Wanna talk to GOAL? BOD meeting 8/11 Braintree Rifle and Pistol

[Stef]

So I'm stupid...because I choose to not support an organization that's done absolutely nothing for me?

Perhaps you're not, but the reasoning behind your decision seems to be. GOAL's purpose isn't to support your favorite style of shooting in national competition so judging their value based on that is, well, kind of stupid. However, if you think they're ineffective at pursuing their stated purpose and don't wish to donate, that's another matter entirely.

Jeeze, all about protecting the second ammendment, forget about that free speech thing huh?

Free speech? What has that got to do with any of this? To quote Inigo Montoya; "I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[Martlet]

Perhaps you're not, but the reasoning behind your decision seems to be. GOAL's purpose isn't to support your favorite style of shooting in national competition so judging their value based on that is, well, kind of stupid. However, if you think they're ineffective at pursuing their stated purpose and don't wish to donate, that's another matter entirely.


Free speech? What has that got to do with any of this? To quote Inigo Montoya; "I do not think it means what you think it means."

He said GOAL's stated purpose isn't of value to him. Period. If that's true, he shouldn't donate. Whether or not GOAL is effective at THEIR stated purpose isn't relevant.

Personally, I think he's off base since GOAL's pursuits affect all gun owners. However, if he doesn't feel like he's getting his money's worth he has every right to end his membership.

On topic, I'm not healed enough to attend tonight. If someone could update us after the meeting, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Bob P]

I plan on doing so.

 

[yanici]

DELETED. Don't want to flame.

 

[eisenhow]

So I'm stupid...because I choose to not support an organization that's done absolutely nothing for me?....and literally turned its back on the disciplines that I actually value? Sorry, I dont shoot IDPA and USPSA, so my sport of choice doesnt garner the attention of GOAL.

GOAL runs an intro to IDPA class with volunteers from a local IDPA club. I think that is the only thing they do wrt to IDPA. As far as I know they don't do anything wrt to USPSA. I'm pretty sure if you and a group of people, who are interested in your sport, volunteered to teach and intro class they would work with you to put on a class.

 

[Palladin]

As I understand it, the BOD has just admitted they have no idea what's going on with the OM!!

So what they are saying is that they have no clue who owns TOM, how much they spend on TOM, how much they could reasonably save by dumping TOM, who benefits from GOALs participation in TOM and how members who don't want TOM can save GOAL money. In other words, the GOAL BOD has no clue about how GOAL spends 1/3rd of it's income every year.

This sums up the problem perfectly.

You've got to be shitting me???

 

[richc]

Is Obama in charge of GOAL???

As I understand it, the BOD has just admitted they have no idea what's going on with the OM!!

So what they are saying is that they have no clue who owns TOM, how much they spend on TOM, how much they could reasonably save by dumping TOM, who benefits from GOALs participation in TOM and how members who don't want TOM can save GOAL money. In other words, the GOAL BOD has no clue about how GOAL spends 1/3rd of it's income every year.

This sums up the problem perfectly.

You've got to be shitting me???

 

[Admin]

As I understand it, the BOD has just admitted they have no idea what's going on with the OM!!

So what they are saying is that they have no clue who owns TOM, how much they spend on TOM, how much they could reasonably save by dumping TOM, who benefits from GOALs participation in TOM and how members who don't want TOM can save GOAL money. In other words, the GOAL BOD has no clue about how GOAL spends 1/3rd of it's income every year.

This sums up the problem perfectly.

You've got to be shitting me???

.

 

[yanici]

As I understand it, the BOD has just admitted they have no idea what's going on with the OM!!

So what they are saying is that they have no clue who owns TOM, how much they spend on TOM, how much they could reasonably save by dumping TOM, who benefits from GOALs participation in TOM and how members who don't want TOM can save GOAL money. In other words, the GOAL BOD has no clue about how GOAL spends 1/3rd of it's income every year.

This sums up the problem perfectly.

You've got to be shitting me???

Maybe Bernie Madoff is running this scheme.

 

[Alchemist27]

Effing ridiculous, GOAL just lost a member

As I understand it, the BOD has just admitted they have no idea what's going on with the OM!!

So what they are saying is that they have no clue who owns TOM, how much they spend on TOM, how much they could reasonably save by dumping TOM, who benefits from GOALs participation in TOM and how members who don't want TOM can save GOAL money. In other words, the GOAL BOD has no clue about how GOAL spends 1/3rd of it's income every year.

This sums up the problem perfectly.

You've got to be shitting me???

 

[Coyote33]

To keep it positive, I hope this is now fully in their radar, on their agenda, and ready for action. Sometimes, change is good, even if it is a change in the board members.

Thanks to those who could make it and bring light to the situation.

