:40 PM
There's no need for this to turn into a monkey poop fight.

Narcdog expressed his opinion. It's entirely possible for folks to disagree politely. Actually, I'd think that it's the preferred method of discourse.

Agreed, remember the thing we're discussing is letting people have a say in the CRPA, let's not advocate that while trying to squash someone trying to have their say on the issue here.

wildhawker
03-01-2012, 1:34 PM
Agreed, remember the thing we're discussing is letting people have a say in the CRPA, let's not advocate that while trying to squash someone trying to have their say on the issue here.

I don't see anyone squashing, or attempting to squash, speech at all. To the contrary, this is a public debate between CRPA members, and former and prospective members, on matters of CRPA bylaws compliance, members' rights, and policy. My posts very simply [and directly] argued for transparency and reform, in opposition to the position of Narcdogk9 - who, in my view, shilled for the old guard and against reform without disclosing his relationship to it.

-Brandon

Kestryll
03-01-2012, 1:43 PM
I see a lot of unnecessary aggression that will absolutely not have a positive affect on opinions.

Instead I'd prefer to try education and clarification, if there is still a bend towards not supporting the changes then I'll ask what specifically is at issue.

wildhawker
03-01-2012, 1:52 PM
I see a lot of unnecessary aggression that will absolutely not have a positive affect on opinions.

Instead I'd prefer to try education and clarification, if there is still a bend towards not supporting the changes then I'll ask what specifically is at issue.

I agree, Narcdog certainly made some very inflammatory statements and implications purely directed at those of us who have invested ourselves in reform and democracy. I would also add they they are disingenuous, at best.

I support your efforts to educate and clarify the issues 110%.

-Brandon

I attended the CRPA board meeting this past weekend. It amazes me that anything got accomplished with all the nit-picking and grand standing that went on. It sounded at times like two five-year-olds fighting over a rubber ball. As far as the CRPA not following the law, I am quite sure the CRPA's attorney (he was in attendance and I'm sure he's not cheap) would not let that happen and I'm sure CRPA is in compliance with California law.

Now to the by-laws, why would anyone want to be on a committee they knew nothing about? If you're not a competitive shooter why would you want to be on that committee? It would be like me wanting to be on the IT committee when I can barely turn on my computer. I would just be a voting body and not be able to contribute anything.

However, you can be an "advisor" who is an individual who is not a Director, but is a volunteer who assists the CRPA on whatever committee that person is interested in. This advisor has a "voice but no vote."

Now maybe that is what all of this is about, getting people into committees to vote on a certain agenda. That's why I oppose changing the by-laws. If you don't qualify for a committee, you don't get on. So that's it that's my feelings except I think the Executive Board of the CRPA are doing an outstanding job.

taperxz
03-01-2012, 2:54 PM
I see a lot of unnecessary aggression that will absolutely not have a positive affect on opinions.

Instead I'd prefer to try education and clarification, if there is still a bend towards not supporting the changes then I'll ask what specifically is at issue.

My seemingly attempt to find out about Narcdog was not meant to be personal, but only in the context that he made his argument, minimal poster, said his wife was on the board, and I wanting to know what LE had to do with the questions at hand. (didnt quite understand the context)

I think its great that Liz clarified herself and position. I, as a member, never knew this even though i read her posts about local events. (CGN)

FWIW, Liz, this is the transparency that would be good to see from all at CRPA regardless of your opinions (with respect) that all members would like to know more about the "wheels in motion" prior to giving money and supporting.

I know the NRA agenda, 2A foundation, CGN, ECT. I rejoined because of this site! I still don't really understand the CRPA role though. It just seems muddled.

Connor P Price
03-01-2012, 3:33 PM
Is there anywhere I can find a list of board and committee positions along with what responsibilities and votes they have? The organizational structure is incredibly unclear from this thread.

dantodd
03-01-2012, 3:44 PM
I, for one, am very interested in knowing if the president of our association supports the substance of the proposed amendments to the bylaws. If not, to which portions do you object, and why? Do you have a counter proposal to bring the bylaws into compliance with state law?

Are there any plans to expand the number of committees to epresent those members with interests in legislative, legal and civil rights outreach?

blakdawg
03-01-2012, 4:57 PM
Is there anywhere I can find a list of board and committee positions along with what responsibilities and votes they have? The organizational structure is incredibly unclear from this thread.

I've got to say, that's part of what's confusing about CRPA - they treat what seems like ordinary organizational information as if it were some sort of state secret.

Several people (including me) have asked for this information in this very thread. On February 22 (more than a week ago), the current President of the CRPA said, in response:

it is very disingenuous for some people to say that they don't know how to contact CRPA or who the officers or Board of Directors are etc. All that information is only a few mouse clicks away and has been posted many times on CGN.

I responded and pointed out that I was not able to find the requested information on CGN, and that it also did not appear in Google's index of CGN. I asked Mr. Montanarella to provide a link to that information, which doesn't seem like it would be a lot of trouble, given that it's already "been posted many times" on CGN, or, worst case, would be "several mouse clicks away" on some other site.

:gene:

Of course, Mr. Montanarella has probably been pretty busy, with last weekend's meeting, and all, so I figured it might take him a few days to respond. Given that he was essentially calling me (or someone) a liar for saying that the information wasn't on CGN when he claimed that it was, I expected that he would follow up with either a link to the place that the information was previously posted on CGN, or an apology for calling someone a liar when that wasn't actually true.

But we're now several days out from the meeting, and Mr. Montanarella has apparently recovered from it well enough to post again in this thread, but he has still neither followed up with a link to one of the "many" times the board/committee information has been posted here, nor a retraction/apology for misstating the facts.

I don't understand what the problem is. I was able to find old board information from the CRPA's tax returns online, and I posted it. Of course, it didn't include committee information, and several people pointed out that the information was out of date.

Another person was kind enough to send current information to me - I wanted to see if Mr. Montanarella would follow up on the earlier request, but it looks like he's not going to.

I have made two posts in the CRPA Forum with the information I have:

Board of Directors http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=542626

Committees http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=542628

dave_cg
03-01-2012, 5:54 PM
CRPA isn't bad right now but it has the potential to be great and it will only be great if our members step up and become active and engaged and that will only happen if we as Directors serve our members as they deserve to be served and offer them the opportunity to step up and serve their fellow members as well.

This. I find it helps me keep life in better focus if I remember that often, the battle isn't between 'good' and 'bad' -- the battle is between 'good' and 'better'. It seems we have a case of that here.

I've been a CRPA member in the past. To be honest, I don't even know if I'm current. Probably not. I've never been able to figure out exactly what good I was getting out of membership -- and I only mention that is because I know several directors are reading this thread and my comment should be a wake up call. If you can't answer the simple question: "What have you done for me lately?" when a casual shooter asks, that is a problem. At minimum, it is poor member communication.

jdberger
03-01-2012, 7:24 PM
Blackdawg, as a member of he tech and comms committee, I'm going to do what I can to get you that info. If you don't see anything in 10 days, please remind me.

bruceflinch
03-01-2012, 7:38 PM
You sound an awful lot like few members of the board of directors who oppose democratic reform that I know. In fact, considering your post's stunning lack of logic, you could very well be one of those board members...

You - and the CRPA membership body - should take comfort that your views are not shared by the majority of respondents. I am quite confident that time and attrition will make your views the embarrassing relic of California gun rights' bad old days that they are quickly becoming.

-Brandon
Can you ever disagree politely?

You're right, you're not a board member. You're just married to a board member, who happened to vote against reform.

Why don't you have the courage to put your name on the positions you support and advocate?

-Brandon
:facepalm:

Amazing how bold people are when they think they are anonymous. But they show their true colors when they actually have to put their name to their bravado.
ETA: the obligatory :gene:

I don't think that was a polite or reasonable thing to say. Do you spend every minute of the day standing by to respond to an Internet Forum? I think you were kind of BOLD to make that comment! You obviously have never met Liz & Rod.

I have not responded until now in the hopes to not cause more friction amongst all of us although I respect everyone's right to his/her opinon on CGN. (Thank you, Kes for giving us an area to do so.)

Tap, my husband's profession was mentioned only because it appears that some people are interested in finding out who he is other than being a Calgunner. As for me, I'm Liz Smith -- no big secret. Some of you may know me from the Vallejo Gun Shows where I help at the CGN Booth and at Richmond's IDPA Regional last year. (Again, thank you to Kes, Bplvr, and the rest of the volunteers for training me in running booths.)

And yes, I did vote in the negative. I was not happy about it and am still saddened at how things are going right now.

However, I was not the only Director to do so, based on what I heard from all the people who took the podium to speak. My position is on the Pistol Committee and Multi-gun Committee.

I am not here to fight with my friends or make enemies simply because I disagree with some things that have transpired in Ontario.

I'm sorry to observe Liz, that you are not amongst Friends. They do not respect your opinion, only disagree with it. Hence the anomosity.

There's no need for this to turn into a monkey poop fight.

Narcdog expressed his opinion. It's entirely possible for folks to disagree politely. Actually, I'd think that it's the preferred method of discourse.

I'm not clear on why it's become so difficult for us to engage others with whom we disagree with a measure of respect. I think it reflects poorly upon us as a community.

I agree w/ you jd. Engaging someone w/ a differring opinion politely, requires a setting aside of the Ego. Common Sense & Logic cannot overcome the Ego.

I don't see anyone squashing, or attempting to squash, speech at all. To the contrary, this is a public debate between CRPA members, and former and prospective members, on matters of CRPA bylaws compliance, members' rights, and policy. My posts very simply [and directly] (AND RUDELY) argued for transparency and reform, in opposition to the position of Narcdogk9 - who, in my view[/B[B]],(I didn't read it like that, but I am not a Lawyer), shilled for the old guard and against reform without disclosing his relationship to it.

-Brandon

Sir, It is your lack of tact & civility, that prevent me from making a contribution to the CGF. This is not the first time it has been displayed on CGN. You may be doing a wonderful job for the CGF, blah, blah, blah. But just as other Members have said they will withhold their wallets from the CRPA, I will withhold mine from the CGF.

