GOAL and the Outdoor Message - What the hell?

[el duderino]

The above rants are the perfect example of why Mass. gun owners are so irrelevant and have shot yourself in the foot so many times. You are your own worse enemy. Most of you have the time to bitch and moan about
GOAL but don't have the time to serve them. Few of you know how cautious such an organization has to be to prevent serious policy mistakes. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't! It pays to keep family arguments in house and not out in the public eye. It is no wonder that Mass. gun laws are so stringent, the antis are laughing at your family feuds and loving every minute knowing that they have won by not lifting a finger.

Enough with the fear mongering about how asking a few financial questions about an organization will bring it down, if they really feel they need to hide information from the brady campaign etcetera then theres bigger problems were not seeing. If TOM is really whats keeping GOAL afloat with membership then that is a serious problem, but thats not the question being asked. Nobody here wants to bring down GOAL, and only a couple people here seem to have a personal issue with GOALs past and present personnel.

 

[economist]

There are some troubling themes emerging, and they need to be addressed.

The notion that any answers require a study, that a writer needs time to prepare, that questions must be presented in writing or in person, or that no answers can be provided without a board meeting are all, collectively, methods of avoidance. GOAL is a very small enterprise with about $500K in annual expenses. It is estimated here that $90K or more go to the Outdoor Message. If the organization can't clarify 20% of its expenses, and the second largest item following payroll, in short order, basic competence comes into question.

In addition, other related-party payments seem to exist. Supposition is unavoidable given the absence of clear authoritative information. But, at present, as much as 1/3 -- perhaps more -- of GOAL's member donations may be directed toward one or more related parties, through the Outdoor Message publication, consulting fees, or other means.

It is now evident that The Outdoor Message, a private company seemingly owned by a party related to GOAL, does not actually print the newspaper. Instead, it serves some intermediary function for which it is compensated both by GOAL and by advertisers. It does as little as "basically edits and manages the member information."

It has been suggested that this intermediary function is in GOAL's interest. In particular, it has been suggested that the intermediary protects GOAL in the event of insolvency at the publication. To be kind, this is nonsense. Publication of a newsletter or paper, with production farmed out to yet a third party, is not capital intensive. There should be no liability or creditors to fear. If ad revenue and other publishing income were to fall short of costs then the publication could simply be canceled. It's as if the Outdoor Message was pulled off from GOAL for one reason or another, with this incomprehensible explanation concocted later in order to satisfy the gullible. If this is a serious notion, at minimum someone needs to explain just how having a publication in house with third party production could even conceivably expose GOAL to solvency risk.

Finally, we are hearing that the Board is busy, that volunteers can't be pressured for information in a timely fashion, or that anyone who wants timely information has a responsibility to volunteer themselves. Apart from the obvious -- that GOAL is at the moment not looking like an organization with which many of us would volunteer association -- there is the basic notion that such excuses implicitly admit either incompetence or detachment. Someone, somewhere knows where the money is and where it goes. That person needs to start talking.

Let's remember that a healthy and respected organization benefits all of us. It is not in our interests for GOAL to look bad. But these tactics of offering excuses and delay do not encourage faith in the organization or its leaders. Some of you criticize these inquiries. While gun owners benefit from a strong GOAL, we stand to be harmed by its weakness. These outstanding questions need to addressed, and the weakness left behind, before any of us can expect GOAL to serve the interests of gun owners in Massachusetts.

 

[wolf223]

That goes to an old saying, "Same Circus, Different Clowns"
I guess nothing changes except the name on the door.

quoted for mo' fokin truth!!!!!

 

[xtry51]

There are some troubling themes emerging, and they need to be addressed.

The notion that any answers require a study, that a writer needs time to prepare, that questions must be presented in writing or in person, or that no answers can be provided without a board meeting are all, collectively, methods of avoidance. GOAL is a very small enterprise with about $500K in annual expenses. It is estimated here that $90K or more go to the Outdoor Message. If the organization can't clarify 20% of its expenses, and the second largest item following payroll, in short order, basic competence comes into question.

