# An Open Letter to the NAA, its Board of Governers, and Executive Director



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Chris, 
I second your motion!


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Well said!

But what else would you expect from someone who shoots a Best Zenit (big smiley face goes here)

Dave
(who has a Best Moon and a Best Mercury)


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

> Why wouldn't the President of the organization be allowed to look at its books?


This is a small excerpt from the original post......while I am not a member of the NAA, nor do I know that ANY wrongdoings have occured, I can address this question...

I looked on the NAA website, and found out that the NAA is indeed a non-profit organization operating under a 501(c)(3) code with the IRS.

That means that ANY dues paying member may make an appointment to review the most current financial statements available at the legal headquarters of the entity involved. It also means that ANY dues paying member may request in writing that a copy of the same financial statements be sent to them. The 501(c)(3) entity must comply with said written request within 30 days of receipt of the request, and the entity may charge a nominal fee for copies and postage.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Chris, 

I've been sitting by watching the commotions, simply left shaking my head. I'm a very interested in the health of the NAA as it was designed and intended, and I have been quite concerned over the actions and quietness of the NAA as of late.

I have to agree that these, and probably more answers need to be addressed immediately by the NAA. It would probably be prudent to give them some time to formulate a response, which would most likely be a week or so after Nationals at the earliest......a month late for these answers (if not more) unfortunately.

No one wants to call out anyone, but there comes a point that the kid gloves need to come off, and the hard questions need to be asked and answered, and corrections need made.....no matter how painfull. 

Bring this letter to the membership meeting posted earlier. It needs publicly addressed.


----------



## flntknp17 (Mar 12, 2004)

Chris, you just outlined seven of the reasons that despite being a freakcurver most of my life I have never become a member of the NAA. I have been an NFAA member instead and I (as well as many other NFAA folks) have always felt that the NAA was an elitist club. There was always a cloak of secrecy around the NAA and I was never able to get any real info on it. 

I sincerely hope that the end result of this (as well as a big shake up for positive reasons at the NFAA) will be a united archery association for the USA.........why can't we all shoot under the same roof? Lets hope it all ends well.

Matt


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

It might be an idea to begin collecting signatures for that letter to demonstrate how widespread those concerns are among the membership.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

It seems that we are at a monumnetal apex in the history of the NAA (and the NFAA). NOW is the time to turn this around for the good for all concerned. Chris, I'm with you on this.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

Chris, Great topics, I forwarded this to Brad Camp. After speaking to him in person today he told me he has prepared a statement to be released regarding each of your questions. He told me he is awaiting board approval and then would send it to me to post. Glad to see is is willing to work on the transparency problem.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

BHNTR1 said:


> Chris, Great topics, I forwarded this to Brad Camp. After speaking to him in person today he told me he has prepared a statement to be released regarding each of your questions. He told me he is awaiting board approval and then would send it to me to post. Glad to see is is willing to work on the transparency problem.


I am real interested in the ByLaws answer specially when it takes a vote of the membership to change them.


----------



## Lloyd (Aug 30, 2004)

Archerone said:


> I am real interested in the ByLaws answer specially when it takes a vote of the membership to change them.


Get the facts right, or read again:

Section 11.8 Amendments. Subject to repeal or change by action of the members, the power to alter, amend or repeal these Bylaws and adopt new Bylaws shall be vested in the Board of Governors, provided, however, that (i) any such action by the Board of Governors shall require an affirmative vote of two thirds of the votes cast and (ii) no change to these Bylaws shall eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member, unless such change is adopted by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of such class. An effort to repeal an action of the Board of Governors by the members may take place only at the annual members meeting, and can occur only upon approval by no less than two-thirds of the members present in person or by proxy.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Lloyd, thanks for posting.

Where can we find these bylaws?


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Lloyd said:


> Get the facts right, or read again:
> 
> Section 11.8 Amendments. Subject to repeal or change by action of the members, the power to alter, amend or repeal these Bylaws and adopt new Bylaws shall be vested in the Board of Governors, provided, however, that (i) any such action by the Board of Governors shall require an affirmative vote of two thirds of the votes cast and (ii) no change to these Bylaws shall eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member, unless such change is adopted by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of such class. An effort to repeal an action of the Board of Governors by the members may take place only at the annual members meeting, and can occur only upon approval by no less than two-thirds of the members present in person or by proxy.


