GOAL and the Outdoor Message - What the hell?

[Jose]

Hardly one of the dumber things. You have that category completely wrapped up on this forum. Nobody could possibly compete with your ramblings.

 

[Patriot]

My apologies for my previous post. I will edit it.

 

[Woodstock]

Nicole – Thanks for offering the first bit of real and useful information in this everlasting nightmare. We’ll see if it makes any difference in the tenor of the posts.
So Bob – after 40+ pages and hundreds of the nastiest comments I’ve ever seen on this forum, where’s the pony in this roomful of manure, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan? Do we know any more than when you started the thread? Unlocked the mysteries of the GOAL financial structure? Or have you started something that’s snowballing into serious fugliness?
There’s a thread running in the members’ forum about a hugely generous gift that one member anonymously gave to another. And then over a hundred responses wishing both of them well, and often ending with the thought that NES is a big family, and while we argue sometimes, it’s all for one, and one for all. You seeing that here?
What I’m seeing is guys taking cheap shots at one another, and spouting BS on subjects of which they’re totally ignorant. And worse, with absolutely no facts, indulging in character assassination, accusations of malfeasance and corruption and spewing outright falsehoods about people who have been fighting the good fight continuously since before many of them were born.
The only FACTS we know about the relationship between GOAL and TOM is that the GOAL BOD voted to have TOM produce and distribute to the membership and many other individuals and organizations a newsletter containing not only the GOAL news, but the calendar of events, the MA Wildlife news, the club newsletters and several columns. It’s not true that GOAL’s only interest is their four pages. They see the value in sharing all the news with all the members. I understand there are guys here that never open a newspaper, book or magazine (and it shows), but the idea that GOAL is going to go to a tiny church bulletin or go totally electronic anytime soon is not realistic.
So who should publish the newsletter? Put it out to bid? Should GOAL do it in-house? It requires editing a lot of raw copy into readable English, laying out the pages, including the ads, and delivering it all to the printer by a hard deadline. Then there’s maintaining the subscriber list, adding and subtracting names, checking zip codes and membership numbers, etc., etc., and probably hauling the bundles to the post office. Ads don’t just come floating in over the transom. Somebody has to sell them, and ads are a tough sell. I wouldn’t expect 100% of the advertisers to renew if someone new took over. What are the costs of printing, paper and postage? Higher than you think.
If GOAL does this in-house, it means at least one more employee, with a salary, health care, workman’s comp, computer, phone, office setup, software, car allowance, etc. If it’s done by a commercial outfit, there are all those costs, plus profit. Are you all comfortable with our home and email addresses being handed over to an outside firm? I’m not.
So Bob – when you get your reply from the BOD, how do you plan to convince the guys who are quitting GOAL because of this thread that their 61 cents a month is not being wasted? You guys keep claiming that you don’t want to hurt GOAL, but these results speak for themselves.

 

[TomH]

The thread is 4 days old... what did you expect to find out already?

 

[economist]

... after 40+ pages and hundreds of the nastiest comments I’ve ever seen on this forum, where’s the pony in this roomful of manure, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan? Do we know any more than when you started the thread? Unlocked the mysteries of the GOAL financial structure? Or have you started something that’s snowballing into serious fugliness?

It's interesting how simple this is, and yet how posters here break down into factions over it. We've got confirmation that GOAL is putting money into the pocket of a related party. At the same time, GOAL does not provide any details on how much money this related party receives or how they receive it. "On information and belief", as lawyers say, the related party is receiving money through TOM, perhaps a consulting payment, and perhaps other sources. That such speculation is necessary is indicative of how poorly GOAL has informed its members on its financial activities.

Now you can like that or not. But don't the members of GOAL deserve to know where their dues and donations get spent? And shouldn't GOAL convince us that our money is used effectively? Maybe these related-party payments are a good thing. If so, it should be simple to tell us why that's true.

But how can anyone honestly argue that these related-party transactions should take place in the dark, with details concealed from members? The solution is very simple: produce clear financials with notes regarding related-party transactions. At that point, each of us can decide if we think GOAL is deserving of our funding. It's a simple request for easily produced information that members should have been provided in the first place. And I am very grateful that Bob P had the courage and tenacity to pursue this.