In addition, other related-party payments seem to exist. Supposition is unavoidable given the absence of clear authoritative information. But, at present, as much as 1/3 -- perhaps more -- of GOAL's member donations may be directed toward one or more related parties, through the Outdoor Message publication, consulting fees, or other means.

It is now evident that The Outdoor Message, a private company seemingly owned by a party related to GOAL, does not actually print the newspaper. Instead, it serves some intermediary function for which it is compensated both by GOAL and by advertisers. It does as little as "basically edits and manages the member information."

It has been suggested that this intermediary function is in GOAL's interest. In particular, it has been suggested that the intermediary protects GOAL in the event of insolvency at the publication. To be kind, this is nonsense. Publication of a newsletter or paper, with production farmed out to yet a third party, is not capital intensive. There should be no liability or creditors to fear. If ad revenue and other publishing income were to fall short of costs then the publication could simply be canceled. It's as if the Outdoor Message was pulled off from GOAL for one reason or another, with this incomprehensible explanation concocted later in order to satisfy the gullible. If this is a serious notion, at minimum someone needs to explain just how having a publication in house with third party production could even conceivably expose GOAL to solvency risk.

Finally, we are hearing that the Board is busy, that volunteers can't be pressured for information in a timely fashion, or that anyone who wants timely information has a responsibility to volunteer themselves. Apart from the obvious -- that GOAL is at the moment not looking like an organization with which many of us would volunteer association -- there is the basic notion that such excuses implicitly admit either incompetence or detachment. Someone, somewhere knows where the money is and where it goes. That person needs to start talking.

Let's remember that a healthy and respected organization benefits all of us. It is not in our interests for GOAL to look bad. But these tactics of offering excuses and delay do not encourage faith in the organization or its leaders. Some of you criticize these inquiries. While gun owners benefit from a strong GOAL, we stand to be harmed by its weakness. These outstanding questions need to addressed, and the weakness left behind, before any of us can expect GOAL to serve the interests of gun owners in Massachusetts.

QFTMFT

 

[CRSIII]

There are some troubling themes emerging, and they need to be addressed.

I am hanging with some wikkid smaht people!

 

[Sprocket]

GOAL smells dirty. VERY dirty.

I concur - between this cluster fawk of a thread and the "tap a dollar" bill, I'm done - I've lived in MA long enough to know BS when I see it

 

[PaulD]

By no means am I saying GOAL is perfect, but you have your head in the sand if you can say this about them and remain an NRA member.

Agree, I know this will cause a shit storm among members here but I dropped my membership from GOAL years ago. Then had to re up it for the MFG officers position. I just found that when ever Mr. Wallace would speak of the NRA he would bash them. Then he runs for a NRA board seat. Goes to ALL of the NRA conventions but states he thinks they are not effective. Its a personal decision. I joined Comm2A and Pro Gun N.H... I plan on moving as soon as my 4 years tick by then retirement. I have property in New Hampshire and will be moving to Prescott Arizona upon my retirement.

Good luck Mass, I just think its time for leadership change at GOAL. IMO. Do I support the staff who work there yes, lets just say I have my personal differences with Mr. Wallace.

Now I cant wait for the hate posts to start.

 

[xtry51]

By no means am I saying GOAL is perfect, but you have your head in the sand if you can say this about them and remain an NRA member.

All you have to do is ask when was the last time you heard an NRA officer even say out loud we need to repeal NFA of '34 or even the GCA of '68? You haven't, which is enough to know they really don't care about your gun rights or getting them back for you. But I digress into another topic fit for a separate thread....

 

[JimB]

We have 150 members in my club. Less than half have email addresses. Less then half of those check their email regularly.

When we discuss current events at meetings, less than 10% present are current on any gun related event.

