One of the intriguing aspects of being the president of the National Rifle Association is the diverse range of questions I receive from members, both in person and by way of letters sent to our headquarters. This month, I’ll tackle a common question: Why do we have such a large board of directors?
As with any member-driven organization, especially one as large and diverse as ours, members and supporters understandably will not always have detailed, or at times even accurate, knowledge of the association’s formal structure. At first blush, for example, anyone viewing an NRA Board meeting for the first time very likely would be surprised not only at how large our Board actually is (with 76 members) but also at just how much our Board meetings resemble a traditional state-level legislative session. This is by design, not by coincidence or by accident.
Before delving into the question of current Board size, let’s quickly review some history. From the Association’s founding in 1871 until 1914, the Board consisted of 15 members, all of whom were National Guard officers elected by the Association. From 1914 to 1925, the Board comprised 36 individuals elected from the Association’s Life members, along with three U.S. Army officers, one U.S. Navy officer, one U.S. Marine Corps officer, one member from each affiliated state rifle association and any honorary directors who were elected. The adjutants general of the various states were also included in the Board.
The military’s significant influence continued until 1926, after which more civilians began to participate. Today, the Board reflects an extremely diverse range of professions, both retired and active. The Board’s composition varies from year to year, reflecting the fact that each of 75 directors serves for a three-year term and 25 are elected each year (the final, “76th director” is elected each year at the annual meeting of members). The Board currently includes business executives and owners, law-enforcement officers, government employees, attorneys, military veterans, professional athletes, teachers and professors, former elected officials at both federal and state levels, doctors, writers, lobbyists, firearm instructors and shooters.
From 1926 to 1953, there were 60 Board members, and the only requirement was Life membership. Between 1953 and 1957, the requirements remained unchanged except for adding a minimum age requirement of 18 years. From 1957 to 1994, the only change was an increase in the size of the NRA Board to 75 members, and, in 1994, the Bylaws provided for the addition of the 76th.
I support having a large board because the NRA is involved in so many different activities. There are many different aspects to exercising the Second Amendment, and having a large board provides multiple opportunities for men and women with different interests to be actively involved.
In fact, the history of the NRA reveals why the Board expanded to 76 members. The NRA was originally founded to provide firearms training to military-age men due to the poor marksmanship of Union soldiers noted during the U.S. Civil War. Since then, the NRA has evolved to offer an extremely wide range of programs that significantly benefit its members.
Today, we have 42 committees responsible for many, many programs, overseen by the 76 board members and coordinated with the NRA’s professional staff under the direction of the executive vice president/CEO. Each of these programs requires oversight by board members with specialized expertise. Thus, board size is a direct factor of the old saying, “Many hands make light work.”
It’s a crucial—and challenging—responsibility for the president to review all these different committees, gather suggestions and preferences from 76 board members and try to place everyone on the committees they wish to serve and for which they have the requisite expertise.
With many programs in the NRA competing for resources, it is essential for each board member involved in these programs to have a vote on how they will be funded, staffed and operated. NRA’s historical experience shows that when voting power is concentrated in the hands of a small board of directors or a few executives, some of NRA’s programs have suffered, negatively impacting NRA’s membership. This is one of the historical reasons for the large board of directors.
Today’s political climate highlights another critical reason for the NRA’s large Board of Directors. An NRA with a much smaller Board could be vulnerable to a takeover in a single election by a rival, competing organization, or even a politically antagonistic organization. Indeed, we saw evidence of such interference in a recent NRA Board election, as revealed in testimony during the recently concluded trial involving the New York attorney general.
Make no mistake: The NRA is obligated to safeguard itself against any form of hostile takeover. Its membership expects and deserves that protection, and a larger board aids in facilitating this safeguard.
Ultimately, it is important to emphasize that democracy thrives within the NRA Board of Directors. Is it perfect? Certainly not. Yet it works. Having 76 Board members enables more efficient business management and, in turn, a stronger National Rifle Association.