Lloyd,

I stand by what I said. There has been an anouncement of ByLaw changes but no mention of an affirmative vote of two thirds of the membership to make them stand. The quiet way it is being done is so to take advantage of the short time the membership has to learn about it. Small turn-out at the Nationals/annual members meeting makes voting the change easy. It is an old political trick. Sad to say it usually works.


----------



## BAF (Aug 31, 2006)

Don't stop reading Section 11.8 after "...with the Board of Governors". It follows that "...*(ii) no change to these Bylaws shall eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member, unless such change is adopted by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members.." * It seems pretty plain to me that the new classes for voting members, indeed limits the rights of a significant number of members. Under the new by-laws, the rank and file member will be represented by only one board member, whereas in the past, this class voted for 8 board members- two from each region. I do not see how this can be interpreted to not limit a class of voting members.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

BAF said:


> Don't stop reading Section 11.8 after "...with the Board of Governors". It follows that "...*(ii) no change to these Bylaws shall eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member, unless such change is adopted by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members.." * It seems pretty plain to me that the new classes for voting members, indeed limits the rights of a significant number of members. Under the new by-laws, the rank and file member will be represented by only one board member, whereas in the past, this class voted for 8 board members- two from each region. I do not see how this can be interpreted to not limit a class of voting members.


Very good point! It is a legality point which probably will not get challenged.


----------



## Lloyd (Aug 30, 2004)

The new and old bylaws are on the NAA Web page at www.usarchery.org.

New: http://www.usarchery.org/files/USAA_Bylaws_5-14-07.pdf
From the Homepage click on "About USA Archery"

Old: http://www.usarchery.org/files/naa_bylaws.pdf
From the Homepage click on "Rules and Regulations"

The new bylaws did not "eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member" so did not require a vote of the membership. 

The bylaws were developed along the guidelines of the USOC but were initiated prior to the USOC mandate. The bylaws were posted on the web page for member review and comment. Most suggestions were taken, including the addition of the "At Large" Board seat for members not belonging to another class. The Board then approved the bylaws. Since then, the board has amended the bylaws twice. The first time was to remove the voting rights of the remaining 4 Board members as required by the USOC in their letter. Recently they were amended to change the timeline for a later vote at the request of the Nominating and Governance Committee.

I am only stating the facts here as I feel I am entitled to do as a Board member. I have so much more to say, but I'll keep my opinions to myself for now. I hope that keeps me out of trouble. I'll wait to see Brad's response to the letter.


----------



## SpaceMan (Mar 6, 2007)

Recordkeeper said:


> Lloyd, thanks for posting.
> 
> Where can we find these bylaws?


You can get to the new bylaws by going onto the USArchery site and going to the "About USA Archery" page. Here you will find a link to the new bylaws.

There's a little slight of hand because they are dated as December of last year although they include amendments passed in May that are intended to take effect in August.

Also cast your eyes on Section 7.5.1. Replace the names there with any ethnic group and you will see how totally overreaching the new provisions are.


----------



## Sky Warrior (Dec 12, 2004)

*There once was an NAA till the bad wolf ...*

I wish the NAA well. Things like this is why I switch to the NFAA this year. The NAA may soon be a very small organization. In my mind it will take a lot to turn this train around and right now it headed for empty tracks. Good luck RK and Jane, if your not successful can you please turn off the lights.:wink:


----------



## bsu_beginner (Feb 14, 2005)

Whatever happened to the days of "just lettem shoot?" :darkbeer:. why does it have to get so political?


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

bsu_beginner said:


> Whatever happened to the days of "just lettem shoot?" :darkbeer:. why does it have to get so political?


Any time there is money involved...


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

oldreliable67 said:


> Any time there is money involved...


... and power!


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

:thumbetails regarding the Nominating Committee and the nomination process are now posted on the USArchery website:

http://usarchery.org/html/NominatingGovernance.html


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

Recordkeeper said:


> :thumbetails regarding the Nominating Committee and the nomination process are now posted on the USArchery website:
> 
> http://usarchery.org/html/NominatingGovernance.html




Good to see some info is finally starting to flow!!!!!