All must be NRA members but they still have no idea of what's happening.

Communicating and informing people is tough. Most just don't care.

discussing current at my club is touch and go, most have no clue
as to what going on, its louzy because these folks can vote.

 

[Bob P]

There are some troubling themes emerging, and they need to be addressed.

The notion that any answers require a study, that a writer needs time to prepare, that questions must be presented in writing or in person, or that no answers can be provided without a board meeting are all, collectively, methods of avoidance. GOAL is a very small enterprise with about $500K in annual expenses. It is estimated here that $90K or more go to the Outdoor Message. If the organization can't clarify 20% of its expenses, and the second largest item following payroll, in short order, basic competence comes into question.

In addition, other related-party payments seem to exist. Supposition is unavoidable given the absence of clear authoritative information. But, at present, as much as 1/3 -- perhaps more -- of GOAL's member donations may be directed toward one or more related parties, through the Outdoor Message publication, consulting fees, or other means.

It is now evident that The Outdoor Message, a private company seemingly owned by a party related to GOAL, does not actually print the newspaper. Instead, it serves some intermediary function for which it is compensated both by GOAL and by advertisers. It does as little as "basically edits and manages the member information."

It has been suggested that this intermediary function is in GOAL's interest. In particular, it has been suggested that the intermediary protects GOAL in the event of insolvency at the publication. To be kind, this is nonsense. Publication of a newsletter or paper, with production farmed out to yet a third party, is not capital intensive. There should be no liability or creditors to fear. If ad revenue and other publishing income were to fall short of costs then the publication could simply be canceled. It's as if the Outdoor Message was pulled off from GOAL for one reason or another, with this incomprehensible explanation concocted later in order to satisfy the gullible. If this is a serious notion, at minimum someone needs to explain just how having a publication in house with third party production could even conceivably expose GOAL to solvency risk.

Finally, we are hearing that the Board is busy, that volunteers can't be pressured for information in a timely fashion, or that anyone who wants timely information has a responsibility to volunteer themselves. Apart from the obvious -- that GOAL is at the moment not looking like an organization with which many of us would volunteer association -- there is the basic notion that such excuses implicitly admit either incompetence or detachment. Someone, somewhere knows where the money is and where it goes. That person needs to start talking.

Let's remember that a healthy and respected organization benefits all of us. It is not in our interests for GOAL to look bad. But these tactics of offering excuses and delay do not encourage faith in the organization or its leaders. Some of you criticize these inquiries. While gun owners benefit from a strong GOAL, we stand to be harmed by its weakness. These outstanding questions need to addressed, and the weakness left behind, before any of us can expect GOAL to serve the interests of gun owners in Massachusetts.

This post needs to be framed.

 

[Coyote33]

discussing current at my club is touch and go, most have no clue
as to what going on, its louzy because these folks can vote.

Maybe instead of a newspaper, GOAL should work on more direct outreach to the grassroots: the clubs.

See, something good CAN come from this thread!

 

[EddieCoyle]

Good luck Mass, I just think its time for leadership change at GOAL. IMO. Do I support the staff who work there yes, lets just say I have my personal differences with Mr. Wallace.

Saying Jim runs GOAL is like saying the Queen runs England.

 

[namedpipes]

Even though the rumor-mill evidence would indicate there might be something hinky about the GOAL-TOM relationship it is *clear* that that type of communication is good for us, for GOAL and for other gun owners.

Should GOAL print it's own newspaper? Maybe, but they then lose access to the mail list created by TOM (including thousands of people that would never have heard of GOAL and will soon forget about it.

Figure out how to fix this relationship or find another way to reach beyond the current membership of GOAL and NES.

And by the way, Comm2A needs an communications avenue, too. There are only so many Porsches to shoot up.