 

[hpm]

.... Ads don’t just come floating in over the transom. Somebody has to sell them, and ads are a tough sell. I wouldn’t expect 100% of the advertisers to renew if someone new took over. What are the costs of printing, paper and postage? Higher than you think.
If GOAL does this in-house, it means at least one more employee, with a salary, health care, workman’s comp, computer, phone, office setup, software, car allowance, etc....

With the information provided in this thread - it looks as GOAL does not get any money from the ads. TOM gets all the ads revenue/profit.

Again - this is what I got out of the 40+ pages here. So if GOAL does this inhouse - there might be new profit to make.

 

[namedpipes]

...So who should publish the newsletter? Put it out to bid? Should GOAL do it in-house? It requires editing a lot of raw copy into readable English, laying out the pages, including the ads, and delivering it all to the printer by a hard deadline. Then there’s maintaining the subscriber list, adding and subtracting names, checking zip codes and membership numbers, etc., etc., and probably hauling the bundles to the post office. Ads don’t just come floating in over the transom. Somebody has to sell them, and ads are a tough sell. I wouldn’t expect 100% of the advertisers to renew if someone new took over. What are the costs of printing, paper and postage? Higher than you think.
If GOAL does this in-house, it means at least one more employee, with a salary, health care, workman’s comp, computer, phone, office setup, software, car allowance, etc. If it’s done by a commercial outfit, there are all those costs, plus profit. Are you all comfortable with our home and email addresses being handed over to an outside firm? I’m not....

The editing of raw copy is done regardless. TOM, I'm sure, is taking those several GOAL pages much the same as four full page ads. The *rest* of TOM is outside the scope of GOAL's newsletter (ads, other articles of content).

As for maintaining the subsciber list, that is nothing more than a label print run from the database of GOAL members... they already do the adds/changes/deletes because it is first and foremost a membership list (there isn't any new or extra work there).

If GOAL ran a newsletter as opposed to a newspaper, ads aren't exactly an issue. And some do just float over the transom.

Printing a 16 page 10k copy run is around $1500. $90k / $8 would hint at a circulation of around that, considering GOAL members only. I'd be willing to bet overages could be distributed through gun shops and sporting goods stores for free "advertising". No idea on the postage. Printing shops will either mail or ship to you for labeling, so the "list" doesn't *have* to go outside.

$1500 x 12 = $18k, which leaves $72k for postage...

I spent a couple years writing for and helping edit my college newspaper. If THAT crew of 6 or 7 knuckleheads could put out a somewhat reasonable looking paper, how hard can it really be?

As for who will do all the extra work, speaking of colleges, contact the appropriate deans at Keefe, Assabet and some of the nearby community collegs for some unpaid internships. They'll be lining up positions right NOW for the fall semester.

Would all this take some oversight and extra work on the part of GOAL staff? Sure, but not as much as you are contending. If their cards are played right, it would be a reduction in workload. Even at THAT, a 20 hour/week position rating out at $20/hour is ~ $20k/year and doesn't carry benefits. That STILL leaves $52k (minus postage) GOAL wouldn't have to pay.

It DOES come at the cost of lesser exposure to people *beyond* GOAL and THAT is the best argument to keep the TOM relationship.

 

[Jose]

Discussing how much a newsletter/paper should cost, how hard or easy it is to publish, and who should be doing it are side issues.

The elephant in the room is SHOW ME THE MONEY. To whom is it going and for what. That seems to be the central question here.

Just sayin.......

 

[50 BMG]

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.

No that has changed, it now goes to Comm2A

 

[Martlet]

Discussing how much a newsletter/paper should cost, how hard or easy it is to publish, and who should be doing it are side issues.

The elephant in the room is SHOW ME THE MONEY. To whom is it going and for what. That seems to be the central question here.

Just sayin.......

It should be discussed, but it isn't really THIS discussion. This is more concerning who has their hand in the honey pot, not necessarily how the honey pot should be handled.

 

[rlee]

As with any extended family, the conflicts can get intense.
Hell, this country had a squabble that resulted in ~1,000,000 deaths.
The lack of response from GOAL (that lawyer didn't help) then allowed the discussion to erupt into this internecine warfare.

