GOAL under attack by those that want to undo the good work we've done.

[Fixxah]

To think I once respected Mr. Yacino. Boy was I a fool. Nothing but a backstabbing adolescent who just doesnt get it. There's a rock somewhere with his name on it, I hope he finds it and can get under it.

 

[Blitz1]

I sit in those WPRC meetings and see Jon there nearly every month making a report. I also see him delivering fat envelopes with fees collected from classes. GOAL is NOT freeloading off of the WPRC. Likewise, they are not demanding that every WPRC member be a member of GOAL. That's a club instituted rule.

If I'm being honest, I don't agree with a club demanding you have membership in another club to join. Under different circumstances I might be inclined to vote to drop the rule. However, in these circumstances, I'm showing up at that meeting even if I have to go with my kids to vote to keep this rule in place. GOAL gives back a lot to the club and I wouldn't be surprised if they were responsible for quite a few memberships since its the range many newbies are exposed to in their classes.

Hello,

This initiative has one purpose: to remove the additional cost to WPR Club membership that is currently forced on members by the GOAL membership mandate. The club removed a similar mandate of NRA membership some years back, and this is no different. No one is suggesting folks don’t join GOAL – I continue to be a member myself. People should be allowed to choose for themselves, however.
My name is Michael Yacino. I’ve been a Worcester Pistol and Rifle member since 2005. I’m one of many members that contributed additional money to the Club when we first began the discussion of renovating our clubhouse/indoor range. I make as many of the work parties as I my work schedules will allow. I am NRA-certified/Mass licensed Safety Instructor, RSO, IDPA member, Life NRA member, and a GOAL member.
Unfortunately, it comes as no surprise that this has been misrepresented as a ‘personal issue’, Disappointing as this is, I prefer to take the higher road and not to attack anyone’s character, rather address the topic at hand. While many of the statements Mr Moysey made were incorrect or misleading, some are tangent to the removal of the membership mandate, so I will not address them here – certainly, there’s plenty of that happening in other forums.
First, removing the mandate does not require a bylaw change, but a change in ‘rules of membership’. What this means is that the change requires no petition required as there would be if it were a bylaw change. Initially, it was thought to be a bylaw change, and more than enough signatures were collected to initiate such a motion - so the statement that “only one individual” is behind it is simply untrue.
I have talked to non-Club members and members about this. At the last work party I attended, one long-time WPR member commented that “GOAL hasn’t done anything for us [the club] for years.” Another had no intention of ever not renewing his GOAL membership, but thought it was wrong to force people to join. I talked to a two other guys at an IDPA match in January who have not joined the Club because they don’t want to join GOAL, and would rather pay the extra $5 to shoot a match when they can make it. One of my neighbors didn’t renew his membership at the Club because he didn’t have the extra $30. Two other friends don’t have the extra money or simply don’t want to GOAL. That’s $900 the Club has lost from those last 5 alone. So 8 or 10 guys at the work party, a few others here and there - that’s the sum of my unofficial poll, and there’s nothing misleading here.
As to the timing of bringing this forward, the idea came after I had had some of the aforementioned conversations – really in the last 2-3 months. The Club Board has been supportive of the bringing the motion forward, though it has not stated it’s position as leaning one way or the other. I also discussed the timing (now or some point in the future) with some of the other Club members who signed the initial petition mentioned above, and ~we~ decided to move forward. I have discussed this at length with our Board, and particularly our President. When I last spoke with him, I explained that, although we did want to move forward, I might not be able to make the June meeting due to my work schedule – but he suggested we just move forward with the vote. Cleary it’s a controversial item, and there is certainly a lot happening around our renovation. I would be surprised if GOAL BOD member thought was ever a good time for such a vote. However, suggesting that the Board has been strong-armed is simply not true.
When times and the economy were better, many Club members supported the collection of an extra $600 per member towards the renovation of the Club. I don’t think members really thought too much about the extra $30 we had to pay to GOAL or the $35 to the NRA, mandates that had been put in place some 25 years ago. Two of these are no longer in place, but one is. And ~these~ times are certainly not ~those~ times.
All we are asking is to let members decide for themselves how they spend their hard-earned money.

Regards,
Michael

Yacino, under a different email address, sent this little missive to membership. It is laughably disingenuous as he never once uttered a disparaging word to membership when his company was suckling the GOAL teat. After all, mandatory membership at the club meant 400-600 more issues a month. Now that he's cutoff, this is apparently a rip off to membership. For the record, I've been a member since 2010 and I have never heard so much as a breath from ANYONE complaining about the $30 for GOAL.