 

[Ham Slam]

I think that gun owners and members of GOAL have a right to question the leadership of GOAL. When I was a member I emailed them and asked them what pieces of legislation they have they been successful in getting passed. I emailed the question three times over a month period. They never got back to me and I never renewed. I do realize they have prevented a lot from happening, but I still don't know of any legislation they successfully got through. They couldn't even get the Sunday hunting bill through. Mass bow hunters, and Mass Trappers association have been more successful.

I personally think gun owners in mass are better off giving their money to Comm2A. More bang for your buck.

 

[Martlet]

I think that gun owners and members of GOAL have a right to question the leadership of GOAL. When I was a member I emailed them and asked them what pieces of legislation they have they been successful in getting passed. I emailed the question three times over a month period. They never got back to me and I never renewed. I do realize they have prevented a lot from happening, but I still don't know of any legislation they successfully got through. They couldn't even get the Sunday hunting bill through. Mass bow hunters, and Mass Trappers association have been more successful.

I personally think gun owners in mass are better off giving their money to Comm2A. More bang for your buck.

Sure. The problem I see is the lack of response. If we'd gotten an immediate answer, wed either be working to fix the issue, or if there was no issue the subject would be dead. When you can't see through the smoke and mirrors, though, it creates a one-sided discussion.

 

[50 BMG]

What's the deal here? So some weeks ago there was a thread about the Outdoor Message not being owned by GOAL – which shocked the hell out of me. I mean I assumed etc etc. So looking at the membership application for GOAL it says almost $8 of every annual membership fee goes to the Outdoor Message. That's something like $90,000 a year!

Have you SEEN the Outdoor Message? GOAL's got like what, four pages? The rest is gunclub news and ads. I CHECKED with my club (who has a page). They PAY for that space.

So the Outdoor Message gets paid by the clubs. I assume they make money off those ads AND they get $90k from GOAL on top of that? Someone please tell me I'm doing the math wrong here because that seems, to me at least, to be a poor use of GOAL's funds. I mean does anyone actually READ the Outdoor Message?

Too boot clubs have to pay a annual fee to be affiliated with GOAL. There are different types of club memberships, if I remember correctly when I was at Mansfield we paid $200 a year. Sure would like to see an audit by an outside firm not connected to GOAL.

 

[50 BMG]

Saying Jim runs GOAL is like saying the Queen runs England.

She doesn't? Well darn I thought she really did. My point is Jim represents GOAL, therefore he appears as the leadership to the general public and when he roams the halls of the State House he appears and acts as the spokesman.

 

[50 BMG]

By no means am I saying GOAL is perfect, but you have your head in the sand if you can say this about them and remain an NRA member.

Last time I checked my head isn't in the sand.

As to the NRA, I support them and have done so since my dad signed me up when I was a kid. I do believe they just recently won supreme court case but its hard to read a newspaper with my head in the sand.

I knew some folks on here would give me crap for speaking my mind about GOAL.
As I said earlier the staff has always been helpful, Mr. Wallace not so much. I have emailed him, asked him questions in person and got nothing for an answer. So its a free country, for now anyway, and I just like you can make my own decisions about things. Mine differ from yours. That's what makes this country great. We all don't have to agree.

 

[Bob P]

Too boot clubs have to pay a annual fee to be affiliated with GOAL. There are different types of club memberships, if I remember correctly when I was at Mansfield we paid $200 a year. Sure would like to see an audit by an outside firm not connected to GOAL.

Independent audit? That's FAR from what I was asking for & something I would prefer to avoid if possible. That's why I was hoping the BOD would step up. Why shouldn't clubs pay to be affiliated? I've no problem with paying my membership and I've no problem with Clubs paying to be members. A lobby group without funds is kinda useless.

What I'm QUESTIONING is how those funds are being used. I'm not bashing GOAL, I'm not calling for it's dissolution or anything like that, I'm just asking for a little transparency. As someone who has no problem paying INTO the organization, I think it only reasonable that I & anyone else paying in be allowed to see/question how my money is being used.