Although I agree with Jose, it seems that the lack of transparency at GOAL is the real issue.
Whether it conceals poor financial decisions is almost secondary.
GOAL has to avoid even the appearance/suggestion of funds mismanagement.

 

[Jose]

Maybe I wasn't clear but I was referring to (tongue in cheek) to the lack of transparency.

I don't have skin in the game, since I am not a member. But as an outsider looking in, it doesn't look good.

 

[50 BMG]

First NRA did not win SCOTUS cases, SAF did. In Heller NRA was not there, In McDonald NRA joined on after SAF pushed the case to the Supreme Court.
NRA never took the lead in any case, They always wanted some one else to do it, so that they did not get soiled.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but GOAL has done the same thing.

Thank you for correcting me. Still doesn't change my mind about GOAL. Its easy, you support who you wish and your reasons are are good as mine are for supporting someone or something else. Let it go man.
This is ,IMO, about a gun rights organization who represents ma gun owners and folks are asking some questions. And you didn't bust any bubble, that happened a long time ago when I found out that there was no such thing as a money tree.

 

[Madball13]

For those reading who are not familiar with me, I am a member of the BOD elected for my first term this year. Prior to this year I knew Mr. Yancino only by reputation (both good and ill).

As for the chain of events preceding the OP in this thread...I was present when Bob P presented a group letter and his own commentary on his concerns at the last regular BOD meeting. The issue was assigned to a member of the BOD to work on and I was not privy to the events beyond that point so I will not discuss them here. I will be interested to hear the other side of things and review the communications in their entirety.

Whether they were handled poorly on one side or both sides, I would have been surprised to see a full report sent out before the full BOD had a chance to discuss it. I am sorry that many of you view that as bureaucratic BS or an indication of shady dealings. From my perspective as a member of the BOD, I would want a chance for the BOD to review whatever the findings are and determine the BOD’s position and a course of action prior to releasing a report.

For the people who object to and/or question the current arrangement with TOM...Bob P has a letter on record with GOAL. What PRECISELY do the rest of you want? What specific information do you want the BOD to provide to you? Come to the meeting and tell us in person or if you can’t come to the next meeting, please sit down and write a letter to the BOD.

Does the BOD have an e-mail address we can write to instead of writing a letter?

 

[richc]

Here's an interesting article about nonprofits, entitled "Nonprofit scrutiny: More questions must be asked". I stumbled across this as a link on a popular news tracking site.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/fl-sgcol-oped0724-20110724,0,1886742.column

Among other quotes, here's a few that I do believe are relevant:

According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, in 2009, there were nearly 1.6 million nonprofits in the United States, more than 75,000 in Florida. Recently, the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of thousands of organizations that had consistently neglected to file 990 forms, clearly a good move.

Earlier it was mentioned that GOAL may be missing 990 forms for several years. I looked around and was also unable to find them on the usual websites that publish these forms. These forms are a legal requirement. If true this is a sign of really bad management, at a minimum.

 

[namedpipes]

Worth pointing out...

Some ranges/clubs subscribe each of their members to TOM. Some of them have reminders printed IN the TOM, that if they are also members of GOAL to make sure they (the club) know so that your TOM subscription can be adjusted to come from GOAL's pot, not the range. (noticed this on at least one club 'page' in TOM).

I'm not leaning toward dumping TOM as yet (not that my opinion matters that much) but Jeez these are things SOMEBODY should be considering.

If there was any creative accounting, just figure it out and fix it. If the state rep that tweeted his wiener had just upfront said, "Yeah. Not one of my better moves" he might have gotten through his little situation.

 

[Boris]

Sometimes problems do go away with time. As one poster hasmentioned, this question was asked 3 years ago but was never followed up.

 

[Woodstock]

But how can anyone honestly argue that these related-party transactions should take place in the dark, with details concealed from members? The solution is very simple: produce clear financials with notes regarding related-party transactions. At that point, each of us can decide if we think GOAL is deserving of our funding. It's a simple request for easily produced information that members should have been provided in the first place. And I am very grateful that Bob P had the courage and tenacity to pursue this.