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

Recordkeeper said:


> :thumbetails regarding the Nominating Committee and the nomination process are now posted on the USArchery website:
> 
> http://usarchery.org/html/NominatingGovernance.html


Nothing like having to restart, eh RK?:sad:


----------



## azarcherymom (Jul 13, 2004)

These are good people on the nominating committee. I hope good things come from this and we can all move forward.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> ... and power!


Huh? 

John.


----------



## AKDoug (Aug 27, 2003)

> Huh?


Not real power, John. Just perceived. Don't believe it? Try changing an NFAA state or sectional director. Some of these guys hold on like they think they are the President of the United States. It's amazing sometimes.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

The NAA has provided a formal response to my letter, and it is here for anyone that wishes to read it:

http://www.usarchery.org/files/NAA_Response_to_Membership_8-3-07.pdf

First, I want to thank Mr. Camp and the Executive Committee for formulating a response in such a prompt and informative manner.

That said, I do have a couple of suggestions/offers that the NAA, its Executive Committee, and Board of Governers may wish to consider:

1) I'm extending an invitation to utilize ArcheryTalk.com as a secondary communication tool in adition to www.usarchery.org. USArchery (its representatives, employees, committees, committee members, and board members) can establish their own username(s) and post here in the FITA Forum, 

2) The same individuals can send any desired communications through me and I will be happy to post them on ArcheryTalk.com for them, and/or

3) I may even be able to establish a specific subforum to this FITA forum (much like the FITA classified forum) that can be used specifically and only for communications from USArchery to its members.

If USArchery is interested, please let me know and let's see what we can work out. Information flow is the key to good relationships and fewer misunderstandings.

Sincerely,

Chris Olsen
ArcheryTalk.com Administrator


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> The NAA has provided a formal response to my letter, and it is here for anyone that wishes to read it:
> 
> http://www.usarchery.org/files/NAA_Response_to_Membership_8-3-07.pdf
> 
> ...



Excellent. Have you submitted this offer in writing as well? A formal yea or nay would be nice.

As Alice said "Curiouser and Curiouser".


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Chris,
I really wonder if the removal of Lloyd was part of the standard unspoken secrecy code about not speaking out about problems within the NAA.



> Mr. Brown was removed from his position for communication and misrepresentation issues. His removal had nothing to do with the association books.


I have always liked Lloyd and he was one of the first NAA persons that helped me/Angela through the first rough years of dealing with the NAA bureaucracy. I have not always agreed with him but appreciated his point of view. I feel he has done archery and our youth a great service through the years.



> The NAA does not operate in secrecy. We are constantly moving to a more transparent
> organization. There are mechanisms in place that will allow more open and frequent
> communication with the different groups within our membership. We encourage the
> membership to speak directly to your representative of the board if you have any questions.


That statement does not help in making this letter creditable. Too much history of it.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Archerone said:


> Chris,
> I really wonder if the removal of Lloyd was part of the standard unspoken secrecy code about not speaking out about problems within the NAA.
> 
> 
> ...


I wondered about that too, Archerone. That particular part of the responses to my letter was vague and incomplete at best.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> Excellent. Have you submitted this offer in writing as well? A formal yea or nay would be nice.
> 
> As Alice said "Curiouser and Curiouser".


I have submitted this. But the venue of communication that I have chosen is indeed ArcheryTalk.com. I believe this is the most powerful archery related communication tool available. My bet is the NAA will see it.:wink:

I actually have a subforum set up and ready to activate. I'm thinking about how to moderate it, and whether to make it a realtime live forum or a forum where the moderator has the ability to approve posts before they become visible. I want to think this through carefully to make it an effective communication tool rather than a place for bashing. I think that would be very discouraging and counterproductive. I'm willing to work with the NAA to establish an effective line for communication via ArcheryTalk.com. 

If this works out, we can look into establishing similar subforums for other national level not for profit archery related organizations. This is just in the thinking pot stage right now though.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> I wondered about that too, Archerone. That particular part of the responses to my letter was vague and incomplete at best.


Now I get it! NAA responses now will be transparent/incomplete to us all!:wink:


----------



## FLarcherymom (Jun 10, 2007)

Recordkeeper said:


> I want to think this through carefully to make it an effective communication tool rather than a place for bashing. I think that would be very discouraging and counterproductive.