 

[wolf223]

waiting for bob P's notes...


if this is true.. then i'm done too and will karma my spot for the upcoming shoot B Q

 

[flintoid]

wtf

 

[Bob P]

I attended the meeting tonight. I've started a new thread with my thoughts and observations here
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...om-someone-who-attended?p=1991159#post1991159

 

[dwarven1]

.

 

[Bob P]

Leaving GOAL would be a huge mistake. Staying with GOAL and voting in board members that have the same values as you do would be a much better way to protest.

 

[Len-2A Training]

As I understand it, the BOD has just admitted they have no idea what's going on with the OM!!

So what they are saying is that they have no clue who owns TOM, how much they spend on TOM, how much they could reasonably save by dumping TOM, who benefits from GOALs participation in TOM and how members who don't want TOM can save GOAL money. In other words, the GOAL BOD has no clue about how GOAL spends 1/3rd of it's income every year.

If this is what you got from the meeting, I'm not sure that the two of us were at the same meeting tonight!

TOM is a separate corporation and thus I wouldn't expect the GOAL BOD to know all the finer points about TOM until they dug in to answer your questions. What I took away from the meeting is that they had assigned one person to do that digging, she did so and handed over what she found for info to the GOAL Corporate Counsel as was requested of her. Counsel is supposed to review it and tell the BOD what should be released, then the BOD will likely vote on releasing the info and Bob P should get his answers.

If a good percentage of members WANT TOM, dumping it will cause other problems. I heard someone from the BOD say that they were looking at various methods of communication and will likely to do a survey to determine how GOAL should communicate with members. Keep in mind that many members are probably nowhere near as comfortable around computers/Internet as those that are on NES. We may not speak for the majority or even close.

 

[Acme.Armament]

As I understand it, the BOD has just admitted they have no idea what's going on with the OM!!

So what they are saying is that they have no clue who owns TOM, how much they spend on TOM, how much they could reasonably save by dumping TOM, who benefits from GOALs participation in TOM and how members who don't want TOM can save GOAL money. In other words, the GOAL BOD has no clue about how GOAL spends 1/3rd of it's income every year.

This sums up the problem perfectly.

You've got to be shitting me???

Palladin, if you were there, you are entirly reporting things only the way you want them. Just like the media. If you were there, then please stick to the FACTS.

 

[Acme.Armament]

Effing ridiculous, GOAL just lost a member

Why? Because you believe something somebody posted on the internet? Where you there last night?

I was and the GOAL-BOD is looking at things as they should, responsibly. They will get an answer to the members based on facts.

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

Why? Because you believe something somebody posted on the internet? Where you there last night?

I was and the GOAL-BOD is looking at things as they should, responsibly. They will get an answer to the members based on facts.

I was there. In particular, one member of the BOD was rude, accusatory, and very irresponsible during an outburst aimed at his constituents. Instead of appearing eager to clear up any potential misunderstanding of the GOAL - TOM relationship, what this GOAL member took away from the meeting is that we are not to expect any answers, any time soon, and that we are in fact suspect for having the audacity to appear at the meeting and question them.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Palladin, if you were there, you are entirly reporting things only the way you want them. Just like the media. If you were there, then please stick to the FACTS.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who saw/heard a different response to the request than what I saw posted above.

I was there. In particular, one member of the BOD was rude, accusatory, and very irresponsible during an outburst aimed at his constituents. Instead of appearing eager to clear up any potential misunderstanding of the GOAL - TOM relationship, what this GOAL member took away from the meeting is that we are not to expect any answers, any time soon, and that we are in fact suspect for having the audacity to appear at the meeting and question them.

I will make no excuse for rudeness, but anyone who read these threads would know that that there are definite undertones of many here who believe that there is corruption within and that is what drove the demands for info. I believe that those asking the questions deserve answers, but the GOAL BOD and lawyer (who was not present) also realize that release of whatever info will fall in the hands of the enemy (Rosenthal, Globe, Brady, etc.). It's hard for me to blame them for being cautious and vetting all info with their attorney prior to release . . . I see that as the same as "don't talk with the police until you talk with your lawyer" admonition that many of us espouse.

 

[Acme.Armament]

I was there. In particular, one member of the BOD was rude, accusatory, and very irresponsible during an outburst aimed at his constituents. Instead of appearing eager to clear up any potential misunderstanding of the GOAL - TOM relationship, what this GOAL member took away from the meeting is that we are not to expect any answers, any time soon, and that we are in fact suspect for having the audacity to appear at the meeting and question them.

Yes that BOD member was rude. So was Bob Pepi in his twisting of words in order to try and make it look like the BOD Treasurer had just contradicted herself. After Bob did this most everyone in the room, including the entire GOAL-BOD, said no she didn't.

 

[Bob P]

Yes that BOD member was rude. So was Bob Pepi in his twisting of words in order to try and make it look like the BOD Treasurer had just contradicted herself. After Bob did this most everyone in the room, including the entire GOAL-BOD, said no she didn't.

