GOAL BoD Elections

[HenryBowman]

A couple thoughts on what GOAL is here to do and the Board’s influence to that end. Note, this is not a lead-in for topics not related to the Cause (other threads have that more than covered): supporting and protecting “the basic right of firearms ownership for competition, recreation and self-protection” that the 2nd Amendment gives us.

I believe that voting for a candidate because he or she has NES attached to their name is not rational. Equally irrational is looking for change for changes’ sake. Lots of folks used this logic in the last Presidential election and look where that got us.

I was at the BoD meeting in January which served to confirm that “NES endorsed" is not necessarily a good thing (of course, I think any self-claimed endorsement isn’t worth much either). Why?

One 'NES' BoD member made the comment that “print media would be gone in a year or two” (I’m paraphrasing a bit here). “Gone” Really?! Is the sky falling too?

Another came forward, owning up to having initiated the vote that (essentially) fired TOM in order to put a timeline in place to understand the cost/benefits of the service being provided, TOM or otherwise. I’m a “businessman” and a “manager” too, and I also like timelines to hold people accountable and keep deliverables on track, and I like understanding what I am paying for – all makes great sense. I would not, however, fire someone, and then ask them to explain their activities – this makes no sense.

Naturally, neither of these gentlemen will ever get a vote from me. That said, I know of at least one other person on this group that probably will (hopefully to take the place of one above).

Again, it’s the ~person~ – not the association to some group – that will inform my vote.

My recommendation is that, whoever you’re voting for, respectfully ask them the following:
If they are an existing BoD member, what have the ~done~ to further the Cause?
~What~ will they do to further our Cause and the mission of GOAL?
~What~ do they want to change or ~what~ they want to fix?

If they merely start going on about hope and change - tip your hat and walk away.

Michael

 

[Alchemist27]

I prefer advice when its asked for

 

[Palladin]

I prefer advice when its asked for

This.

 

[Martlet]

He has as much right to his opinion as anyone else. I disagree with it, but don't fault him for posting it.

 

[Alchemist27]

He has as much right to his opinion as anyone else. I disagree with it, but don't fault him for posting it.

I don't fault him, just posted my opinion on his opinion

 

[Palladin]

Especially since he's so involved in the NES community. Member since 2007, with 39 posts. Me thinks he has something to gain thru Goal, rather than what's good for the gun owning community as a whole. It's obvious he doesn't take NES seriously as a voting block either. Let's leave the status quo, rather than inject new blood with renewed invigoration for the 2A community.

 

[Bob P]

EDIT

Forget it. Not worth it.

Vote your conscience people. We need a strong, vigorous BoD that is prepared to deal with the world as it is today, not play 'back in my day'.

 

[P-14]

EDIT

Forget it. Not worth it.

Vote your conscience people. We need a strong, vigorous BoD that is prepared to deal with the world as it is today, not play 'back in my day'.

This. In total. The OP just woke up after a 5 year nap.

 

[Martlet]

This. In total. The OP just woke up after a 5 year nap.

Lot's of us did. I was completely unaware of the dealings with TOM and GOAL. If not for this forum, I never would have started looking into it further. Perhaps the OP is in the same boat, and his only knowledge is what his good ol' buddies on the BoD tell him. He could be clueless about the state of affairs, and think we're all head hunters because that's what people he's trusted without question for years told him.

 

[Alchemist27]

Lot's of us did. I was completely unaware of the dealings with TOM and GOAL. If not for this forum, I never would have started looking into it further. Perhaps the OP is in the same boat, and his only knowledge is what his good ol' buddies on the BoD tell him. He could be clueless about the state of affairs, and think we're all head hunters because that's what people he's trusted without question for years told him.

He could have also volunteered to use his NES account which has been active since 07 to post a pro GOAL BOD post in favor of his BOD buddies...just saying

 

[Martlet]

He could have also volunteered to use his NES account which has been active since 07 to post a pro GOAL BOD post in favor of his BOD buddies...just saying

Most likely. Who knows. Admittedly, we're pretty quick to jump on people here, though.

 

[Friday]

Mr. George, is that you?

/sarcasm

 

[william_munny]

All I know is that if print media costs ~$80k per year for a charitable organization to accomplish and there is a possibility that much less expensive options are available, something needs to change.

 

[Martlet]

All I know is that if print media costs ~$80k per year for a charitable organization to accomplish and there is a possibility that much less expensive options are available, something needs to change.