Yes, I am a CRPA Member. I waded through 4 pages of this thread first to get a handle on what was being discussed, before I responded. I think there is a middle ground to where both sides can reach agreement, but not unless an open & civil discourse is taken.

Bruce A. Fitch

dantodd
03-01-2012, 7:41 PM
I don't think that was a polite or reasonable thing to say. Do you spend every minute of the day standing by to respond to an Internet Forum? I think you were kind of BOLD to make that comment! You obviously have never met Liz & Rod.


What seems obvious to you is not reality.

dantodd
03-01-2012, 7:47 PM
No Brandon your wrong, I'm not a board member, just a life member of CRPA. I just don't like the fact that you and a few others seem to want to take over CRPA for want ever reason. So since we also have the 1st Amendment I can voice my opinion. I think others may feel the same way but are to polite to say anything, I'm not. :oji:

Can you be surprised that people feel you are being disingenuous when you claim to be "just a life member" when someone says you might be a board member but you omit to mention that you are also married to a board member? As a retired cop, when you were a cop if someone were to tell you a lie of omission like that would it not make you very suspicious of other statements made by them?

dantodd
03-01-2012, 7:51 PM
Yes, I am a CRPA Member. I waded through 4 pages of this thread first to get a handle on what was being discussed, before I responded. I think there is a middle ground to where both sides can reach agreement, but not unless an open & civil discourse is taken.

Bruce A. Fitch

Do you support an equal voice for all members in selecting the board, or do you prefer a system where the members doesn't get a voice on the majority of the board members?

freonr22
03-01-2012, 7:56 PM
The anti's are reveling in the nonunity

greasemonkey
03-01-2012, 8:12 PM
The anti's are reveling in the nonunity

They've got to be hysterical over the 'law-abiding gun nut group' that doesn't want to comply with State Law.
:facepalm:

bruceflinch
03-01-2012, 8:19 PM
Do you support an equal voice for all members in selecting the board, or do you prefer a system where the members doesn't get a voice on the majority of the board members?

In Principle, I agree w/ Gene. But he said in the first couple of posts, there were a few bugs to work out. Apparently, Liz & one other Board Member weren't comfortable w/ the proposal till the bugs were worked out, IIRC.

Also in Principle, the treatment of Liz & Rod by the Board Members & people on this Forum really piss me off as well.

taperxz
03-01-2012, 8:39 PM
Also in Principle, the treatment of Liz & Rod by the Board Members & people on this Forum really piss me off as well.

I had no idea who they were. They were incognito till Liz spoke. As a CRPA member, I want more bang for my buck! If it means a change in the bylaws I'm all for it. Perhaps those that don't want change have something to lose? If so, what is it?

greasemonkey
03-01-2012, 8:39 PM
Blak, the liar comment was directed specifically at me (as was the threat of being banned) for asking precisely the same questions and making statements curiously similar to what yourself and several others have posted in this thread alone. But being that you and others have posed the same questions and comments as myself, I suppose I'm not the only liar on here that ought to be banned. I have certainly appreciated this thread staying open and was not really aware of how strongly people felt on both sides of this issue.
:shrug:

I've got to say, that's part of what's confusing about CRPA - they treat what seems like ordinary organizational information as if it were some sort of state secret.

Several people (including me) have asked for this information in this very thread. On February 22 (more than a week ago), the current President of the CRPA said, in response:

it is very disingenuous for some people to say that they don't know how to contact CRPA or who the officers or Board of Directors are etc. All that information is only a few mouse clicks away and has been posted many times on CGN.

I responded and pointed out that I was not able to find the requested information on CGN, and that it also did not appear in Google's index of CGN. I asked Mr. Montanarella to provide a link to that information, which doesn't seem like it would be a lot of trouble, given that it's already "been posted many times" on CGN, or, worst case, would be "several mouse clicks away" on some other site.

:gene:

Of course, Mr. Montanarella has probably been pretty busy, with last weekend's meeting, and all, so I figured it might take him a few days to respond. Given that he was essentially calling me (or someone) a liar for saying that the information wasn't on CGN when he claimed that it was, I expected that he would follow up with either a link to the place that the information was previously posted on CGN, or an apology for calling someone a liar when that wasn't actually true.

But we're now several days out from the meeting, and Mr. Montanarella has apparently recovered from it well enough to post again in this thread, but he has still neither followed up with a link to one of the "many" times the board/committee information has been posted here, nor a retraction/apology for misstating the facts.

I don't understand what the problem is. I was able to find old board information from the CRPA's tax returns online, and I posted it. Of course, it didn't include committee information, and several people pointed out that the information was out of date.

Another person was kind enough to send current information to me - I wanted to see if Mr. Montanarella would follow up on the earlier request, but it looks like he's not going to.

I have made two posts in the CRPA Forum with the information I have:

Board of Directors http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=542626

Committees http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=542628

taperxz
03-01-2012, 8:49 PM
Personally speaking, a heated debate, that's respectful might be a good thing for the op at hand. JMHO without trying to provoke Kes.

I do have to admit one thing though. Brandon can be inflammatory in his remarks but his heart is all there for us! I too have been accused of sarcasm taken out of context. In the end we all want the same thing, a strong 2A interpretation for all Americans to enjoy. JMHO

oaklander
03-01-2012, 10:16 PM
In Principle, I agree w/ Gene. But he said in the first couple of posts, there were a few bugs to work out. Apparently, Liz & one other Board Member weren't comfortable w/ the proposal till the bugs were worked out, IIRC.

Also in Principle, the treatment of Liz & Rod by the Board Members & people on this Forum really piss me off as well.

Yeah, I know Liz pretty well and she's cool. And if it's the Rod I am thinking of, he's cool too. . .

I really wish I could have made it. I have not read the whole thread, and I don't know who was being not cool. And that's why I wish I was down there. I have been in contact with some of the key people, and unless CRPA changes appropriately, it just seems that so many things that we ALL have been working on will kind of be wasted. . .

That's the simple message. That there can be ANY opposition to what me, and Gene, and the others are advocating is verging on being morally wrong. AGAIN - this is a civil right, and needs to be treated as such.

ETA: I don't even have time to read the thread. I will repeat what I said on Facebook. Everyone just needs to calm down. Either the changes will happen, and then we move forward. Or the changes will not happen, and we will not move forward. It has been very clearly outlined what needs to happen, and why. There is actually little need for further discussion. I think the changes will happen, and I want ALL of you to remember that the time that we spend arguing here is time that we could be out doing sometime positive. I will be attending a party with our Mayor pretty soon, at the request of her friend. I now volunteer FOR our city. I am working within our communities of faith (of which I am a proud member) and people in Oakland may be teaching firearms safety to our kids, thereby saving lives. That is what *I* do when I am not on the internet. Let's please, ALL try and remember that we have a higher purpose here.

Can't you folks see that we ARE a legitimate rights movement now? Do I have to slap people in the face to get them to see that? We never were NOT. We were brainwashed by our own political opposition into thinking that WE were the bad guys. We never were!

And NO - I am not pulling the moral high ground thing. I am merely pointing out that on a substantive level, such arguments burn bridges, and cause needless drama. The change simply MUST happen, and that's all there is to it. There is simply NO ROOM for further argument.

Let us ALL act like the good guys and gals that we are.

Even me.

:oji:

CRPAGunner
03-01-2012, 11:06 PM
There's no need for this to turn into a monkey poop fight.

Narcdog expressed his opinion. It's entirely possible for folks to disagree politely. Actually, I'd think that it's the preferred method of discourse.

I'm not clear on why it's become so difficult for us to engage others with whom we disagree with a measure of respect. I think it reflects poorly upon us as a community.

*************

Tony, with the exception of the part of the meeting in executive session, I think that it would be very appropriate for the President of a member organization to discuss things that happened and were debated at a Directors Meeting with the membership. As mentioned above, it was open to the public.

It is, after all, their organization (even if they don't get to choose who runs it).

I flat out don't have the time to go over everything that happened at last weeks meetings. The membership will be briefed accordingly in our next membership report. However, please feel free to post anything you like that is not privileged etc. I trust you to be balanced, fair and sincere JD......

I don't see anyone squashing, or attempting to squash, speech at all. To the contrary, this is a public debate between CRPA members, and former and prospective members, on matters of CRPA bylaws compliance, members' rights, and policy. My posts very simply [and directly] argued for transparency and reform, in opposition to the position of Narcdogk9 - who, in my view, shilled for the old guard and against reform without disclosing his relationship to it.

-Brandon

Rod was trying to keep his wife out of the fray ??!! He and Liz are some of the finest people around and I am honored to call them both fellow CRPA members. Liz is perfectly capable of taking care of herself, but Rod is a very honorable guy and was trying to shield her from the inevitable onslaught. Can you blame him??!! I would back their play 100% and based on the beating Rod is getting on this thread, he did the right thing........It's sad to see how he was treated by some.........

I agree, Narcdog certainly made some very inflammatory statements and implications purely directed at those of us who have invested ourselves in reform and democracy. I would also add they they are disingenuous, at best.

I support your efforts to educate and clarify the issues 110%.

-Brandon

See above........:facepalm:

Is there anywhere I can find a list of board and committee positions along with what responsibilities and votes they have? The organizational structure is incredibly unclear from this thread.

Are you a CRPA member? If so, I would be happy to have the office send you a copy of the CRPA bylaws. All the info is contained therein.

I, for one, am very interested in knowing if the president of our association supports the substance of the proposed amendments to the bylaws. If not, to which portions do you object, and why? Do you have a counter proposal to bring the bylaws into compliance with state law?

Are there any plans to expand the number of committees to epresent those members with interests in legislative, legal and civil rights outreach?

First off, the bylaws and structure of CRPA are completely legal and conform with all California laws governing such organizations. You are grossly misinformed and are being misled. I actually do agree with much of Gene's ideas and I said so in the meeting. But of course, no one who was there had the intellectual honesty to tell you that. I don't have time to go into all the nuances. As far as committee structure and numbers, yes that is being looked at. More to follow.

I've got to say, that's part of what's confusing about CRPA - they treat what seems like ordinary organizational information as if it were some sort of state secret.