 

[EddieCoyle]

There are different types of club memberships, if I remember correctly when I was at Mansfield we paid $200 a year. Sure would like to see an audit by an outside firm not connected to GOAL.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with GOAL raising funds.

They're supposed to get $5 per head for NES shoots hosted at clubs too.

 

[william_munny]

Independent audit? That's FAR from what I was asking for & something I would prefer to avoid if possible. That's why I was hoping the BOD would step up. Why shouldn't clubs pay to be affiliated? I've no problem with paying my membership and I've no problem with Clubs paying to be members. A lobby group without funds is kinda useless.

What I'm QUESTIONING is how those funds are being used. I'm not bashing GOAL, I'm not calling for it's dissolution or anything like that, I'm just asking for a little transparency. As someone who has no problem paying INTO the organization, I think it only reasonable that I & anyone else paying in be allowed to see/question how my money is being used.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with GOAL raising funds.

They're supposed to get $5 per head for NES shoots hosted at clubs too.

Both of these. I fully support GOAL and I have no problem with giving them money, but it would be nice to know that it's being used effectively. Before this thread, I was under the impression that The Outdoor Message was a revenue stream for GOAL (it does say "The Official Publication of GOAL" right on the top of the front page), I had no idea that it was actually a $90k/year expense. If that's really the best way, then so be it, but I'm interested in hearing the official explanation.

 

[Palladin]

I don't think anyone here has a problem with GOAL raising funds.

They're supposed to get $5 per head for NES shoots hosted at clubs too.

Who makes sure this happens? Is it on an honor system??

 

[economist]

Even though the rumor-mill evidence would indicate there might be something hinky about the GOAL-TOM relationship it is *clear* that that type of communication is good for us, for GOAL and for other gun owners.

Should GOAL print it's own newspaper? Maybe, but they then lose access to the mail list created by TOM (including thousands of people that would never have heard of GOAL and will soon forget about it.

Figure out how to fix this relationship or find another way to reach beyond the current membership of GOAL and NES.

And by the way, Comm2A needs an communications avenue, too. There are only so many Porsches to shoot up.

See, this is why GOAL needs to start talking. If what you say is true, then it raises all sorts of additional questions. On the one hand we have people saying that The Outdoor Message, as a separate entity, is good for GOAL (I questioned that above). Now you are saying that The Outdoor Message, in fact, owns the mailing list -- a valuable asset that GOAL has been supporting, yet, if you are correct, does not own. Has GOAL been compensated by The Outdoor Message for contributing to the mailing list? Is The Outdoor Message, rather than being a friendly and well-priced service, holding GOAL hostage because it owns the mailing list?

On top of that, it was suggested earlier in the thread that GOAL goes to great effort to protect member privacy. Are you saying that, in fact, GOAL's choice to outsource the mailing list puts member information in jeopardy, and that the mailing list is not an asset of GOAL, but rather belongs to a private company that can use it as they see fit? Is there any contractual relationship that prevents this?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but just about every attempt at explanation or justification offered so far raises more questions than it answers.

 

[Jamie]

Kudos to Bob P. I asked this question about 3 years ago, but never persued the answer. At the time it was more of a curiosity thing than a concern. It's still just a curiosity for me as I'm not a member of GOAL any more. It'll be interesting to see what kind of response, if any, is issued.

 

[Jamie]

They're supposed to get $5 per head for NES shoots hosted at clubs too.

Really? I know a lot of NES shoots have been fundraisers fopr GOAL, but I didn't realize all shoots were supposed to support them.

 

[william_munny]

Really? I know a lot of NES shoots have been fundraisers fopr GOAL, but I didn't realize all shoots were supposed to support them.