I agree with your mind set here. We don't need another NAA bashing forum.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

Archerone said:


> Now I get it! NAA responses now will be transparent/incomplete to us all!:wink:





I truly doubt that this is how it will be, Transparent has a totally different meaning when used in the context and described!!! :wink:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> I have submitted this. But the venue of communication that I have chosen is indeed ArcheryTalk.com. I believe this is the most powerful archery related communication tool available. My bet is the NAA will see it.:wink:
> 
> I actually have a subforum set up and ready to activate. I'm thinking about how to moderate it, and whether to make it a realtime live forum or a forum where the moderator has the ability to approve posts before they become visible. I want to think this through carefully to make it an effective communication tool rather than a place for bashing. I think that would be very discouraging and counterproductive. I'm willing to work with the NAA to establish an effective line for communication via ArcheryTalk.com.
> 
> If this works out, we can look into establishing similar subforums for other national level not for profit archery related organizations. This is just in the thinking pot stage right now though.


I think I would follow up with hardcopy and have a couriers sig, for my own reference but thats just me.

The moderation issue will be a critical negotiation point I believe. But it is just that, a negotiation point. Perhaps a shared moderation schedule with NAA having a right to remove or veto a post could work. A brief post with a reason for removal of a post may prove usefull as well in that particular type of forum. As well, a few of the "rules of warefare) may require modification or abrogation entirely. Entered into with an attitude of co operation between both parties this could be a forcefull and informative venue.


Now, how do we keep bowhunters from posting classifieds there?


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

The NAA has a website and, if it chooses at anytime, can give information on weekly progress and upcoming issues they are addressing. Damage control is not progress and vague statements like politicians dancing around a issue keeps us from trusting their output.


----------



## FLarcherymom (Jun 10, 2007)

Hutnicks said:


> I think I would follow up with hardcopy and have a couriers sig


RK: Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't your open letter to the NAA only posted on this forum and never sent in hardcopy to the NAA? If that is the case, why would you do anything but the same here?


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

FLAMom,, RK and I have had several discussions regarding many of the issues with the NAA and the current embezzlement issue. These talks led me to a face to face meeting with Brad Camp this past week. It was at that time I made him aware of this letter and forwarded it to him via email.


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

I see Brad Camp's response to that letter as; business as usual. 

The NAA has always operated under a cloak of inaccessibility and secretcy toward the very membership that they are supposed to serve. 
They have always behaved as though they only serve the most elite of the elite athletes. 

The shame of the whole thing is it is impossible to know how many valuable members they have discouraged or downright pushed away, people that had talent, and a passion to be a part of what should have been a once in a lifetime opportunity. People that had ideas and the talent and ability to have contributed not only to the NAA to make it a better organization, but to help fulfill our Olympic dream. 

The general membership has never allowed any accessibility or insight into the workings of the organization, the NAA has in the past been aloof and distant, and by the tone of Brad Camp's letter, remains so today, to everyone except those that are the same familiar circle of cronies. This has been so since I can remember. 

The very idea that the NAA agreed to farm out programs that had the potential to help them to raise funds, and should have been the tool to raise the bar on the manner and methods that they utilize to recruit and train coaches, along with the only real resource of youth they had...should really make one wonder... they should have taken some of our money and developed these programs themselves... 

Then to add insult to injury; we now learn that while they were raising our membership dues and tournament entry fees; (reflecting some pretty health increases,,,I might add, thus making it very difficult for families to afford to become a member and participate in the NAA organization and activities... (especially struggling families) some of them were actually skimming that money for their own use???? Come on!

How sad for all of us, especially the NAA.

As the Executive Director, isn't Brad Camp; like any other Executive Director in charge of any large organization, I would think he is ultimately as responsible as the lady accused of taking *our * (not their!!!!!!) money, and should be held accountable as well.

Quote:
The NAA does not operate in secrecy. We are constantly moving to a more transparent
organization. There are mechanisms in place that will allow more open and frequent
communication with the different groups within our membership. We encourage the
membership to speak directly to your representative of the board if you have any questions 

To Brad Camp, In view of all that is happening, and has happened, your comment is an insult, sir. The members deserve a clearer more honest explaination than a vague reference of a "mechanism is in place". What is this mechanism... exactly how will it work?