Several people (including me) have asked for this information in this very thread. On February 22 (more than a week ago), the current President of the CRPA said, in response:



I responded and pointed out that I was not able to find the requested information on CGN, and that it also did not appear in Google's index of CGN. I asked Mr. Montanarella to provide a link to that information, which doesn't seem like it would be a lot of trouble, given that it's already "been posted many times" on CGN, or, worst case, would be "several mouse clicks away" on some other site.

:gene:

Of course, Mr. Montanarella has probably been pretty busy, with last weekend's meeting, and all, so I figured it might take him a few days to respond. Given that he was essentially calling me (or someone) a liar for saying that the information wasn't on CGN when he claimed that it was, I expected that he would follow up with either a link to the place that the information was previously posted on CGN, or an apology for calling someone a liar when that wasn't actually true.

But we're now several days out from the meeting, and Mr. Montanarella has apparently recovered from it well enough to post again in this thread, but he has still neither followed up with a link to one of the "many" times the board/committee information has been posted here, nor a retraction/apology for misstating the facts.

I don't understand what the problem is. I was able to find old board information from the CRPA's tax returns online, and I posted it. Of course, it didn't include committee information, and several people pointed out that the information was out of date.

Another person was kind enough to send current information to me - I wanted to see if Mr. Montanarella would follow up on the earlier request, but it looks like he's not going to.

I have made two posts in the CRPA Forum with the information I have:

Board of Directors http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=542626

Committees http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=542628

I apologize for not getting back to you. I never called you or anyone else a 'liar.' I did accuse Jonatahn of being 'disingenious' in that he did not tell the whole story concerning a prior thread. I'm over it.

Glad you got the the info you were seeking from Brandon or whoever and posted same. No biggie!

Can you ever disagree politely?


:facepalm:



I don't think that was a polite or reasonable thing to say. Do you spend every minute of the day standing by to respond to an Internet Forum? I think you were kind of BOLD to make that comment! You obviously have never met Liz & Rod.



I'm sorry to observe Liz, that you are not amongst Friends. They do not respect your opinion, only disagree with it. Hence the anomosity.


I agree w/ you jd. Engaging someone w/ a differring opinion politely, requires a setting aside of the Ego. Common Sense & Logic cannot overcome the Ego.



Sir, It is your lack of tact & civility, that prevent me from making a contribution to the CGF. This is not the first time it has been displayed on CGN. You may be doing a wonderful job for the CGF, blah, blah, blah. But just as other Members have said they will withhold their wallets from the CRPA, I will withhold mine from the CGF.

Yes, I am a CRPA Member. I waded through 4 pages of this thread first to get a handle on what was being discussed, before I responded. I think there is a middle ground to where both sides can reach agreement, but not unless an open & civil discourse is taken.

Bruce A. Fitch

AMEN and very well said !!! Thanks for the support......

Do you support an equal voice for all members in selecting the board, or do you prefer a system where the members doesn't get a voice on the majority of the board members?

With all do respect, this is a tired and worn out arguement. It's also factually incorrect. I meet with CRPA members all the time and this the least of their concerns! They are very happy with the way CRPA is being run.......I know that's not what you wanted to hear...........

The anti's are reveling in the nonunity

Unfortunately, they are not the only ones.........

They've got to be hysterical over the 'law-abiding gun nut group' that doesn't want to comply with State Law.
:facepalm:

Again, you are grossly misinformed and are being conveniently misled. CRPA complies with all applicable state laws governing our organization. We have no choice......It's the law !!

Okay.....I think I hit all the major stuff! Look, I'm a very busy guy. I have a fulltime job that keeps me swamped in addition to all the CRPA business I have to attend to. I just returned from a club meeting in Temple City that went very well! I go to those types of events all the time and I'm happy to do it! I work on behalf of over 30,000 CRPA members and can't devote all my time to answering and engaging endless threads and posts on CGN. I'll be honest, CGN is not even in the top 100 of 'things to do' on a daily basis! And it's not because I don't want to hear what you have to say, 'cuz I really do. But it's a 'cost benefit analysis.' I have to devote the vast majority of time to making sure ALL CRPA members get the attention of the association, not just those on CGN. But theres another thing.............

Some of you guys really need to learn some manners. The way Rod and Liz Smith were treated, especially by some of their fellow BOD members is an absolute disgrace! That's not how we treat our 'own kind!' Some of you are very brave and boisterous from behind a keyboard, but I know firsthand what cowards you are 'face to face.' I am not afraid to take the heat. You guys can fire away at me all you want, take what I say out of context, mislead etc. Ain't no big deal to me. I have been through much worse, trust me! And I know the true motivations for some of you. I know who all the shills and 'sock-puppets' are and on who's behalf. That's just life in cyber-world and especially CGN! And I don't mean to be insulting or rude, but come on.......Let's all be honest with each other.......

Now, I will continue to 'pop in' from time to time to see what's up and I will be more than happy to respond to professional, sincere and honest questions from anyone who asks, you don't even have to be a CRPA member. I will help in any way I can.........But I am done rolling around in the mud in this thread.........This has devolved into a good 'ole fashion CRPA bash-fest....

This thread and its posts are endemic of why we are so screwed up in the 2A/gun rights community in California and why we just can't seem to get our act together to where it needs to be. We are absolutely brutal and savage with each other. We undermine, scheme and lie to each other. We publically insult people who MIGHT want to help us. We are down right mean and disrespectful to people with whom we share a common love of the shooting sports and firearms. That's not the kind of organization I want to lead in CRPA. That's not who our members are and that's not what they expect from CRPA. Just imagine all the great things we could achieve if we were unified together.........just for a second, imagine it............

locosway
03-01-2012, 11:08 PM
As a CRPA member I find it absurd that there is not a fair process in place for electing board members. I know that if this isn't corrected by time my membership expires I will not be renewing. I do not participate in any of the activities that the CRPA claims to be protecting. I'm interested in my gun rights more than where the next silhouette shoot is going to be.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2is9jyx.jpg

oaklander
03-01-2012, 11:17 PM
One more thought, and I think this is where me, and Tony, and EVERYONE agrees. And I do like Tony. I have not met too many people I DO NOT like. . .

However, there are some people who are nervous about change. I think the word has gotten a bum rap. It should have been "positive change!"

LOL

But I don't want to start a REAL argument, so I won't post about national politics. . .

ANYWAYS - the underlying issue, basically in EVERYTHING WE DO - is THIS:

we fight for the little guy, and the little gal. . .

It is simply NO LIE (and I am speaking as kind of an insider) that elites have taken away a lot of things from people. And the way that it's done is by a minority not allowing the majority to have input. . .

This underlies every sort of oppression, unfairness, and wrongness. Not just here, and not just in CA, or even the country. But the entire world. And not just now, but since the dawn of time.

People MUST have fair input and representation. THAT is why this country was founded, and THAT is what we are seeking. . .

Again, that anyone would oppose this seems wrong. Just wrong. And none of us like things that are WRONG. That is why we are HERE. . .

. . . and enough of my being preachy. I do it a lot now because I see how people confuse issues, and do things for the wrong reasons. . .

Here is the simple metric:

I talked to someone earlier today on the phone. This person represents a large group that I am working with the help FINALLY reduce our violence. We will do it by unity, education, and opportunity. Just like any civil rights movement. We will not do it by arresting the rest of the town, and we will not do it by spending another billion dollars on weak programs. We are getting at the core of the problem here. And one thing that we have identified is a lack of education around children, and the dangers of an untrained child having access to a gun. We are not going to teach kids how to shoot guns, but I have been asked to start looking into programs to teach kids the four things (as you all know, STOP, DON'T TOUCH, LEAVE THE ROOM, GET AN ADULT). Can't you guys see how major this is? Only three short years ago, "Oakland" was kind of our "enemy," and now we are WORKING WITH OAKLAND!!!!

(We might also have a lawsuit or two going against them, but I don't follow the litigation. However, I am on good terms with the city attorney who does these, so I guess I could just ask him.)

;-)

Anyways - to start to do the urban inreach we need to do (and it's not just Oakland), we need to have what is essentially an activist organization, with membership from all parts of the state (especially the cities), backing us up. . .

And even though my intersection here is on gun safety, I have yet to talk to a person who does not support self-defense. People here actually DO understand the value of self-defense. We can really make a difference in our cities. We can educate, and really help bring back a law abiding "gun culture." In other states, this simply starts to displace the true bad guys. And it does this with no additional LE required, and without vigilantes, or any such other nasty thing. Basically, it just calms down the cities, and the cities end up with LESS violence all around. . . And the people here I have talked to are aware of this. They haven't read the Lott book, but they travel to other states, and simple see less gun crime.

By restoring a right, we can bring normalcy to many places in California that are just totally upside down right now. . . And THAT is why this is so important. . .

We can make history. If we do the right thing.

Connor P Price
03-01-2012, 11:21 PM
Are you a CRPA member? If so, I would be happy to have the office send you a copy of the CRPA bylaws. All the info is contained therein.


No, I am not yet a member. However I would very much like to become one. Are only members allowed access to the bylaws? That would seem exceedingly strange. If that's the case how does anyone make an educated decision as to whether they would like to become a member? Shall prospective members take it on blind faith that everything is on the up and up?

Please understand I am not criticizing or suggesting that anything unethical is afoot. I simply like to make informed decisions about where I send my money. How shall I inform myself if the information is unavailable?

hoffmang
03-01-2012, 11:44 PM
I actually do agree with much of Gene's ideas and I said so in the meeting.

So Tony, why wouldn't you agree to support my changes to the bylaws?

-Gene

oaklander
03-01-2012, 11:55 PM
So Tony, why wouldn't you agree to support my changes to the bylaws?

-Gene

Amen. . .

I implore all of you - this is real. And not just in Oakland. And not just this issue. By increasing access, we increase power. . .

And not OUR power. YOUR power.

That's the point. CRPA needs to belong to YOU. . .

It is my hope that everyone will do the right thing here. Gene and I keep bringing up history because this is not just another "thing" - the right is too important.