Funny that "they" didn't have a problem with it until now.

 

[FrugalFannie]

During the 'big debate' I renewed my membership with GOAL for 3 years and expanded it to a family membership because I truly believe that if you aren't part of the group you aren't going to be able to help make it better. I did however refuse to buy any schwag or sign up for classes during that time because I was not sure how it would turn out. Since GOAL has seperated from the foundation I have helped with the Legislator's event and just recently signed up for 2 classes (would have been 3 if I wasn't away during the 3rd one).

My personal opinion is that GOAL is on the right track now and their hands have been untied. Whether or not GOAL is successful depends on it's membership. WE are GOAL. We need to express our concerns, contribute our support (financial and other), let them know when they are on the right track AND when they have it wrong. This is OUR organization now. WE can make a difference bu only if we involve ourselves.

 

[Blitz1]

During the 'big debate' I renewed my membership with GOAL for 3 years and expanded it to a family membership because I truly believe that if you aren't part of the group you aren't going to be able to help make it better. I did however refuse to buy any schwag or sign up for classes during that time because I was not sure how it would turn out. Since GOAL has seperated from the foundation I have helped with the Legislator's event and just recently signed up for 2 classes (would have been 3 if I wasn't away during the 3rd one).

My personal opinion is that GOAL is on the right track now and their hands have been untied. Whether or not GOAL is successful depends on it's membership. WE are GOAL. We need to express our concerns, contribute our support (financial and other), let them know when they are on the right track AND when they have it wrong. This is OUR organization now. WE can make a difference bu only if we involve ourselves.

Right on there.

For all you GOAL pundit's out there and those that may be new. The Old GOAL folks are out. Their inaction is done.

There is a whole new leadership now, heading in a new direction.

 

[Blitz1]

From my FB.

https://www.facebook.com/GunOwnersActionLeague/posts/389573787729848?ref=notif&notif_t=feed_comment

 

[Coyote33]

Right on there.

For all you GOAL pundit's out there and those that may be new. The Old GOAL folks are out. Their inaction is done.

There is a whole new leadership now, heading in a new direction.

Where is that thread with the GOAL Board of Directors election? How many NES people won? How many other new people? How many "incumbent" board members actually remain on the board? Is there a brief bio of these people anywhere on GOAL's web site, including how to reach them? That would be a good start for a group that wants a good start in these modern times.

 

[Blitz1]

Where is that thread with the GOAL Board of Directors election? How many NES people won? How many other new people? How many "incumbent" board members actually remain on the board? Is there a brief bio of these people anywhere on GOAL's web site, including how to reach them? That would be a good start for a group that wants a good start in these modern times.

Seriously?

There were many. GOAL mega thread for one, you can go off that.

No link, go find it.

 

[HenryBowman]

I DO NOT know anything about as I just joined the club like 2 weeks ago. I do not think any club should force you to join an org like GOAL if you choose not to. My membership to the club, should have no bearing on whether or not I support GOAL.

What if I was a member and supported everyone else but GOAL? That's not good enough? FAIL to me.

It's is being brought up for exactly the reason you suggest, as I wrote in my post the WPR IDPA yahoo group - it's a mandate. The members that signed the petition were varied in their opinion of GOAL, but they all agreed people should be able to make their own choice.

The fact is that the topic of removing the GOAL mandate HAS been brought up in the past, as confirmed by the Club BOD. It also came up with the NRA - and that mandate was removed.

Surely, no one will convert the conspiracy theorists, least of all I.

But can anyone articulate why membership must be mandated?

Michael Yacino
Not a former GOAL staffer / ED
Not a former BoD member

 

[Bob P]

Michael, how long have you been a member at WPR? What prompted the scales to suddenly fall from your eyes over the evils of mandated membership? Blitz1 raises a valid point - you didn't seem to have much of a problem with it before the recent changes. Why now?

 

[Admin]

It's is being brought up for exactly the reason you suggest, as I wrote in my post the WPR IDPA yahoo group - it's a mandate. The members that signed the petition were varied in their opinion of GOAL, but they all agreed people should be able to make their own choice.

The fact is that the topic of removing the GOAL mandate HAS been brought up in the past, as confirmed by the Club BOD. It also came up with the NRA - and that mandate was removed.