That answer was the same tired old answer we have been subjected to from the NAA, for just about ever...... it is still about as clear as mud.....The time has passed that you can effectively pass the buck with the same ole statement directing us to "our represenative of the board". 

IF???? we have questions? We _*do*_ have many questions, and you owe to us as the Executive Director of OUR organization to answer them in a timely manner and freely with the truth.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

gonehuntin said:


> They have always behaved as though they only serve the most elite of the elite athletes.


That is the reason I have not been a member of the NAA for the last four years. I was a member prior to that for twenty years.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

I think that it is time that the membership posting here starts to define "Transparency".

I am quite interested in hearing in definite terms exactly how the org should conduct business and disseminate information in a manner which is deemed acceptable to the membership.


----------



## BILL B (Jun 21, 2003)

> Originally Posted by gonehuntin
> They have always behaved as though they only serve the most elite of the elite athletes


. 

If you received 75+ % of your funds from the USOC to support only these athletes, how would you delegate your time and efforts?


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

BILL B said:


> .
> 
> If you received 75+ % of your funds from the USOC to support only these athletes, how would you delegate your time and efforts?


This is a fair question....definately one that the NAA should have asked. We should open the lines of communication with our membership to include all athletes, and coaches out there,,,,,,to invite them to assist in exploring, and developing the ideas that so the people have. Talented people that have been available to them over the years that have come up with ideas to generate fund raising, develop recruitment of potential elite athlete programs, procure additional outside support, etc. Instead, they have closed ranks, which has created and promoted an "us against them" attitude toward the very resources that is their most valuable asset. Hard to get and keep good help like that!

It is reasonable to expect that we must honor the desires and wishes of the USOC and anyone else that oversees and provides so much major support to us... but, I bet that the USOC has never dictated to the NAA that they must remain unaccessible to the general population, to work only from within. I don't think for a moment that the USOC has mandated that NAA only is allowed to focus on the uppermost level of the elite... they are obviously concerned that we haven't developed a solid system to draw from for our future elite athletes and coaches, or the educational system we need in order to find and develop them. The fact that the best we could do was to go outside our own country, and spend so much money to acquire someone else to come in and try to show us how to define a program, for not only our athletes, but our entire teaching system, really is pitiful... what HAVE we been doing for the last decade... ? Doesn't look like much to me... what are we doing to make a positive change? 

Dishonoring the only coach that brough home gold for us in the last decade, in such a public way... (shameful, how embarassing for us as a country)...making it virtually impossible for him and all the many other excellent American coaches to have any constructive imput or activity into the development of our programs... then justifying this unacceptable public display by blaming others for the problems. I don't think this is the way the USOC has ruled we should behave as NGB.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

The NAA has evolved into an archery subsidiary of the USOC. It is run like an independent business or somewhat like government agency. The members are like shareholders waiting for news from the company about their investment. Shareholders are only notified about major changes to their investment. The shareholders do not have rights to know about day to day operations or are they involved in future direction. Not to say that the company does not use committees to further its' input to its shareholders while the company does what it wants. This way there will be always be a few that agree that the committee was responsible for the direction the company uses based upon the committee's decisions. 
Now I will go to the subsidiaries of the NAA( Judges, JOAD, Coaches, Etc.). They are run better than the company because they show results. They are free to communicate with each other within their group as long as they just deal with their missions. Parent Company business discussion is held to the minimum. It is not good to go off track. 
The Company wants input/output from each subsidiary. That is how they base their progress to the Master corporation(USOC). Each Subsidiary has a Spoke person with a place of importance in the Company. The Company wants to keep privacy over it's business so they aways keep a gag order and personnel screening in their ByLaws over each Subsidiary Spoke person. Shareholders have rights but are limited to annual meetings, as per ByLaws, which are always located inconveniently to the majority. Only active members that travel to that location can vote in these meetings. 

The NAA can not grow with all the controls it has in place. The ByLaws need to be sent out for discussion to each State. The NAA membership needs to give input into these ByLaws and make changes that benefit the voting rights and open discussion of the overall membership. The overall membership needs to vote on them.