What happens can literally change history.

bigcalidave
03-02-2012, 12:14 AM
As yet another board members of CRPA, I'm pretty glad I didn't have time to miss a week at this board meeting. Seems like a lot of yelling and screaming without any results.

I'm sick of hearing about the unfair board of directors elections and lack of representation for members. If you are a member here at Calguns, you should know that there are over a dozen CGN (prominent?) members on the board of directors for CRPA. How is that not represented? It wasn't that difficult to get elected to the board either, as there are a few other options besides the activity committees. If you are complaining about the process now, did you run for a board seat last year? Did you want to get involved or are you simply complaining now because it's the hot topic?

You can be on the board, and you can easily reach out to board members with your ideas.

A lot of things have to change with CRPA, and I believe it's on the way, but dropping support or membership because of this thread and the context within is bull****. If quitting now would help anything, what the hell is all the fighting for?

If CGF is a temporary mission, then CRPA has to be the top candidate to fill the role once it is built into THAT type of organization.

Get busy living, or get busy dying... ;)




Tony, one comment, if you bother reading this thread anymore. There is no larger single point of contact for gun owners in California than this website. We have to be in your top 100, at the least. :)

oaklander
03-02-2012, 12:47 AM
Right, and I do not disagree.

I actually DO get the sense that there are people, right now, in leadership positions, who are not comfortable with me trying to get a law abiding gun culture back here in Oakland.

Does that not bother you, as an activist for our rights???

We are at a cross-roads, and things are changing faster that we expected. CRPA needs to change fast, and I disagree with the "just let things work out."

I actually think SOME people are nervous about a strong CRPA, and it is my hope that you are not one of them. . .

As yet another board members of CRPA, I'm pretty glad I didn't have time to miss a week at this board meeting. Seems like a lot of yelling and screaming without any results.

I'm sick of hearing about the unfair board of directors elections and lack of representation for members. If you are a member here at Calguns, you should know that there are over a dozen CGN (prominent?) members on the board of directors for CRPA. How is that not represented? It wasn't that difficult to get elected to the board either, as there are a few other options besides the activity committees. If you are complaining about the process now, did you run for a board seat last year? Did you want to get involved or are you simply complaining now because it's the hot topic?

You can be on the board, and you can easily reach out to board members with your ideas.

A lot of things have to change with CRPA, and I believe it's on the way, but dropping support or membership because of this thread and the context within is bull****. If quitting now would help anything, what the hell is all the fighting for?

If CGF is a temporary mission, then CRPA has to be the top candidate to fill the role once it is built into THAT type of organization.

Get busy living, or get busy dying... ;)




Tony, one comment, if you bother reading this thread anymore. There is no larger single point of contact for gun owners in California than this website. We have to be in your top 100, at the least. :)

bigcalidave
03-02-2012, 3:04 AM
I didn't say "let things work out" I said it's being worked out. I believe that as a group we can advance this organization to be something impressive. Most of my comments were to the people crapping on this thread with complaints about the leadership and process of the CRPA, when more than a third of that leadership is US! It's not like we don't have representation, its not like we were prevented from voting in a large number of Calguns members to the board. *****ing about something for the sake of *****ing is just annoying. We have better things to do, all of us.

pennys dad
03-02-2012, 4:48 AM
BigCali is right on the money and Gene's proposed changes are right on the money and there needs to be change, but the change needs to come from many sides, the end result of all these efforts is a unified california shooting community with representation from many groups, all directed at one common cause, our civil rights. The crpa should be the banner we all carry, along with our calguns banner and any other banner that holds true to u personally. We need unity and common purpose. So please consider although crpa needs to make a change so do we all, we can mo longer be individuals on an internet forum, we need to be an active community member in our common purpose

dantodd
03-02-2012, 5:08 AM
In Principle, I agree w/ Gene. But he said in the first couple of posts, there were a few bugs to work out. Apparently, Liz & one other Board Member weren't comfortable w/ the proposal till the bugs were worked out, IIRC.

Also in Principle, the treatment of Liz & Rod by the Board Members & people on this Forum really piss me off as well.

And specifically what parts of the proposal keep you from supporting it as presented?

As for how Liz and Rod were treated here on the forum, I have not seen anything but respect since Rod stood behind his post and I saw zero disrespect for Liz.

dantodd
03-02-2012, 5:37 AM
First off, the bylaws and structure of CRPA are completely legal and conform with all California laws governing such organizations. You are grossly misinformed and are being misled. I actually do agree with much of Gene's ideas and I said so in the meeting. But of course, no one who was there had the intellectual honesty to tell you that. I don't have time to go into all the nuances. As far as committee structure and numbers, yes that is being looked at. More to follow.

Is there any way to read this that doesn't accuse Gene of lying or being ignorant of CA and federal law regarding non-profit corporate governance?

Which specific portions of the proposal do you NOT agree with and why were the portions which you supported not at least given a vote?




Do you support an equal voice for all members in selecting the board, or do you prefer a system where the members doesn't get a voice on the majority of the board members?

With all do respect, this is a tired and worn out arguement. It's also factually incorrect. I meet with CRPA members all the time and this the least of their concerns! They are very happy with the way CRPA is being run.......I know that's not what you wanted to hear...........


It's sort of ironic, I used to have a .sig here that essentially said that whenever someone starts a statement with "with all due respect" it almost certainly means that they have zero respect for you. cest la vie. I will work on the assumption that this is one of the few times that it is used in all sincerity.

I would think that the explosion this has caused and the complete lack of addressing the issue should disabuse you of the belief that your members all think it is a non-issue. While we are certainly a small portion of the CRPA membership I am not really pleased with the idea that you seem to think one of the major issues we've complained about over the past couple years is "the least of their (our) concerns." I don't know if this means that you don't look at people who are both CalGuns and CRPA members as a lesser member or if it means that you simply don't think that our concerns are valid.

I would be great (and show me my due respect) if you gave a direct answer to the question that I asked. (I know it can be difficult to give a direct answer just as one man to another once you decide to become a politician.) So I will ask again, in a different and more direct manner. "Do you support a change that would make all board members openly elected by OUR members?"

greasemonkey
03-02-2012, 7:21 AM
Regarding your remarks to me about being "disingenuous", which according to you is COMPLETELY different than 'liar', I thought I'd bring you up to speed a bit on how a Thesaurus may be helpful to you in the future. A thesaurus is kind of like a dictionary, except instead of covering the definition, it will list words called synonyms and antonyms; or rather, different words that have similar or opposite meanings, respectively. The main difference between "disingenuous" and "liar" is how one ought to use them in a sentence structure, being that one is an adjective and one is a noun; when I said you had called me a liar, I was simply communicating the same message you had with a differently worded sentence structure.

Thesaurus.com has some synonyms for "disingenuous" (http://bit.ly/xRl4D6), not limited to but including: insincere,
artful, crooked, cunning, deceitful, designing, dishonest, duplicitous, false, feigned, foxy, guileful, indirect, insidious, mendacious, oblique, shifty, sly, tricky, two-faced, uncandid, underhanded, unfair, unfrank, wily.

I don't believe it to be a stretch of the English language to say that someone acting out one of the above adjectives is a liar, nor should anyone with even a basic grasp of proper literacy.

I flat out don't have the time to go over everything that happened at last weeks meetings. The membership will be briefed accordingly in our next membership report. However, please feel free to post anything you like that is not privileged etc. I trust you to be balanced, fair and sincere JD......

Are you a CRPA member? If so, I would be happy to have the office send you a copy of the CRPA bylaws. All the info is contained therein.
So, you expect people to join blindly and donate money, without looking into how the organization functions? Are you crazy?


First off, the bylaws and structure of CRPA are completely legal and conform with all California laws governing such organizations. You are grossly misinformed and are being misled. I actually do agree with much of Gene's ideas and I said so in the meeting. But of course, no one who was there had the intellectual honesty to tell you that. I don't have time to go into all the nuances. As far as committee structure and numbers, yes that is being looked at. More to follow.
Much of Gene's ideas seem to be that the CRPA structure is not in compliance with California laws...


I apologize for not getting back to you. I never called you or anyone else a 'liar.' I did accuse Jonatahn of being 'disingenious' in that he did not tell the whole story concerning a prior thread. I'm over it.

Glad you got the the info you were seeking from Brandon or whoever and posted same. No biggie!
You still have yet to show how the information is "just a few clicks away", which is specifically what you questioned my credibility & intentions over. Why did you not hurl insults at Blakdawg when he asked the same questions I did?

With all do respect, this is a tired and worn out arguement. It's also factually incorrect. I meet with CRPA members all the time and this the least of their concerns! They are very happy with the way CRPA is being run.......I know that's not what you wanted to hear...........
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, right?? Just because someone's happy & has no clue that something is illegal does not make the action legal.

Okay.....I think I hit all the major stuff! Look, I'm a very busy guy. I have a fulltime job that keeps me swamped in addition to all the CRPA business I have to attend to. I just returned from a club meeting in Temple City that went very well! I go to those types of events all the time and I'm happy to do it! I work on behalf of over 30,000 CRPA members and can't devote all my time to answering and engaging endless threads and posts on CGN. I'll be honest, CGN is not even in the top 100 of 'things to do' on a daily basis! And it's not because I don't want to hear what you have to say, 'cuz I really do. But it's a 'cost benefit analysis.' I have to devote the vast majority of time to making sure ALL CRPA members get the attention of the association, not just those on CGN. But theres another thing.............

Some of you guys really need to learn some manners. That's not how we treat our 'own kind!' Some of you are very brave and boisterous from behind a keyboard, but I know firsthand what cowards you are 'face to face.' And I know the true motivations for some of you. I know who all the shills and 'sock-puppets' are and on who's behalf. That's just life in cyber-world and especially CGN! And I don't mean to be insulting or rude, but come on.......Let's all be honest with each other.......
What a professional display of your manners and how we ought to 'treat our own kind.' It's good you don't "mean to be" insulting or rude, it just kind of happens sub-consciously?:puke:

Now, I will continue to 'pop in' from time to time to see what's up and I will be more than happy to respond to professional, sincere and honest questions from anyone who asks, you don't even have to be a CRPA member. I will help in any way I can.........But I am done rolling around in the mud in this thread.........This has devolved into a good 'ole fashion CRPA bash-fest....
There's very little that is professional or intellectually honest about how you've responded to the members who disagree with you. I'm sorry that you're pressed for time and are unavailable to address your membership that pays you quite well to do such a burdensome task.

blakdawg
03-02-2012, 11:53 AM
I'm sorry that you're pressed for time and are unavailable to address your membership that pays you quite well to do such a burdensome task.