AND the primary recipients of that money are suspect had a foot in the organization who provided it.

 

[Grimlock]

I'll vote as I see fit. You have the right to your opinion, and so do I.

 

[BradM]

To each his own. I trust the NESers running for the BOD.

 

[TomH]

Someone sounds scared.

 

[Bill Nance]

Especially since he's so involved in the NES community. Member since 2007, with 39 posts. Me thinks he has something to gain thru Goal, rather than what's good for the gun owning community as a whole. It's obvious he doesn't take NES seriously as a voting block either. Let's leave the status quo, rather than inject new blood with renewed invigoration for the 2A community.

That's grossly unfair. Not everyone has a big mouth.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Hey Michael. My name is Jim Finnerty. You know me (or at least we've met). We were in Jon Green's pistol instructor class together.

I'm running for the BoD, and I happen to help out here at NES. I'm not running as an NES member, I'm running as a Massachusetts gun owner and GOAL member. I'm a 30-year marketing professional, and I think I can help. We (NES and GOAL) all want the same thing, and we need a strong organization to get there.

GOAL membership is at an all-time high (thanks in no small part to NES) yet GOAL is losing money. This is not the recipe for a strong organization. GOAL's biggest expense (after payroll) is TOM, so a GOAL member went to a meeting to ask if it was worth it.

Here's a simplified version of the way the conversation looks since then:

GOAL MEMBER: That's a lot of money going to TOM, what's it being used for?
BoD: Good question. We'll get back to you later.
Later...
A FEW GOAL MEMBERS: So, what's up with TOM? Something looks fishy.
BoD: It does look fishy. We'll get back to you later.
Later...
EVEN MORE GOAL MEMBERS: Why is GOAL spending so much money on a newspaper?
BoD: We're not telling. Stop asking.
A FRUSTRATED GUY ON NES: What the **** is going on?
BoD: YOU SWORE!!! WE'RE NOT TALKING TO YOU ANY MORE!!!​

Is any of that factually incorrect? Has the BoD provided any information so far that would make a sane person think that there isn't something going on? This is like the Clintons and Whitewater.

People are understandably frustrated. They're further confused by the murky relationship between GOAL, the GOAL Foundation, and TOM, and the cross-pollinated boards of directors for these organizations.

A few answers a few months ago would've completely defused this situation, but there was nothing but obfuscation and silence from the BoD. This is a failure in leadership that falls squarely and entirely on the BoD. There may be nothing shady going on, but that's not the way it looks from the outside - and every GOAL member not on the BoD is on the outside. The frequent 'executive sessions' are a constant reminder of this fact.

You want to know what I'd 'fix' and how I'd further 'the cause'? How's this:

I'd propose ways to cut GOAL's expenses and raise revenue. GOAL as an organization cannot continue to exist unless it is financially healthy. With more revenue, GOAL can do more to introduce new shooters to the sport.

If you want specifics, I can provide them, but this post is long enough already.

The BoD needs to uncirlce the wagons, provide some transparency, and stop alienating a few thousand gun owners because they happen to post on NES.

 

[mark056]

To each his own. I trust the NESers running for the BOD.

There is an inherent danger in a blanket statement like that. It is analogous to voting a straight party ticket, something we accuse our friends in the Democratic Party all of the time.

The way I see it, this type of thinking is EXACTLY the type of thinking that has gotten us into the current situation at GOAL. Anyone who blindly votes based on generalities such as "he is the member of the same club I am, so he must be a good guy" is on a very slippery slope, indeed.

 

[Mil-Dot]

You've got my vote Jim.

Hey Michael. My name is Jim Finnerty. You know me (or at least we've met). We were in Jon Green's pistol instructor class together.

I'm running for the BoD, and I happen to help out here at NES. I'm not running as an NES member, I'm running as a Massachusetts gun owner and GOAL member. I'm a 30-year marketing professional, and I think I can help. We (NES and GOAL) all want the same thing, and we need a strong organization to get there.

GOAL membership is at an all-time high (thanks in no small part to NES) yet GOAL is losing money. This is not the recipe for a strong organization. GOAL's biggest expense (after payroll) is TOM, so a GOAL member went to a meeting to ask if it was worth it.