Surely, no one will convert the conspiracy theorists, least of all I.

But can anyone articulate why membership must be mandated?

Michael Yacino
Not a former GOAL staffer / ED
Not a former BoD member

Because it's a private club and they support GOAL and want their member to do the same.

I know you have a stick up your ass because your father's gravy train derailed, but this blatant attempt to take GOAL down with you leeches is pretty pathetic.

 

[jasons]

Because it's a private club and they support GOAL and want their member to do the same.

I know you have a stick up your ass because your father's gravy train derailed, but this blatant attempt to take GOAL down with you leeches is pretty pathetic.

QFTMFT

 

[JGreen]

The NRA requirement was for insurance purposes. When better and cheaper coverage was found, NRA memebership was no longer required.

 

[HenryBowman]

Because it's a private club and they support GOAL and want their member to do the same.

I know you have a stick up your ass because your father's gravy train derailed, but this blatant attempt to take GOAL down with you leeches is pretty pathetic.

It seems that displaced anger of yours is really getting the best of you, sir. Sadly, this is the type of response I would expect, and representative of why I stopped contributing to your…“gravy train”. (Seriously though “Gravy train”??!!! – that’s classic!!)

 

[Blitz1]

It seems that displaced anger of yours is really getting the best of you, sir. Sadly, this is the type of response I would expect, and representative of why I stopped contributing to your…“gravy train”. (Seriously though “Gravy train”??!!! – that’s classic!!)

Wow, seriously?

NES has done a hell of a lot for GOAL and gun owners in this region.

 

[Bob P]

What makes you so sure it's displaced?

 

[Admin]

It seems that displaced anger of yours is really getting the best of you, sir. Sadly, this is the type of response I would expect, and representative of why I stopped contributing to your…“gravy train”. (Seriously though “Gravy train”??!!! – that’s classic!!)

That took a whole 2 posts before you came out with your liberal bullshit of "NES IS THE PROBLEM!" Touche sir, just when I thought you couldn't whine anymore than you already have....

NES has paid your fathers Pension the last five years, probably the first time it's been covered since he "retired".

 

[Fixxah]

It seems that displaced anger of yours is really getting the best of you, sir. Sadly, this is the type of response I would expect, and representative of why I stopped contributing to your…“gravy train”. (Seriously though “Gravy train”??!!! – that’s classic!!)

Buh, bye.

 

[MetalgodZ]

Mr. Yacinco, I'm someone with no dog in this fight other than my desire to see GOALs lobbying efforts successful, and no information short of what I've seen posted here, and from your family in the O.M. and Facebook.

With that said, I can honestly say I feel I have enough info to confidently recommend anyone who asks me against financially supporting you or your family in any way. What respect I might have had before you opened your collective whine-holes is gone; I have zero respect for you.

Please, just put your tail between your legs and head on home.

 

[HenryBowman]

That took a whole 2 posts before you came out with your liberal bullshit of "NES IS THE PROBLEM!" Touche sir, just when I thought you couldn't whine anymore than you already have....

NES has paid your fathers Pension the last five years, probably the first time it's been covered since he "retired".

Wrong again - comment was directed to you, not "NES". Compliments on your consistent ineptitude and name calling, though. Not sure anyone has called me a liberal before. You’re 0-2.

 

[soam]

Words are wind, Mr. Yacino. No matter how much you rail against it, GOAL is going in a new direction. The new BoD members, the split from The Outdoor Message and the GOAL Foundation, the modernization and streamlining of the organization, these are real, concrete things that people worked to make happen because they feel that they made GOAL into a better organization. You can either accept this and move on, or you can continue your petty campaign against the new GOAL that just so happens to not use your family's services.

Your attempts to "liberate" WPR from the requirement to join GOAL is obviously motivated by your displeasure with the new direction of GOAL. Any attempt to say otherwise is laughable, and just makes you look completely disingenuous.