FYI, it appears to me that Mr. Montanarella is a volunteer - all of the recent tax returns show his compensation as zero, as well as the other officers. John Fields, the executive director, draws around $100K, and there are paid office staff.

blakdawg
03-02-2012, 12:05 PM
If you are a member here at Calguns, you should know that there are over a dozen CGN (prominent?) members on the board of directors for CRPA.

This would be easier to know if there were a list cross-referencing the CGN usernames with the CRPA board list. For example, while I've seen your username associated with CGN/CCC activity, I had no idea you're a CRPA director. If there are > 12 of you, there are several others I don't know about, either.

If this information is in a signature block, I apologize for missing it - I have signatures and avatars turned off for faster loading and so that CGN looks a little less like MySpace.

greasemonkey
03-02-2012, 12:54 PM
FYI, it appears to me that Mr. Montanarella is a volunteer - all of the recent tax returns show his compensation as zero, as well as the other officers. John Fields, the executive director, draws around $100K, and there are paid office staff.

Thank you for that correction.

Southwest Chuck
03-02-2012, 4:23 PM
Regarding your remarks to me about being "disingenuous", which according to you is COMPLETELY different than 'liar', I thought I'd bring you up to speed a bit on how a Thesaurus may be helpful to you in the future. A thesaurus is kind of like a dictionary, except instead of covering the definition, it will list words called synonyms and antonyms; or rather, different words that have similar or opposite meanings, respectively. The main difference between "disingenuous" and "liar" is how one ought to use them in a sentence structure, being that one is an adjective and one is a noun; when I said you had called me a liar, I was simply communicating the same message you had with a differently worded sentence structure.

Thesaurus.com has some synonyms for "disingenuous" (http://bit.ly/xRl4D6), not limited to but including: insincere,
artful, crooked, cunning, deceitful, designing, dishonest, duplicitous, false, feigned, foxy, guileful, indirect, insidious, mendacious, oblique, shifty, sly, tricky, two-faced, uncandid, underhanded, unfair, unfrank, wily.

I don't believe it to be a stretch of the English language to say that someone acting out one of the above adjectives is a liar, nor should anyone with even a basic grasp of proper literacy.Originally Posted by CRPAGunner View Post
I flat out don't have the time to go over everything that happened at last weeks meetings. The membership will be briefed accordingly in our next membership report. However, please feel free to post anything you like that is not privileged etc. I trust you to be balanced, fair and sincere JD......

Are you a CRPA member? If so, I would be happy to have the office send you a copy of the CRPA bylaws. All the info is contained therein.
So, you expect people to join blindly and donate money, without looking into how the organization functions? Are you crazy?


First off, the bylaws and structure of CRPA are completely legal and conform with all California laws governing such organizations. You are grossly misinformed and are being misled. I actually do agree with much of Gene's ideas and I said so in the meeting. But of course, no one who was there had the intellectual honesty to tell you that. I don't have time to go into all the nuances. As far as committee structure and numbers, yes that is being looked at. More to follow.
Much of Gene's ideas seem to be that the CRPA structure is not in compliance with California laws...


I apologize for not getting back to you. I never called you or anyone else a 'liar.' I did accuse Jonatahn of being 'disingenious' in that he did not tell the whole story concerning a prior thread. I'm over it.

Glad you got the the info you were seeking from Brandon or whoever and posted same. No biggie!
You still have yet to show how the information is "just a few clicks away", which is specifically what you questioned my credibility & intentions over. Why did you not hurl insults at Blakdawg when he asked the same questions I did?

With all do respect, this is a tired and worn out arguement. It's also factually incorrect. I meet with CRPA members all the time and this the least of their concerns! They are very happy with the way CRPA is being run.......I know that's not what you wanted to hear...........
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, right?? Just because someone's happy & has no clue that something is illegal does not make the action legal.

Okay.....I think I hit all the major stuff! Look, I'm a very busy guy. I have a fulltime job that keeps me swamped in addition to all the CRPA business I have to attend to. I just returned from a club meeting in Temple City that went very well! I go to those types of events all the time and I'm happy to do it! I work on behalf of over 30,000 CRPA members and can't devote all my time to answering and engaging endless threads and posts on CGN. I'll be honest, CGN is not even in the top 100 of 'things to do' on a daily basis! And it's not because I don't want to hear what you have to say, 'cuz I really do. But it's a 'cost benefit analysis.' I have to devote the vast majority of time to making sure ALL CRPA members get the attention of the association, not just those on CGN. But theres another thing.............

Some of you guys really need to learn some manners. That's not how we treat our 'own kind!' Some of you are very brave and boisterous from behind a keyboard, but I know firsthand what cowards you are 'face to face.' And I know the true motivations for some of you. I know who all the shills and 'sock-puppets' are and on who's behalf. That's just life in cyber-world and especially CGN! And I don't mean to be insulting or rude, but come on.......Let's all be honest with each other.......
What a professional display of your manners and how we ought to 'treat our own kind.' It's good you don't "mean to be" insulting or rude, it just kind of happens sub-consciously?

Now, I will continue to 'pop in' from time to time to see what's up and I will be more than happy to respond to professional, sincere and honest questions from anyone who asks, you don't even have to be a CRPA member. I will help in any way I can.........But I am done rolling around in the mud in this thread.........This has devolved into a good 'ole fashion CRPA bash-fest....
There's very little that is professional or intellectually honest about how you've responded to the members who disagree with you. I'm sorry that you're pressed for time and are unavailable to address your membership that pays you quite well to do such a burdensome task.

...I was originally going to post my own comments, but greasemonkey's post will do nicely for starters. I don't have a (direct) dog in this fight as I am not a CRPA member as yet. I have, up until this point, been a prospective member, however. Sadly, even that is no longer the case, at least not at this time. I have great interest in the RTKBA in CA, do what I can to support our fight and have read this thread thoroughly and with great interest. For those who are members and most especially Directors, the following may be of interest as it comes from one of the un-washed masses (me) who would relish joining an organization that had the potential for growth and to effect significant change in our State.

After reading Mr. Montanarella's post, I can tell you what words came to mind while I read it. Equate it to a 10 round mag.... of words firing off in my mind.......

1. Condescending
2. Arrogance
3. Cronyism
4. Dismissive
5. Paternalistic
6. Hypocritical
7. Entitlistic
8. Entrenched
9. Blind
10. Purge, overhaul, build...

I could easily fill a 30 rd mag, but alas, it would be over-kill at this point. The more I learn, come to be familiar with, observe, and analyze the CRPA and it's politics and structure, the more convinced I am that it does have the potential to become a real force in California. However, that potential has a real possibility of never being realized - the way things stand now (at least from my personal perspective). The problem is number 10 on the list. I actually had those listed backwards. You see, to be able build, you need to overhaul/update the organization to more closely reflect the wants and desires of Ca gun owners/supporters/CRPA members (as well as being compliant with the law), not just a select group of niche specialties with-in the sport.

For those who would be obstructionists to change/overhaul, (assuming the change is what a majority of membership wants, that is) well, you all know what the third item in number 10 is. If membership can't effect that change in leadership (or rules don't allow them to act thus entrenching the status quo), then the organization doesn't reflect nor represent it's members and is truly not a membership organization. I guess I for one will wait and see where this goes. I am in the same club as Don Kates is as far as eligibility goes. In any other circumstance, I'd be thrilled to belong to his club. In this instance, eh.... not so much.

pennys dad
03-02-2012, 7:32 PM
This would be easier to know if there were a list cross-referencing the CGN usernames with the CRPA board list. For example, while I've seen your username associated with CGN/CCC activity, I had no idea you're a CRPA director. If there are > 12 of you, there are several others I don't know about, either.

If this information is in a signature block, I apologize for missing it - I have signatures and avatars turned off for faster loading and so that CGN looks a little less like MySpace.

Here is the current list, I noted the CGN members:

oaklander
03-02-2012, 8:10 PM
Here is the current list, I noted the CGN members:

What a motley crew!

There are more from North for kind an outlier reason. Many of the leaders of our civil rights movement have actually come out of the tech industry, for various reasons I won't bore you with.

There's simply more tech up here.

And folks who understand these sorts of subtleties are now telling people that the CRPA needs fixing. It's not about what is happening now. The issue has to do with the changing demographics of the rights movement. If a group is not able to move quickly, based on having a responsive election process, it simply misses things like this, and does not see them as opportunities.

That's just one aspect of why we need this. There are about 15 more.

There are actually people who sit down, talk to each other, and map this stuff out 20, 30 years ahead - AT THE LEAST. Again, we are rebuilding a right - and it's got to be done RIGHT.

jdberger
03-02-2012, 8:38 PM
Jacob, you're missing at least one Director (Barranco) and Iampetro is our own Goober.

jdberger
03-02-2012, 8:45 PM
I can post the full list, but I'll only do it with Tony's explicit written permission.

IIRC, we were asked to keep the Directors Directory private. I don't know if that meant just addresses and phone numbers or if it also applied to people's names. So, at this time, I'm going to exercise an abundance of caution and wait for Tony's endorsement.

bruceflinch
03-02-2012, 9:15 PM
Post # 136

I'm beat so this is the very short version.

There were two structural errors in my proposal that quite correctly kept some of the supporters of a more democratic structure wary to support the change with out correcting those. Also, there was much confusion by both the bylaws cmte and myself - partially due to a horribly corrupted word document. As such, the bylaws committee was not able to adequately review the proposal initially.
At the end of a multi hour debate, I decided that we needed more time than we had on the floor to fix the two issues that the proposal had so I've tabled it for the next meeting in the summer. I was pleasantly surprised by the broader support and changed minds this proposal received on the broader board. Also, I think the survey was valuable. I'm posting an overview of the results of the survey in this post.