No one is arguing that anything should take place in the dark. GOAL has a small staff and volunteer board, and maybe those numbers aren't right at their fingertips. Nicole explained the process. Bob P wasn't told he would never get an answer - he just wasn't satisfied with the timing, so he started a rant here that's done nothing but damage GOAL, corrode the atmosphere here on NES and give aid and comfort to the anti side. IMO, he and his group should have had a little more patience with the process, and then reacted if he wasn't happy. Instead it's all torches and pitchforks over
what? The fact that the FOUNDER of GOAL and his family have a contract to publish the org's newspaper and they aren't doing it for free?

 

[Boris]

I think too much attention was given to this matter this time.

I hope so

 

[Woodstock]

I think too much attention was given to this matter this time.

Hallelujah! Something we can agree on.

 

[TheRoland]

Earlier it was mentioned that GOAL may be missing 990 forms for several years. I looked around and was also unable to find them on the usual websites that publish these forms. These forms are a legal requirement. If true this is a sign of really bad management, at a minimum.

I had no trouble finding GOAL's 990 for 2009 and five years previous. I don't know if we'd expect 2010 images to be available yet.

 

[willbdavis]

I don't see this as a controversy. However, I think GOAL should re-think the relationship with The Outdoor Message.

I personally derive very little value from this old-fashioned printed newpaper. By the time the monthly issue reaches me I already know about everything GOAL-related (Facebook, www, email). What else do I care about? The ADs? Internal news about clubs to which I don't belong?

I used to belong to a club that pretty much required every member to recieve this rag. They justified this stance on the grounds that it was the primary way the club communicated with the members and also it supported GOAL. What century is this? Do the members not have email? Does the club not have a web page?

As for supporting GOAL, I'm all for it. But it looks like GOAL would get more benefit from a direct contribution.

 

[Madball13]

No one is arguing that anything should take place in the dark. GOAL has a small staff and volunteer board, and maybe those numbers aren't right at their fingertips. Nicole explained the process. Bob P wasn't told he would never get an answer - he just wasn't satisfied with the timing, so he started a rant here that's done nothing but damage GOAL, corrode the atmosphere here on NES and give aid and comfort to the anti side. IMO, he and his group should have had a little more patience with the process, and then reacted if he wasn't happy. Instead it's all torches and pitchforks over
what? The fact that the FOUNDER of GOAL and his family have a contract to publish the org's newspaper and they aren't doing it for free?

Dude you are way off base.

 

[DickWanner]

The apologists in this thread are almost more disturbing than the issues/questions that have been raised

 

[TheRoland]

I don't think we need to turn this into a circular firing-squad. While the issues raised here need a response, gun owners in MA are endangered enough without polarizing against each other.

 

[economist]

No one is arguing that anything should take place in the dark. GOAL has a small staff and volunteer board, and maybe those numbers aren't right at their fingertips. Nicole explained the process. Bob P wasn't told he would never get an answer - he just wasn't satisfied with the timing, so he started a rant here that's done nothing but damage GOAL, corrode the atmosphere here on NES and give aid and comfort to the anti side. IMO, he and his group should have had a little more patience with the process, and then reacted if he wasn't happy. Instead it's all torches and pitchforks over
what? The fact that the FOUNDER of GOAL and his family have a contract to publish the org's newspaper and they aren't doing it for free?

These are simple questions. There are households that operate on more money per year than GOAL does. A simple review of line item expenses shouldn't take more than a few hours at most.

As I said earlier, there is no need for a study, a written report, weeks and weeks of research, or some other convoluted process that takes a huge amount of time. If I were on the board, the following questions would be answered right now or I would quit:

1. How much per year is paid to TOM. What, precisely, is received for that payment?
2. Has a competitive bid been sought? If so, what was it? If not, why?
3. Are any other payments made to a related party, including consulting fees? If so, how much is paid and what is received for that payment?
4. Is any other form of compensation given to related parties? If so, what does this compensation cost and what is received in return?

Then, I would insist that GOAL provide regular financial reports to members that detail all revenue and expenses. Any related party transactions should be presented with great detail and clarity to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest or misuse of funds.

The questions I list should be answerable in a day, at most. The financials might take a few weeks to complete. If I were in charge, the financials would be updated quarterly. And I would do it so that every single contributor would be absolutely certain that their money was being spent effectively and properly.

Can anyone tell me why this shouldn't happen?