Which time are you talking about Adam? I thought she contradicted herself on a number of occasions and I was just looking for clarity. If I came off as rude I apologize, I was just pressing for an answer - unlike Don who made a direct attack on me and a member of his own board.

 

[richc]

I believe that those asking the questions deserve answers, but the GOAL BOD and lawyer (who was not present) also realize that release of whatever info will fall in the hands of the enemy (Rosenthal, Globe, Brady, etc.).

Lens, if there's nothing to hide why worry about who sees the information? In fact it would be a proud day for GOAL and its members if they were able to produce a legitimate clean bill of health to any and all "enemies".

 

[cekim]

Lens, if there's nothing to hide why worry about who sees the information? In fact it would be a proud day for GOAL and its members if they were able to produce a legitimate clean bill of health to any and all "enemies".

Rich, I don't buy the "you have nothing to hide" argument here anymore than it applied to individuals. I think the message to the BoD on this at this point should be that it is unprofessional and unacceptable to not even be able to say that that you will have a timeline for answering these questions by X.

The fact that even this trivial step has not been taken smacks of the usual BS we get from MA government.

It has been "taken under advisement" which in MA .gov speak means "we are ignoring you."

Whether that was the intention or not, this is the perception and why Bob is pressing the issue. If you don't want to be lumped in with obstructionist corrupt MA government behavior, then you should avoid using their tricks. From the outside, we have no choice to apply "duck logic" (walks like, talks like, etc...)

What concerns me above all else here are the issues raised in the letter WRT to the unit cost of TOM coupled with the "relationship" of the TOM to certain people in GOAL.

If I am wrong that the unit cost is in line with industry standards and it is "reasonable" then, provided all laws are followed WRT non-profits and conflicts of interests, then great.

This isn't rocket science and it is shameful that the board could not even provide a date by which a timeline to address these questions could be provided.

 

[Bob P]

Lens, if there's nothing to hide why worry about who sees the information? In fact it would be a proud day for GOAL and its members if they were able to produce a legitimate clean bill of health to any and all "enemies".

This. As I've said on many occasions - including last night - if I can piece this together then I'm sure one of 'them' can if they look hard enough. GOAL is actually becoming an effective lobby group - so 'they' WILL be looking hard.

You know, I get the impression that GOAL is kind of an organization with an identity crisis. It seems to have started life as a sort of club that in addition to running a camp and publishing a newspaper did lobby work. In the last 10 - 15 years the idiots up on Beacon Hill have SERIOUS stepped up the trampling of our rights - WAY more so than when GOAL came into being 25 years ago and, quite frankly the MOST important function GOAL has right now is as a lobby group.

This means that some things might actually have to change. GOAL may have to be run a bit less casually. 'We only meet 4 times a year' just doesn't cut it in that/this kind of environment and if they're this ineffectual in answering a simple question on their internal operations to a GROUP of their members (our letter has 30 signatures at this point) then how in the HELL can they be effective against the mob on Beacon Hill??

 

[Len-2A Training]

Lens, if there's nothing to hide why worry about who sees the information? In fact it would be a proud day for GOAL and its members if they were able to produce a legitimate clean bill of health to any and all "enemies".

Rich, I don't know! I have no idea about the financials, what was found, etc.

I do know that every non-profit I've been involved with has been run very "inefficiently" and one could find lots of things that could be done better.

Due to my profession, I have to work with lawyers and can tell you that they tend to be ultra-conservative in the sense that they don't want their clients blowing their nose without getting clearance first from Counsel! I've had dealings with GOAL's Corporate Counsel in the past (one of my gun clubs hired him to represent them with a serious Selectmen/Police Chief issue), so I'm not surprised at all with his approach. [I was not happy with his representing the club as I wished that he took a more aggressive approach. The club president was likewise disappointed.]

 

[Coyote33]

...This means that some things might actually have to change. GOAL may have to be run a bit less casually. 'We only meet 4 times a year' just doesn't cut it in that/this kind of environment and if they're this ineffectual in answering a simple question on their internal operations to a GROUP of their members (our letter has 30 signatures at this point) then how in the HELL can they be effective against the mob on Beacon Hill??

Or timely? Then again, it is not the board who needs to be timely, but the day to day operations. The way I understand it, is the BOD sets the tone, leaving it for the officers to execute.

 

[Bob P]

Or timely? Then again, it is not the board who needs to be timely, but the day to day operations. The way I understand it, is the BOD sets the tone, leaving it for the officers to execute.

Really? From what I've seen so far it looks like the staff aren't allowed to blow their noses without the BoD's approval - and they only meet '4 times a year'. I asked a simple question 8 weeks ago and they won't even tell me when I can expect to GET an answer, never mind what that answer is.

 

[cekim]

Or timely? Then again, it is not the board who needs to be timely, but the day to day operations. The way I understand it, is the BOD sets the tone, leaving it for the officers to execute.

That's not how BoDs usually operate on oversight and review issues such as this.