I will have an updated proposal available very shortly. It remains to be seen whether the bylaws committee approves of that version, but I have higher expectations of the entire board. However, should the board rejection a corrected version - that would reflect poorly on the organization's trust in it's own members. The passage of this by the required 2/3s is by no means a foregone conclusion.

-Gene

And specifically what parts of the proposal keep you from supporting it as presented?

As for how Liz and Rod were treated here on the forum, I have not seen anything but respect since Rod stood behind his post and I saw zero disrespect for Liz.

I did not read Gene's Proposal, just his Posts in this thread. Please note the Bolded statements above. I read that & cannot understand the animosity toward Liz. Rod's initial statement did not name people who were quibbling. He only noted there was a lot of it. It was Brandon who started the Personal Attack. Then you chimed in with your Keyboard Commando comment.

So, Is your real name Dan Todd?
Are you a member of CRPA?
Do you really think the whole story has been told here?

pennys dad
03-02-2012, 9:24 PM
I knew I was missing someone. JD, this list does have written permission, i can forward you the email from whence this permission came.
Oh , sorry Goober, I will fix this right away. and repost

Stonewalker
03-02-2012, 9:33 PM
For what it's worth, I'm a brand new member of CRPA this year and the only reason I joined is because Gene, Brandon and Bill have all suggested it as an effective force for change. I know next to nothing about CRPA or its history, but I'm paying attention now.

Mostly observing at this point... and I remain cautiously optimistic that Gene's proposals and this discourse will lead to positive change.

pennys dad
03-02-2012, 9:49 PM
CRPA to CGN board list fixed on thread #213: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8147559&postcount=213
I think all the cousins are listed.

oaklander
03-03-2012, 1:17 AM
Facebook. FTW.

"I'm still talking, and what you heard was a pause."

WxS0c9CTAUM

jdberger
03-03-2012, 8:14 AM
CRPA to CGN board list fixed on thread #213: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8147559&postcount=213
I think all the cousins are listed.

I'd like to list full names and the committees they were elected to, also the various committees they were assigned to, ex. Comms & Tech for me. For that, I'd like Tony's explicit written permission. Preferrably in this thread.

jdberger
03-03-2012, 8:20 AM
Well- its been a long time coming. The truth has been revealed and I have been unmasked.

CRPA leadership has uncovered the plot and revealed it at the last board meeting. However, Gene and Brandon are not to blame. It is I, wildhoffer who deserves, nay, demands all of the credit.

...

I understand the satire - but how do you think that this is helpful?

oaklander
03-03-2012, 8:41 AM
I understand the satire - but how do you think that this is helpful?

I think he is trying to make people calm down. I know who this is. His intent is good, I think!!!

LOL

pennys dad
03-03-2012, 10:22 AM
I'd like to list full names and the committees they were elected to, also the various committees they were assigned to, ex. Comms & Tech for me. For that, I'd like Tony's explicit written permission. Preferrably in this thread.
JD go look in the CRPA subforum, someone started this already

Fjold
03-03-2012, 11:29 AM
Well, this is an interesting string. Normally I stay out of ***** fests but I thought that I'd add some of my observations.

For my background, I am not qualified according to the survey, to be a Director at CRPA although I was a card carrying member of a bunch of organizations such as IPSC, USPSA, IHMSA, NRA competitor over the last 30 years, I recently dropped all those, as competition has become less important to me. I am a 20+ year life member of the NRA (and 10+ years as an annual member) and a life member of SAF and CRPA.

IMHO, what we have here is the old guard who have been the big dogs in the CRPA for many years suddenly seeing their own mortality. If the current leadership controls how directors get nominated and elected, they can maintain control of the organization and their own positions by insuring that people who think like they do and support their positions are always in the majority of the board.

If the membership and Board shifts to a more non-competitor base with different priorities, could their now almost absolute control of the organization be weakened?

Could they lose the positions that they currently hold and lose all the years they have invested in directing the organization to what it is now?

Could they suddenly no longer be the big fish in a small pond, if the pond gets too big?


Francis J. Oldread (So no one can say I'm hiding behind the anonymity of the internet)

ke6guj
03-03-2012, 11:36 AM
Francis J. Oldread (So no one can say I'm hiding behind the anonymity of the internet)

and here I always thought that you liked old FJ's

mag360
03-03-2012, 12:53 PM
It is quite clear why their is a disagreement. Gene and the CGN folk want democratic representation and a board of directors without strings requiring someone to have been a competitive air gun, arms collector, silhouette shooter, etc. I want CRPA to be "The Premier Voice for All California Gun Owners"

I agree with the changes. Even the about us "mission statement" seems out of date.

"...the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) is an organization of sportsmen dedicated to the preservation of our American heritage..."

Is CRPA really an organization of sportsmen? I have never gone hunting (it seems way to expensive and time consuming), I don't shoot anything competitively (except an upcoming IDPA match), and it isn't the heritage I want to preserve. I want to get our gun rights back! Pre 1920's heritage perhaps, or whenever we became a "may issue" state.

Why should I have to be a competitive shooter/arms collector/hunter to get on the board?

Example, Harley Davidsons board of directors is not a group of either:
A. old fat guys with beards in sleeveless vests that ride bikes to Sturgis.
B. only people who competitively race their Harleys.

They have a very diverse board who's goal is to make Harley the best it can be for everyone.

Their vision : We fulfill dreams inspired by the many roads of the world by providing extraordinary motorcycles and customer experiences. We fuel the passion for freedom in our customers to express their own individuality.

Their mission: We ride with our customers and apply this deep connection in every market we serve to create superior value to all our stakeholders.

What I am saying is, the board of directors does not need requirements other than being a member in good standing. This is not the California silhouette shooters club, at least I didn't think it was. We need to make CRPA representative of ALL California gun owners.

Luisjb
03-03-2012, 6:34 PM
It took me a while to read through all the past posts.

I'll give my two cents.

The CRPA Board is very diverse. All the board members have good intentions and want to protect our 2A rights and promote shooting.

They may not want to do it the way many Calgunners want, but they are not CalGuns.

Gene proposed some bylaws changes. It was his opinion that our bylaws were not lawful. The CRPA Executive Board asked the CRPA corporate lawyer to look into these allegations. He was at the Board meeting. He determined that the CRPA bylaws are in full compliance with the California Corp. Code.

Gene also proposed, in his words, "reasonable" changes to the nomination and elections process.

I and others did not feel his changes were reasonable. It is kind of like saying "reasonable" gun laws. What one person thinks is reasonable someone else thinks in unreasonable.

As chairman of the silhouette committee I would not want someone on the committee who is not a silhouette shooter. I would feel it was unreasonable to have someone on the committee who was not a silhouette shooter. Hence I feel the nominating requirements are reasonable.

Gene showed us his survey results. And, unfortunately I feel for several reasons is really not very useful. The many reason is that it is a self selected survey. A common mistake among survey takers.

The fact that there are many people on the board who are not competitive shooters shows that there is a path onto the board for those who want to help.

In the end Gene's proposed bylaws changes were referred back to the bylaws committee for further review.

The CRPA is getting better. I for one want to see more done for the membership and am working to that end.

Look for the CRPA Members Round-up coming this summer. It is being organized by J Rascon.

If you have any questions about the CRPA, its board members, or its work. Just call the office and ask 714-992-2772. They will help.

By the way, since I am posting does that make me a Calgunner.

Luis Bernardez

Kestryll
03-03-2012, 7:22 PM
I think he is trying to make people calm down. I know who this is. His intent is good, I think!!!

LOL

His intentions are to get kicked to the curb, both the sock puppet account and main account.

jdberger
03-03-2012, 7:38 PM
and here I always thought that you liked old FJ's

I have to say, that's one of the most fitting names for an African big game hunter I've ever heard.

dantodd
03-03-2012, 7:38 PM
So, Is your real name Dan Todd?
Are you a member of CRPA?
Do you really think the whole story has been told here?

Yes, my real name is Dan Todd. Is yours Bruce Flinch?

Yes, I am a member of CRPA, are you?

No, I don't think the whole story is being told here. Unfortunately, every time I ask for specifics from those opposed to the changes proposed they have refused to provide any actual objection. This includes you. If you are a board member and had a vote why will you not answer the direct question as to what portion of the proposal you oppose and what part you support?

Kestryll
03-03-2012, 7:45 PM
Gene also proposed, in his words, "reasonable" changes to the nomination and elections process.

I and others did not feel his changes were reasonable. It is kind of like saying "reasonable" gun laws. What one person thinks is reasonable someone else thinks in unreasonable.
So Luis, I'd like a direct answer, no hemming and hawing or list of qualifiers.

What is unreasonable about allowing the members that we as Directors are suppose to be serving (not the other way around) a mechanism and path to getting on to the Board of Directors of THEIR organization that they pay the bills for?

Not guaranteed Board seats, not automatic placement, just a way for a CRPA member to have enough other CRPA members think they were good enough to be a Director and put them on the ballot without the current Board needing to 'approve' them.

Tell me directly what is unreasonable about that?



As chairman of the silhouette committee I would not want someone on the committee who is not a silhouette shooter. I would feel it was unreasonable to have someone on the committee who was not a silhouette shooter. Hence I feel the nominating requirements are reasonable.Two questions.

What is the problem with having Committee members who are not Directors on your Committee?
They're not Directors so they have no vote at a BoD meeting but they are Committee members so they can vote in the Committee.

And since everyone keeps saying 'I don't want people who aren't experts on my Committee' why do you think someone who was not familiar with or interested in silhouette would try to get on your Committee?
If Committee members are not Directors by default what do they have to gain?
But if they are interested in your sport but don't want to have the added responsibility of being a Director just to serve on the Committee why cut them out?

Kestryll
03-03-2012, 7:48 PM
This thread had better get a lot more civil in very short order or it's not going to end well for some.


I'm trying to ask real questions and give explanations when I can without the digs and such.
If I can do it no one has a viable excuse for not being able to do so.

dantodd
03-03-2012, 8:16 PM
The CRPA Board is very diverse. All the board members have good intentions and want to protect our 2A rights and promote shooting.