I have no dog in this fight, other than being a relatively new shooter, and a member of GOAL. I want to see this state recognize our rights, and it will take the hard work of organizations like GOAL and Comm2A to do it. I think that the new GOAL will be a leaner, meaner, more efficient organization, and I am happy to support it.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Mr. Yacino ask yourself this one question and answer it honestly. Is the motive behind removing GOAL as a requirement something that you would have advocated if GOAL was the same as it used to be? I also have no dog in this fight other then being a gun owner in Mass and a member of GOAL. I think if you are really honest with yourself, I believe you'll find that your current stance is motivated by anger and thoughts of revenge. All strong emotions. So answer me this, when you're done trying your best to dismantle and dishonor GOAL, will the end result be better for us gun owners in the state of Mass or worse? I think you already have that answer and it's not for the good of Mass gun owners. If it was for our better good, you'd be working to close the gap that's currently in place between the organizations to continue the good fight for us. Any answer other then to reach that positive end, means your against us and not for us. So which side is it? Are you with us or against us? Remember, change is sometimes a good thing and I truly believe the changes to GOAL will be for the better. Standing still means you're falling behind. We cannot afford that and you of all people should know it.

 

[Blitz1]

Mr. Yacino ask yourself this one question and answer it honestly. Is the motive behind removing GOAL as a requirement something that you would have advocated if GOAL was the same as it used to be? I also have no dog in this fight other then being a gun owner in Mass and a member of GOAL. I think if you are really honest with yourself, I believe you'll find that your current stance is motivated by anger and thoughts of revenge. All strong emotions. So answer me this, when you're done trying your best to dismantle and dishonor GOAL, will the end result be better for us gun owners in the state of Mass or worse? I think you already have that answer and it's not for the good of Mass gun owners. If it was for our better good, you'd be working to close the gap that's currently in place between the organizations to continue the good fight for us. Any answer other then to reach that positive end, means your against us and not for us. So which side is it? Are you with us or against us? Remember, change is sometimes a good thing and I truly believe the changes to GOAL will be for the better. Standing still means you're falling behind. We cannot afford that and you of all people should know it.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the rights of gun owners in this state is secondary to him/her/them.

GOAL is headed in a new direction, cutting the fat if you will, more focused on the actual issues. They just got rid of the self serving, self important people that were holding the whole organization down.

 

[richc]

Personally I kinda miss the printed version of TOM. It fit the bottom of my bird's cage perfectly.

 

[DavidC77]

I just recently joined WPRC, and those issues were discussed in the member meeting when they voted us in, and went over other issues. They are having a meeting June 5th I believe to vote on whether or not to make you join GOAL to be a member at WPRC.

I DO NOT know anything about as I just joined the club like 2 weeks ago. I do not think any club should force you to join an org like GOAL if you choose not to. My membership to the club, should have no bearing on whether or not I support GOAL.

What if I was a member and supported everyone else but GOAL? That's not good enough? FAIL to me.

But since the club is 3 mins from my house, don't have much of a choice. And I was already a member of GOAL. Next year, I may re consider though.

Some clubs are required to have you join.

One of the clubs I'm in got a loan from the NRA to help us out.

The one thing that they say you have to do is every club member has to be in the NRA or they don't give you the money you need.

 

[DavidC77]

I've lives here 5 years, I guess that makes me a Ma**h***!
God I hate this place, SC was so much better a place to be stationed I would have willingly stayed their forever.
How do I help GOAL, if it's the $20 or $25 it is done?
Tell me via PM and I will submit and finally join.

smitty

Here ya go Smitty

/join goal

One good way to do it is like I did, I got on a payment plan through GOAL and became a Life Member that way.......

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The NRA requirement was for insurance purposes. When better and cheaper coverage was found, NRA memebership was no longer required.

The last I checked, NRA insurance required 50% minimum club membership.

A big problem with the insurance is that it excluded suits brought by members; accidents involving firearms in motor vehicles and hunting accidents. So, you were covered if a guest who was not hunting is hurt outside his/her car but, realistically, the MOST probably source of a personal injury suit is a member or family of a member (which may also be excluded if the family member is suing on behalf of the member's estate, or if the club deems all family members to be associate members of the club).

As with any NRA insurance it was selected, in part, for the ability to pay a commission to the NRA - which means something has to be impacted (rates or coverage) to pay for this.

 

[rep308]

View attachment 32370
oh boy this is good

This just inspired me to extend my GOAL membership for me and my son for another 5 years. Gotta make a note to talk to my club to do the same at the next meeting.

 

[ARV]

It seems that displaced anger of yours is really getting the best of you, sir. Sadly, this is the type of response I would expect, and representative of why I stopped contributing to your…“gravy train”. (Seriously though “Gravy train”??!!! – that’s classic!!)