I don't know what happens with MRGCI shoots, I always assumed they might go to a NH gun org, but it's no secret that money from NES shoots is going to gun orgs. Right from the "Hosting a NES shoot at your club" instructions:

2. $5 per person will be collected and donated to the most prominent gun owners rights advocacy organization in the state where the event is being held. They support our rights, so we need to support them. Northeastshooters.com must receive a check for the donation no longer than 10 days after the shoot.

 

[Boris]

wow, I just found this thread and went through all 38 pages. I can't believe that I missed it.

I think that the original question is legit, was raised way before this thread started and have gone unanswered (IMHO) this far.

BobP, thank you sir for keeping this alive! If you need any support I can volunteer a couple of hours/ week to help out with follow ups, phone, whatever. Just shoot me a pm or post some action items. I can't wait until Aug 11th, unfortunately I will be working that night. I'll do what I can.

There are non-profits that are 100% transparent and account every cent spent on each project, together with additional docs. Donors don't need to approach BOD to get it, it's available online and they don't complain about too much work to do. Some people may think it's an onerous request, the rest may find other ways to support their beliefs.

I used to volunteered a lot, for some crazy hours and I know quite a bit about challenges of keeping volunteers and shoestring budgets. Still, if the organization is not serving its members or appears not to do so, for whatever reason, it will wither and die. Discontent members will move somewhere else or support other causes. I don't know where else to air these concerns/ questions (because not everyone can drive to GOAL meetings) or send snail mail. I hope that GOAL can take advantage of this. There are shooters of so many backgrounds here, we'll never come to a consensus on best ways to further acceptance of 2A in mAss. We can agree that organization should clearly define how it operates. If GOAL wants to keep financials vague, keep/change/kill TOM or whatever really they want to do, people will vote with their wallets eventually. I won't be renewing my membership until I see this come to some conclusion.

 

[Boris]

I don't know how the whole NES income ties in with this thread, because that's clearly not the topic. It's certainly not the job that I'd ever want. One thing that people fail to remember is how much time it takes to build a community, all that time, over many years, with even sizable income comes to sub-minimum wage. If you factor in the risk that many social sites go bust, it's a labor of love.

 

[namedpipes]

Should GOAL print it's own newspaper? Maybe, but they then lose access to the mail list created by TOM (including thousands of people that would never have heard of GOAL and will soon forget about it.

See, this is why GOAL needs to start talking. If what you say is true, then it raises all sorts of additional questions. On the one hand we have people saying that The Outdoor Message, as a separate entity, is good for GOAL (I questioned that above). Now you are saying that The Outdoor Message, in fact, owns the mailing list -- a valuable asset that GOAL has been supporting, yet, if you are correct, does not own. Has GOAL been compensated by The Outdoor Message for contributing to the mailing list? Is The Outdoor Message, rather than being a friendly and well-priced service, holding GOAL hostage because it owns the mailing list?

On top of that, it was suggested earlier in the thread that GOAL goes to great effort to protect member privacy. Are you saying that, in fact, GOAL's choice to outsource the mailing list puts member information in jeopardy, and that the mailing list is not an asset of GOAL, but rather belongs to a private company that can use it as they see fit? Is there any contractual relationship that prevents this?

Just so we're clear, my observations and comments are based on what I've read here and some deduction, not inside knowledge.

It was stated that GOAL, GOAL Foundation and TOM are three separate organizations. We know that TOM has subscribers that are not GOAL members. Therefore we can be sure GOAL's membership information is made known to TOM and added to the probably much larger subscriber list of TOM. This is not a "bad" thing, provided TOM has a confidentiality agreement with GOAL not to resell that information.

My point was that because of the way this is setup, GOAL has visibility to a much larger audience than it's own membership. That's not only *not* bad, but it is *good*.

IF GOAL pulls away from TOM this should be considered, that's all.

 

[Maxpower]

and you're also represented by an activist / lobbying group that also corrupt, self-serving, and too busy lining it's own pockets ( albiet in some very peculiar manner) to respond to members.

I wouldn't come to that conclusion yet.