They may not want to do it the way many Calgunners want, but they are not CalGuns.

First off. Tanks for making the most thoughtful and constructive post since the OP in this thread.

CalGunners are pretty well known for expecting the world to operate at "Internet speed." it is particularly difficult for many to deal with the snail's pace of our judiciary.

Gene proposed some bylaws changes. It was his opinion that our bylaws were not lawful. The CRPA Executive Board asked the CRPA corporate lawyer to look into these allegations. He was at the Board meeting. He determined that the CRPA bylaws are in full compliance with the California Corp. Code.

Thank you for this piece of information. This is the first time it has been posted that our corp. atty. has vetted and verified the compliance of the bylaws.

I and others did not feel his changes were reasonable. It is kind of like saying "reasonable" gun laws. What one person thinks is reasonable someone else thinks in unreasonable.

As chairman of the silhouette committee I would not want someone on the committee who is not a silhouette shooter. I would feel it was unreasonable to have someone on the committee who was not a silhouette shooter. Hence I feel the nominating requirements are reasonable.

While I agree expertise is important on the committee I don't think that means all members have to have specific certification. There is also a value in having varied levels of experience represents on the committee and there is no reason that the committee's board representative needs to be expert at the discipline. This is assuming the the board even needs to be designed as a "confederation of committees."


The CRPA is getting better. I for one want to see more done for the membership and am working to that end.

I hope you are right. I know that the "rights" aspect of the fun culture is fairly new to the CRPA. I would love to see a litigation committee. An urban outreach committee etc. to the best of my knowledge the existing committees are all focused strictly on the shooting sports.


By the way, since I am posting does that make me a Calgunner.

Luis Bernardez

CalGuns is like Margaritaville. It's a state of mind.

Thanks again for such a constructive post.

Bolillo
03-03-2012, 9:14 PM
I took the data available here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8140451&postcount=1) and here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8147559&postcount=213), and dropped it into Excel for some analysis

CRPA has 23 committees making up 119 possible seats. Advisers, ex-officio, and liaison seats are included in the 119 total. Of that group of 119, there are 51 people holding those 119 seats. Obviously, some members hold seats on more than one committee. However, the distribution is far from even. Just 10 members hold 54 (45.6%) of those 119 seats, with those 10 members holding between 3 and 8 seats each on different committees.

Committee chairmanship also similarly distributed, with 12 of 22 (55%) chairs being held by those same ten members. That group of 10 holds between zero and four chairs each.

Executive Council (ECN) is counted as part of the 119 total seats, but is not counted as one of the 22 chairs, since there appears to be no ECN chair. A member who is both on a committee and is the chair of that committee is counted in both the “seat” numbers and the “chair” numbers above.

Of those 10 members above, three are shown as being CGN participants.

I’ll leave what this all means to CRPA for others to discuss, however the one editorial point I will offer is that such a pattern of having just 10 individuals account for half of all committee members and chairs doesn’t meet my definition of “diverse”.

oaklander
03-03-2012, 9:57 PM
His intentions are to get kicked to the curb, both the sock puppet account and main account.

:43:

oaklander
03-03-2012, 9:59 PM
The CRPA Executive Board asked the CRPA corporate lawyer to look into these allegations. He was at the Board meeting. He determined that the CRPA bylaws are in full compliance with the California Corp. Code.

Is his opinion in writing?

jdberger
03-03-2012, 10:18 PM
I took the data available here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8140451&postcount=1) and here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8147559&postcount=213), and dropped it into Excel for some analysis

CRPA has 23 committees making up 119 possible seats. Advisers, ex-officio, and liaison seats are included in the 119 total. Of that group of 119, there are 51 people holding those 119 seats. Obviously, some members hold seats on more than one committee. However, the distribution is far from even. Just 10 members hold 54 (45.6%) of those 119 seats, with those 10 members holding between 3 and 8 seats each on different committees.

Committee chairmanship also similarly distributed, with 12 of 22 (55%) chairs being held by those same ten members. That group of 10 holds between zero and four chairs each.

Executive Council (ECN) is counted as part of the 119 total seats, but is not counted as one of the 22 chairs, since there appears to be no ECN chair. A member who is both on a committee and is the chair of that committee is counted in both the “seat” numbers and the “chair” numbers above.

Of those 10 members above, three are shown as being CGN participants.

I’ll leave what this all means to CRPA for others to discuss, however the one editorial point I will offer is that such a pattern of having just 10 individuals account for half of all committee members and chairs doesn’t meet my definition of “diverse”.

Interesting analysis. I hadn't realized that.

Again, with President Montanarella's permission - I'll post the results of the vote to vote on Mr. Hoffman's proposal. It needed a 2/3 vote to pass and failed.* I think membership will find it interesting in light of the analysis above.














*I think I have that right - I'm still learning Roberts Rules....

jdberger
03-03-2012, 10:21 PM
Is his opinion in writing?

He had a discussion with Gene. Gene can relate the parts of the conversation that arent privileged.

goober
03-03-2012, 10:57 PM
Interesting analysis. I hadn't realized that.

Again, with President Montanarella's permission - I'll post the results of the vote to vote on Mr. Hoffman's proposal. It needed a 2/3 vote to pass and failed.* I think membership will find it interesting in light of the analysis above.














*I think I have that right - I'm still learning Roberts Rules....

It is worth noting that the vote on the proposal was convoluted; there was a vote on whether to table the proposal and refer it back to the bylaws committee for review and revision, and another vote to force it to be voted on immediately, without revision.
The two votes required different types of majority (2/3 vs "simple").

Connor P Price
03-03-2012, 11:15 PM
I took the data available here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8140451&postcount=1) and here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8147559&postcount=213), and dropped it into Excel for some analysis

CRPA has 23 committees making up 119 possible seats. Advisers, ex-officio, and liaison seats are included in the 119 total. Of that group of 119, there are 51 people holding those 119 seats. Obviously, some members hold seats on more than one committee. However, the distribution is far from even. Just 10 members hold 54 (45.6%) of those 119 seats, with those 10 members holding between 3 and 8 seats each on different committees.

Committee chairmanship also similarly distributed, with 12 of 22 (55%) chairs being held by those same ten members. That group of 10 holds between zero and four chairs each.

Executive Council (ECN) is counted as part of the 119 total seats, but is not counted as one of the 22 chairs, since there appears to be no ECN chair. A member who is both on a committee and is the chair of that committee is counted in both the “seat” numbers and the “chair” numbers above.

Of those 10 members above, three are shown as being CGN participants.

I’ll leave what this all means to CRPA for others to discuss, however the one editorial point I will offer is that such a pattern of having just 10 individuals account for half of all committee members and chairs doesn’t meet my definition of “diverse”.

Wow.

So when I asked, as a prospective member, for a better explanation of how decisions are made within the organization I suppose this is why I was politely told to pound sand.

At some point I'd still very much like to become a member. I don't understand how I can be expected to make that decision when the inner workings of the organization are so shrouded in secrecy to those on the outside. I'd like to know how decisions are made, what positions are responsible for making those decisions, and how people acquire those positions before I can know whether this is an organization I'd like to be involved in. Is this unreasonable of me? Should I just take it on blind faith that everything is on the up and up and send in my money?

Luisjb
03-04-2012, 2:09 AM
[QUOTE=Kestryll;8152754]So Luis, I'd like a direct answer, no hemming and hawing or list of qualifiers.
*********
What is unreasonable about allowing the members that we as Directors are suppose to be serving (not the other way around) a mechanism and path to getting on to the Board of Directors of THEIR organization that they pay the bills for?
********
It is my understanding that there is a mechanism in place for someone to be on the board. The Programs and Coalitions Committee is open to election by petition. Get the 100 required signatures and you on the ballot.

A second way onto the board is to be appointed. This is an effective way of getting on the board. As has been proven by many people, such as Gene. So enough interest, talk to other board members, convince them that you want to help and that you can help and get yourself appointed.

Other committees positions are nominated to the ballot by the nominating committee. If you want to be on the silhouette committee submit the required paperwork (which is minimal) to the nominating committee. If they feel you are qualified (again minimal) you are on the ballot. A basic qualification would be that to be on the silhouette committee one would have to know something about silhouette shooting.

I believe the changes Gene wanted, only requiring membership for two years and 25 signature to get on the ballot for any committee, are to easy and would lead to to many problems in the future. For example, having people elected to the silhouette committee who don't know about silhouettes and who really wouldn't want to help with silhouettes, but just want to be on the BoD. I just believe the bar should be higher than what Gene wants.

*********
Two questions.

What is the problem with having Committee members who are not Directors on your Committee?
They're not Directors so they have no vote at a BoD meeting but they are Committee members so they can vote in the Committee.
**********

I see no problem with this. This was discussed at great length at the board meeting. And was brought up by the chairman of the competition committee. Such, Committe members could have a vote on committee maters but not have a vote at the BoD meeting on Board matters.

However, it is my opinion that these committee members would still have to be nominated by the committee chairman and vetted by the BoD officers. Again to meet some minimal requirements.

This has been only some of my reasoning in this matter.

pennys dad
03-04-2012, 3:29 AM
Excellent breakdown, can you make the xls available for a review.

I took the data available here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8140451&postcount=1) and here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8147559&postcount=213), and dropped it into Excel for some analysis

CRPA has 23 committees making up 119 possible seats. Advisers, ex-officio, and liaison seats are included in the 119 total. Of that group of 119, there are 51 people holding those 119 seats. Obviously, some members hold seats on more than one committee. However, the distribution is far from even. Just 10 members hold 54 (45.6%) of those 119 seats, with those 10 members holding between 3 and 8 seats each on different committees.

Committee chairmanship also similarly distributed, with 12 of 22 (55%) chairs being held by those same ten members. That group of 10 holds between zero and four chairs each.

Executive Council (ECN) is counted as part of the 119 total seats, but is not counted as one of the 22 chairs, since there appears to be no ECN chair. A member who is both on a committee and is the chair of that committee is counted in both the “seat” numbers and the “chair” numbers above.

Of those 10 members above, three are shown as being CGN participants.