The USOC chases away independent sponsors with their National contracts. I found a National sponsor in the past but NAA /USOC conditions drove them away. The NAA needs to look hard on how to get Sponsors to wean itself from the USOC total control.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

gonehuntin said:


> This is a fair question....definately one that the NAA should have asked. We should open the lines of communication with our membership to include all athletes, and coaches out there,,,,,,to invite them to assist in exploring, and developing the ideas that so the people have. Talented people that have been available to them over the years that have come up with ideas to generate fund raising, develop recruitment of potential elite athlete programs, procure additional outside support, etc. Instead, they have closed ranks, which has created and promoted an "us against them" attitude toward the very resources that is their most valuable asset. Hard to get and keep good help like that!
> 
> It is reasonable to expect that we must honor the desires and wishes of the USOC and anyone else that oversees and provides so much major support to us... but, I bet that the USOC has never dictated to the NAA that they must remain unaccessible to the general population, to work only from within. I don't think for a moment that the USOC has mandated that NAA only is allowed to focus on the uppermost level of the elite... they are obviously concerned that we haven't developed a solid system to draw from for our future elite athletes and coaches, or the educational system we need in order to find and develop them. *The fact that the best we could do was to go outside our own country, and spend so much money to acquire someone else to come in and try to show us how to define a program, for not only our athletes, but our entire teaching system, really is pitiful... what HAVE we been doing for the last decade... ? Doesn't look like much to me... what are we doing to make a positive change?
> 
> Dishonoring the only coach that brough home gold for us in the last decade, in such a public way... (shameful, how embarassing for us as a country)...making it virtually impossible for him and all the many other excellent American coaches to have any constructive imput or activity into the development of our programs... then justifying this unacceptable public display by blaming others for the problems. I don't think this is the way the USOC has ruled we should behave as NGB.*


*

*


Post of the decade there, thank you.


----------



## Chris Glass (Aug 3, 2002)

I believe the NAA has posted a response to Record Keepers letter to Brad Camp. You can see it at usarchery.org


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Chris Glass said:


> I believe the NAA has posted a response to Record Keepers letter to Brad Camp. You can see it at usarchery.org


Post #28 announced that fact already. But thanks anyway for reminding us.:icon_1_lol:


----------



## Bill Reeb (Aug 6, 2007)

has anyone at nationals gotten any feed back?


----------



## ArchUSA (Mar 12, 2003)

I can't argue with anything you said. I do, however, want to clarify some stuff from my view as a prior member of the board because I do believe the NAA tries its best to be as transparent as it can be. Now, that might sound like more politics; but it's true. There are many things that occur day-to-day in any organization (or business) that the general membership need not be made aware of lest some members try to micro manage the organization. It's like a tournament, and I speak from experience of having run the Indoor Nationals in Andover for eight years and one Outdoor JOAD Nationals, many problems pop up behind the scenes but you handle them as quickly and efficiently as possible, and never let them influence the athletes. From the front it seems like the tournament ran smoothly. That being said, the office can only do so much. The true face of the NAA (and the problem) is the elected regional representatives and the committee chairs and it's members, and here is where the system begins to fail. With a few exceptions, our elected representatives only act as such when the board meets twice a year. Trying to get a return call or email any other time is like "pulling teeth". We never hear from committee chairs and/or their regional representatives either. Wouldn't it be nice if your regional JOAD rep contacted all the clubs in your area and offered assistance in training on how to grow your club, or even asked for suggestions (paying a visit to the area once a year would of course be asking too much)? How about the membership director calling the members at random to inquire how the NAA could better serve them and their family? I could go on and on with examples. As the first (and short lived) director of membership and resource development (the original name of the committee), I was told by our then Presdent that you could not resonably expect that kind of effort out of a volunteer network or require state associations to do things like progress reports, hold tournaments, or even require loyality to the NAA. When I disagreed with him, I was canned for "not being a team player". The attitude continues today, and has gotten worse. According to my sources, JOAD's new Star program was still being evualated by the committee when Lloyd gave the contract to NADA. This caused a lot of tension. How about asking the member clubs if they would like a change? Sorry, that would entail a certain degree of effort from the regional representative that cannot be expected. Or how about a senior officer of the NAA going to an event on NAA funding but representing equipment manufacture(s) once he got there? That's a good one! He didn't even wear an NAA pin at least. Or, how about going to Germany on an NAA ticket representing Archery Focus without the NAA being reimbursed by Archery Focus for that ticket (the ticket was purchased in his name earlier when he was an officer of the NAA).
Farming out the management of the JOAD program means that the committee has reduced authority (if any) over the program. Lloyd gave it away for a piece of the pie. Our NAA Level 1 & 2 instructor program no longer belongs to us. The manual has been changed so much that I doubt our copyright would be enforceable if push come to shove. I'm so glad the NADA has to hire more employees because their growing (using our materials and smart business planning - things the NAA should have had the foresight to do) so quickly.
So now, under this new arrangement with the USOC, we are going to give direct control of the Board to those very committees because only the members of group can vote within their group, and if you belong to more than one, you have to choose your loyality. How stupid can we be.