Wrong again - comment was directed to you, not "NES". Compliments on your consistent ineptitude and name calling, though. Not sure anyone has called me a liberal before. You’re 0-2.

 

[mark056]

I've followed this thread for sometime, and either the naivete or ignorance of politics expressed by some is absolutely astounding.

1. Lobby groups do not go for the jugular. A take no prisoners approach in politics only works when there is a very strong consensus. Fact: gun owners are a minority in this state, most of the public are fence straddlers as well as a huge segment of the pols. Politics is about compromise and the art of the possible. For those of you who say that is totally screwed and it ought to be "go time" (whatever that is, I don't think we have a cogent definition of that either)...well I just don't see that many revolutionaries hanging out at the local mall, just some angry people on the internet. For now, this is the system that we live with. Work to change it, but don't go slamming GOAL for playing the hand it has been dealt.

2. The whole GOAL Foundation and GOAL thing isn't too hard to understand. If you cannot figure it out, then you really don't understand business organizations or non-profits, and frankly lucid and simple explanations have been provided by several posters.

3. What makes you think that the "old guard" was going to take all of this lying down? Do you honestly think that they would disappear into the sunset?

4. Here we go again with the Fudd word. The truth of it is Fudds are for the most part Baby-Boomers who are still a huge demographic in this country, they are the most consistent voters, and they have a considerable amount of wealth. If you think that they are going to be pushed around, then you are sadly mistaken. What we are talking about are fellow gun owners and maybe it is about time we try to win some of the "Fudds" over to our side.

5. Just because people don't use the internet or communicate the way you do, doesn't mean that they don't communicate. The power of the spoken word in person and by print is still very much alive. (otherwise there would be no junk mail or flyers in newspapers [which haven't disappeared yet]) It's kinda like a 1911, it's old but it's effective.

6. What I really find irritating are the naysayers who complained about GOAL, but when changes were effected, now find some other excuse not to join.

I only have one word to describe that: disgusting.

Let's stand by the new GOAL and get out the word as well as we can, and this means getting out behind our computers, keeping our smart phones in our pockets or purses and spreading the "gospel" the old fashioned way. You know Jesus started out with a small band of followers. He didn't have email, telephones, and in the beginning the written word. It took some time, but eventually the whole Roman Empire became Christian. People in advertising and sales will still tell you that "word of mouth" is still the best form of advertising. (Isn't that what Craigslist is really?). So we need to get out and spread the message !!!

 

[TWtommers]

It's is being brought up for exactly the reason you suggest, as I wrote in my post the WPR IDPA yahoo group - it's a mandate. The members that signed the petition were varied in their opinion of GOAL, but they all agreed people should be able to make their own choice.

The fact is that the topic of removing the GOAL mandate HAS been brought up in the past, as confirmed by the Club BOD. It also came up with the NRA - and that mandate was removed.

Surely, no one will convert the conspiracy theorists, least of all I.

But can anyone articulate why membership must be mandated?

Michael Yacino
Not a former GOAL staffer / ED
Not a former BoD member

I have no doubt that this has been brought up in the past. Just as thoughts of membership caps, dues increases, and the like. Let's remove the dogs from the fight. I'll pretend that I'm completely ambivalent about GOAL and that you're not related in any way to the situation.
Membership at the club is not hurting. Every orientation class is 50-70 people and the following meeting we induct another 30-50 new members. Clearly, the GOAL mandate is not harming new membership. Do you have data that shows we are losing more existing members than are being replaced by new members? I don't. I'm fairly certain that overall membership is climbing.
I'll argue that, rather than a detriment, GOAL is a benefit to the club. They teach classes at the club and pay the club a fee to do so. One of those classes is Intro to IDPA which introduces people to IDPA and the club. This increase participation in IDPA events at the club. IDPA does nothing but infuse cash in WPRC. Their monthly events raise money for the club and they have worked to improve the club. For example, last year they bought and spread mulch for the berms. So, it would seem that GOAL is a benefit to the club.
If membership is not dropping due to the mandate and GOAL is not causing some other harm to the club, what reason is left to remove it? Forget about the free will argument, this is a private club. Is it money? Please. Without the mandate we're one of the most expensive clubs around, particularly for new members who must pay for a full year regardless of when they join.
Here's what I would propose. If a member is so opposed to GOAL that they refuse to join, they can pay the $30 directly to the club. The member can avoid supporting a group the don't approve of and the club will benefit directly from the $30 rather than indirectly.