I’ll leave what this all means to CRPA for others to discuss, however the one editorial point I will offer is that such a pattern of having just 10 individuals account for half of all committee members and chairs doesn’t meet my definition of “diverse”.

pennys dad
03-04-2012, 3:37 AM
Hi Luis
It is good to see another person in the mix.

Point of Correction ( hahahaha - brings back BAD memories :-)

This >> "only requiring membership for two years and 25 signature to get on the ballot for any committee, are to easy and would lead to to many problems in the future"

Gene changed this to 100 prior to presentation, but it was certainly easy to miss in the goulosh that occurred.

[QUOTE=Kestryll;8152754]So Luis, I'd like a direct answer, no hemming and hawing or list of qualifiers.
*********
What is unreasonable about allowing the members that we as Directors are suppose to be serving (not the other way around) a mechanism and path to getting on to the Board of Directors of THEIR organization that they pay the bills for?
********
It is my understanding that there is a mechanism in place for someone to be on the board. The Programs and Coalitions Committee is open to election by petition. Get the 100 required signatures and you on the ballot.

A second way onto the board is to be appointed. This is an effective way of getting on the board. As has been proven by many people, such as Gene. So enough interest, talk to other board members, convince them that you want to help and that you can help and get yourself appointed.

Other committees positions are nominated to the ballot by the nominating committee. If you want to be on the silhouette committee submit the required paperwork (which is minimal) to the nominating committee. If they feel you are qualified (again minimal) you are on the ballot. A basic qualification would be that to be on the silhouette committee one would have to know something about silhouette shooting.

I believe the changes Gene wanted, only requiring membership for two years and 25 signature to get on the ballot for any committee, are to easy and would lead to to many problems in the future. For example, having people elected to the silhouette committee who don't know about silhouettes and who really wouldn't want to help with silhouettes, but just want to be on the BoD. I just believe the bar should be higher than what Gene wants.

*********
Two questions.

What is the problem with having Committee members who are not Directors on your Committee?
They're not Directors so they have no vote at a BoD meeting but they are Committee members so they can vote in the Committee.
**********

I see no problem with this. This was discussed at great length at the board meeting. And was brought up by the chairman of the competition committee. Such, Committe members could have a vote on committee maters but not have a vote at the BoD meeting on Board matters.

However, it is my opinion that these committee members would still have to be nominated by the committee chairman and vetted by the BoD officers. Again to meet some minimal requirements.

This has been only some of my reasoning in this matter.

hoffmang
03-04-2012, 10:17 AM
Counsel and I differ on whether the current board access and voting process is "fair and reasonable" based on current California law. However, I would think that both of us would say it is a very close question.

However it doesn't matter all that much as the underlying issue remains.

The only arguments I hear that oppose making the ability to run for the board open are "it's too soon" or "we need expertise."

To soon: Then when?

We need expertise: Except the CRPA demonstrably does not. The president and many of the board members who are the largest contributors to the CRPA board are not qualified by the definition in the bylaws to be elected by the members. Second, though there may be shooting requirements, there are NO REQUIREMENTS to be on the Legislative Policy Committee or any of the other critical committees. As such, defenders of status quo need to answer why the shooting sports require qualifications while legislation and public policy do not.

-Gene

Kestryll
03-04-2012, 10:48 AM
So Luis, I'd like a direct answer, no hemming and hawing or list of qualifiers.
*********
What is unreasonable about allowing the members that we as Directors are suppose to be serving (not the other way around) a mechanism and path to getting on to the Board of Directors of THEIR organization that they pay the bills for?
********
It is my understanding that there is a mechanism in place for someone to be on the board. The Programs and Coalitions Committee is open to election by petition. Get the 100 required signatures and you on the ballot.

A second way onto the board is to be appointed. This is an effective way of getting on the board. As has been proven by many people, such as Gene. So enough interest, talk to other board members, convince them that you want to help and that you can help and get yourself appointed.

Other committees positions are nominated to the ballot by the nominating committee. If you want to be on the silhouette committee submit the required paperwork (which is minimal) to the nominating committee. If they feel you are qualified (again minimal) you are on the ballot. A basic qualification would be that to be on the silhouette committee one would have to know something about silhouette shooting.

I believe the changes Gene wanted, only requiring membership for two years and 25 signature to get on the ballot for any committee, are to easy and would lead to to many problems in the future. For example, having people elected to the silhouette committee who don't know about silhouettes and who really wouldn't want to help with silhouettes, but just want to be on the BoD. I just believe the bar should be higher than what Gene wants.

*********
I'm on limited time today so I'll only address the first part of your reply here.


The mechanism in place is that CRPA members can petition to be on the ballot for a total of six seats on the P&C committee IF one of those seats becomes available or when one of the six people holding them has to run for re-election.

This means that should a CRPA paying member want to be on the BoD they have to vie for likely one or two available committee positions IF they are even available.
Maybe it's just me but that sounds more like a means to severely limit CRPA members from having a chance at getting on the BoD than it does a doorway to let our paying members have a say in their organization.

As a side note, I think this line of thought does a great disservice to Jacob and the P&C committee. You are relegating them to being nothing but a token committee to use as a sop to those asking for access to the BoD.
Let me put this another way, you're concern is that you don't want people you do not feel are qualified to be able to get on your committee but you're okay with Jacob's committee being open to all.
Why is that, what is the difference?

As for the appointments and the nominating committee, these miss the point entirely, under these methods a dues paying CRPA member can only serve on the BoD whim of the Nominating committee or the Executive committee.
This type of system has a centuries long history of being more vulnerable to misuse than open elections by far.

One of the oft used arguments is that someone in the future could 'take over CRPA' if the BoD was actually accessible to paying CRPA members.
What is different between that and some BoD in the future using the current rules to lock up the CRPA BoD limiting access to only their friends or those who will agree and vote with them?
Is the later an inherently better thing then the former?

And I'm also curious, if the BoD exists to serve the CRPA members why is it a huge threat that if enough dues paying CRPA members feel that the BoD is going the wrong way they could organize, work together and get on the BoD of THEIR organization and make changes?
The BoD is suppose to serve the members not the other way around so why does the thought of those members we serve having a direct mechanism to have a say in their organization fill so many Directors with dread?

I've said elsewhere and I mean it, if the CRPA members feel I am not acting in their best interest I WANT them to be able to remove me.
My job is to serve them and to act and vote in thier best interest not my own so if I'm not doing that I shouldn't be on the BoD.


I'm all for checks and balances, as Jacob pointed out the criteria was amended to be 100 signatures, the same as it is now and a two year or Life membership requirement was added that does not exist now.
Currently there is no minimum time as a CRPA member for qualification to serve on the BoD.
If I were a friend of a few Directors I could, in theory and in accordance with our current by-laws, spend &22, sign up for a one year membership on Monday and be appointed to the BoD on Tuesday.
I know, the response to that is always 'but we wouldn't do that'.
However the argument made against elected members is that 'it COULD happen', and just as easily my scenario COULD happen so I'm failing to see the difference.

I'm not trying to beat up on you I'm trying to point out the real issues we're facing.
The biggest thing I hear in CRPA emails, phone calls and meetings is that we've got to grow our membership.
This means we've got to become more appealing, more open and more accessible to potential members, they need to see that if they join it's not joining our organization, it's joining their organization.
CRPA can not count on growing members by looking only for those people willing to pay dues, get a Firing Line and calling it a day. The pool to draw from for those kinds of members is fished out and the pool itself is evaporating. We need to be appealing to those potential members who want to be an active part of something and do something.
I constantly hear that we need to reach the younger shooters and get them to join CRPA as members but efforts to make CRPA appealing to them are always met with great fear and resistance.

To put it simply, CRPA adapts and evolves and it will grow, if it does not adapt and grow but stagnates it will die a slow lingering death.
Like it or not that's the reality of life.

pennys dad
03-04-2012, 11:09 AM
This is (my opinion only) would be awesome:

Committees I would like to see under the PC&D:
Community Outreach Local Programs
Community Outreach State Programs
Community Outreach Women’s Programs
Community Outreach Juniors Programs
Community Outreach Vendors Programs
Community Range Outreach and Clean Up
with 1 or 2 BoD members in the committees and the reset committee members.

hoffmang
03-04-2012, 11:11 AM
To put it simply, CRPA adapts and evolves and it will grow, if it does not adapt and grow but stagnates it will die a slow lingering death.
Like it or not that's the reality of life.

I just want to underline the point above.

-Gene

Luisjb
03-04-2012, 11:48 AM
Okay, This is going to be a bit of a rant...

I for one don't understand the obsession with this particular bylaw. We do not have members knocking down the door to become board members.

When I ask people why they don't join the CRPA they don't say because I can't be on the ballot for the silhouette committee.

They ask "What does the CRPA do for me?"

In my mine this argument is detracting from the real issues with the CRPA. It's poor communication and support of its members.

Couching the nominating process as being good for the members is, in my mind, trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. There are two sides to every story and for the most part people on this forum only see one side.

For the past three years that I have been on the board the BoD meetings have been filled with bylaws changes and SOP changes. We need to get past this and do the real work of the CRPA. Which is among other things, to protect our 2A rights and increase shooting and the shooting sports.

All the posts on Calguns about the CRPA only represent a small fraction of the 30,000 members. The Board looks out for the interests and concerns of all its members. But many times must do what it thinks is best for the whole.

Are people really not joining because they can't petition to be on air gun committee? No, they are not!!! And, I think most CalGunners are smart enough to know that.

Would being able to petition to be on any committee be some kind of "symbol" that the CRPA is more open and that it has changed? Maybe? But I think most CRPA members would agree that symbols don't mean much.

Lets get off this subject and work on some real improvement in what the CRPA does and how it helps ALL the members.

End of rant.....

Thanks I needed that.

bwiese
03-04-2012, 11:53 AM
Luis the questions asked in this matter are ones of pure logic...

1. how can someone in an Exec role not be qualified to be on Board?
That's akin to saying the CA Governor doesn't meet the requirements to be a legislator, which is a real mental jump.

2. Prospective large donors check things like this. There's a lot of libertarian Silicon Valley money out there that doesn't move till matters like this are squared away.