|
In politics, it is all about perception. And this is politics. When speaking as an individual, you are free to speak as you wish. But, when you start an interview flaunting your status as a member of the NRA Board of Directors, you have a responsibility to choose your words carefully and represent your constituents. There are 79 members on the Board of Directors. That means that each one has very little power, if any. It also means that the NRA has a difficult job controlling what they say. But, they have a responsibility to not stab the organization in the back.
The board is elected by the membership. BoD members can not be fired. But, the membership should be able to hold a recall vote.
Joaquin Jackson is a former Texas Ranger and has published a biography. His resume and style all give him substantial credibility in the media. Jackson advocated magazine limits for assault weapons. He did not define 'assault weapons'. His advocacy of magazine limits for assault weapons is in direct opposition to the NRA's stated position and the belief of gun owners across the country. It also plays right into the hands of gun control groups. The bottom line is that Joaquin Jackson either meant what was on tape, did not communicate clearly or was a victim of editing. - If Jackson meant what was on tape, he does not support the NRA's position and should not be reelected to the NRA Board of Directors.
- If Jackson communicated poorly, he has no business putting himself front and center as a spokesman for the NRA.
- If Jackson is just a victim of editing, his rebuttal is two years late in coming. He and the NRA should have addressed this issue as soon as it appeared.
Do I buy Jackson's explanation? It does not matter. Joaquin's actions have weakened the power of the NRA. His membership on the BoD should come to an end.
Should the gun owning public shun the NRA for the ill advised words of one member of the BoD? Absolutely not. The NRA is the most effective gun rights advocacy group in Washington. Finally, any gun rights organization that attacks the entire NRA for the actions of one member of the board should be looked at very skeptically. This fight should not be within the movement. It should be with those that would infringe on our rights.
|
76
Written by Bitter Bitch on 2007-09-12 23:04:57
Not to be nitpicky, but the details matter in this case and I'm a fan of accurate information. I generally agree with the rest of the post though. And in fact, my drive to make sure everything is accurate in this case has left me very frustrated that people refuse to understand that staff cannot fire board members. Vice versa is permissible, but the board is the membership's access to the org. It's our check over the balance of the organization. I appreciate that you also pointed out the problem with the fact that he can't be fired, regardless of what (typically) non-members are screaming without thinking about the situation.
That said, if you want a recall vote, I'm sure that would be a bylaw change. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I left my last copy of the bylaws, but I'm sure there's a way members could create one. |
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