 

[KMS]

lol

 

[Bob P]

No one is arguing that anything should take place in the dark. GOAL has a small staff and volunteer board, and maybe those numbers aren't right at their fingertips. Nicole explained the process. Bob P wasn't told he would never get an answer - he just wasn't satisfied with the timing, so he started a rant here that's done nothing but damage GOAL, corrode the atmosphere here on NES and give aid and comfort to the anti side. IMO, he and his group should have had a little more patience with the process, and then reacted if he wasn't happy. Instead it's all torches and pitchforks over
what? The fact that the FOUNDER of GOAL and his family have a contract to publish the org's newspaper and they aren't doing it for free?

Dear Woodstock,

I'm trying really hard not to respond to your provocations personally. For a guy complaining about bringing the nasty, you do it rather well.

1) The pony is still missing because the BOD hasn't REALLY answered any of the questions yet however I DID get what I wanted - action. After a very small group of us signed a letter requesting action that I presented to them in June we got nothing. Did I expect the matter to be resolved immediately? Of course not. Did I expect the BOD to be able to assure me something would be done about this? Yes. Did they? No actually they didn't. Still haven't to be honest. We've had 2 members of the BOD address this thread with words to the effect that they're looking into but does that really tell us anything? No.

2) The Founder of GOAL? Really? So you're saying he owns it? I thought it was a not-for-profit corporation owned by it's members. That's how it's registered in MA.

3) Patience. I have some. See here's the thing though. This situation has existed a long time. At least 1 other poster on this thread has raised the issue with the BOD in the past. What did they do? Nada. I really doubt he's the only one that's ever asked this question. What did it seem like they were doing? From where we sit? Nada.

Am I using this thread to pressure the BOD into looking into the matter? Absolutely.


So. So far we've had 2 members of the BOD speaking as individuals and not as representatives of the BOD say that the matter is being looked into and will be discussed at the August meeting. Good. We're waiting and watching.

There is NOTHING unpatriotic about dissent. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

[Chris]

I said August was our next meeting. And I said the report will be reviewed at a meeting before being released. Unless you have some advance copy of the agenda I don't see how you can expect an answer then. For the record, the August meeting was called as a special meeting. The Sept meeting would have been the next regular meeting. I'm not saying you will need to wait for Sept, I don't know. It depends on the agenda for the August meeting which has not been published yet.

Now put down the pitchforks and allow the process to work.

According to the minutes, the board never stated a timeframe. If an individual did, then they made an error. As with most things in this regard, responses come under old business at the next meeting. I'm sorry the process was not explained, but this is how the process works.

Ranting here will not make it go faster. Speculating on no facts will not create truth. I do not know the whole story. I don't think any member of the board does. In any event, the answers will come when the report is presented.

And for those who think because the process is slow that something must be wrong, you are making assumptions that are without merit.

Let me repeat - we has two highly qualified members of NES run for the board last year and they lost. Clearly, this forum is NOT representative of the GOAL members in general. Please keep that in mind. What might work for you might not be ideal for most.

 

[Martlet]

Yeah! Who are you to question GOAL? NES isnt representative of their membership. Just pay your dues and shut up. They'll answer you when they're good and ready.

I said August was our next meeting. And I said the report will be reviewed at a meeting before being released. Unless you have some advance copy of the agenda I don't see how you can expect an answer then. For the record, the August meeting was called as a special meeting. The Sept meeting would have been the next regular meeting. I'm not saying you will need to wait for Sept, I don't know. It depends on the agenda for the August meeting which has not been published yet.

Now put down the pitchforks and allow the process to work.

According to the minutes, the board never stated a timeframe. If an individual did, then they made an error. As with most things in this regard, responses come under old business at the next meeting. I'm sorry the process was not explained, but this is how the process works.

Ranting here will not make it go faster. Speculating on no facts will not create truth. I do not know the whole story. I don't think any member of the board does. In any event, the answers will come when the report is presented.

And for those who think because the process is slow that something must be wrong, you are making assumptions that are without merit.

Let me repeat - we has two highly qualified members of NES run for the board last year and they lost. Clearly, this forum is NOT representative of the GOAL members in general. Please keep that in mind. What might work for you might not be ideal for most.