Here's a simplified version of the way the conversation looks since then:

GOAL MEMBER: That's a lot of money going to TOM, what's it being used for?
BoD: Good question. We'll get back to you later.
Later...
A FEW GOAL MEMBERS: So, what's up with TOM? Something looks fishy.
BoD: It does look fishy. We'll get back to you later.
Later...
EVEN MORE GOAL MEMBERS: Why is GOAL spending so much money on a newspaper?
BoD: We're not telling. Stop asking.
A FRUSTRATED GUY ON NES: What the **** is going on?
BoD: YOU SWORE!!! WE'RE NOT TALKING TO YOU ANY MORE!!!​

Is any of that factually incorrect? Has the BoD provided any information so far that would make a sane person think that there isn't something going on? This is like the Clintons and Whitewater.

People are understandably frustrated. They're further confused by the murky relationship between GOAL, the GOAL Foundation, and TOM, and the cross-pollinated boards of directors for these organizations.

A few answers a few months ago would've completely defused this situation, but there was nothing but obfuscation and silence from the BoD. This is a failure in leadership that falls squarely and entirely on the BoD. There may be nothing shady going on, but that's not the way it looks from the outside - and every GOAL member not on the BoD is on the outside. The frequent 'executive sessions' are a constant reminder of this fact.

You want to know what I'd 'fix' and how I'd further 'the cause'? How's this:

I'd propose ways to cut GOAL's expenses and raise revenue. GOAL as an organization cannot continue to exist unless it is financially healthy. With more revenue, GOAL can do more to introduce new shooters to the sport.

If you want specifics, I can provide them, but this post is long enough already.

The BoD needs to uncirlce the wagons, provide some transparency, and stop alienating a few thousand gun owners because they happen to post on NES.

 

[atmay]

There is an inherent danger in a blanket statement like that. It is analogous to voting a straight party ticket, something we accuse our friends in the Democratic Party all of the time.

The way I see it, this type of thinking is EXACTLY the type of thinking that has gotten us into the current situation at GOAL. Anyone who blindly votes based on generalities such as "he is the member of the same club I am, so he must be a good guy" is on a very slippery slope, indeed.

He didn't say "I trust any NES'r that runs for the board". He said he trusts the ones that are.

There is inherent danger in not reading things carefully enough to comprehend what was said.

 

[jasons]

Michael

Yacino?

 

[jaypap]

I don't post as much as others but I read a lot.

I also don't like being told what to do by either side.

This is getting sickening I will vote for who I want as I have done before.

I Know someone posted in one of these threads about a introduction of candidates I would rather see that than in fighting and jabs at each other.

 

[Martlet]

I don't post as much as others but I read a lot.

I also don't like being told what to do by either side.

This is getting sickening I will vote for who I want as I have done before.

I Know someone posted in one of these threads about a introduction of candidates I would rather see that than in fighting and jabs at each other.

I agree. Why is there in-fighting, though?

 

[Royal]

Did I just witness a drive-by "FUDD'ing"?

 

[BradM]

There is an inherent danger in a blanket statement like that. It is analogous to voting a straight party ticket, something we accuse our friends in the Democratic Party all of the time.

The way I see it, this type of thinking is EXACTLY the type of thinking that has gotten us into the current situation at GOAL. Anyone who blindly votes based on generalities such as "he is the member of the same club I am, so he must be a good guy" is on a very slippery slope, indeed.

I clearly (so I thought) stated that I trust the NESers running for the BoD, not all NESers

 

[jaypap]

I agree. Why is there in-fighting, though?

Martlet, I don't know it just seems like a few people have vendettas against GOAL, maybe not but it just seems that way.

I know things may need to change at GOAL, I just think the A.G. office if they read this stuff is laughing at gun owners fighting each other.

There are plenty of positve ways spread information and we should stay that course.

 

[Martlet]

Martlet, I don't know it just seems like a few people have vendettas against GOAL, maybe not but it just seems that way.

I know things may need to change at GOAL, I just think the A.G. office if they read this stuff is laughing at gun owners fighting each other.

There are plenty of positve ways spread information and we should stay that course.

I don't see any vendettas against GOAL. I saw a legitimate question get asked, then the BoD telling the membership to STFU. That's what caused the infighting, IMHO.

 

[Alchemist27]

I don't see any vendettas against GOAL. I saw a legitimate question get asked, then the BoD telling the membership to STFU. That's what caused the infighting, IMHO.

Agree. GOAL BOD could have ended this months ago.