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

*Thank you so much*



ArchUSA said:


> I can't argue with anything you said. I do, however, want to clarify some stuff from my view as a prior member of the board because I do believe the NAA tries its best to be as transparent as it can be. Now, that might sound like more politics; but it's true. There are many things that occur day-to-day in any organization (or business) that the general membership need not be made aware of lest some members try to micro manage the organization. It's like a tournament, and I speak from experience of having run the Indoor Nationals in Andover for eight years and one Outdoor JOAD Nationals, many problems pop up behind the scenes but you handle them as quickly and efficiently as possible, and never let them influence the athletes. From the front it seems like the tournament ran smoothly. That being said, the office can only do so much. The true face of the NAA (and the problem) is the elected regional representatives and the committee chairs and it's members, and here is where the system begins to fail. With a few exceptions, our elected representatives only act as such when the board meets twice a year. Trying to get a return call or email any other time is like "pulling teeth". We never hear from committee chairs and/or their regional representatives either. Wouldn't it be nice if your regional JOAD rep contacted all the clubs in your area and offered assistance in training on how to grow your club, or even asked for suggestions (paying a visit to the area once a year would of course be asking too much)? How about the membership director calling the members at random to inquire how the NAA could better serve them and their family? I could go on and on with examples. As the first (and short lived) director of membership and resource development (the original name of the committee), I was told by our then Presdent that you could not resonably expect that kind of effort out of a volunteer network or require state associations to do things like progress reports, hold tournaments, or even require loyality to the NAA. When I disagreed with him, I was canned for "not being a team player". The attitude continues today, and has gotten worse. According to my sources, JOAD's new Star program was still being evualated by the committee when Lloyd gave the contract to NADA. This caused a lot of tension. How about asking the member clubs if they would like a change? Sorry, that would entail a certain degree of effort from the regional representative that cannot be expected. Or how about a senior officer of the NAA going to an event on NAA funding but representing equipment manufacture(s) once he got there? That's a good one! He didn't even wear an NAA pin at least. Or, how about going to Germany on an NAA ticket representing Archery Focus without the NAA being reimbursed by Archery Focus for that ticket (the ticket was purchased in his name earlier when he was an officer of the NAA).
> Farming out the management of the JOAD program means that the committee has reduced authority (if any) over the program. Lloyd gave it away for a piece of the pie. Our NAA Level 1 & 2 instructor program no longer belongs to us. The manual has been changed so much that I doubt our copyright would be enforceable if push come to shove. I'm so glad the NADA has to hire more employees because their growing (using our materials and smart business planning - things the NAA should have had the foresight to do) so quickly.
> So now, under this new arrangement with the USOC, we are going to give direct control of the Board to those very committees because only the members of group can vote within their group, and if you belong to more than one, you have to choose your loyality. How stupid can we be.



This is like a breath of fresh air... how nice to hear some common sense and logic. 

I don't believe that any company,group, or organization should have the power to make changes to policy or format without assuring that the membership has been advised well in advance as to what is being proposed, and have the opportunity to vote on each important change. 

These outdated, tired committees (and sooooooo many of them) that continue to maintain decision making powers without public knowledge and imput not to even mention accountability......until well after the fact should be replaced by a system (especially in this day and age of modern communication capabilities) that can access the membership quickly to gain insight, wishes and advise on matters that affect us all. 

I agree that we have to run the organization without day to day interference (even tho well meaning). That doesn't mean that we need to carry that over to the extreme of not having accessibility to our board members and our reps. when ever we need to.... if they can't or won't be an accessible to the membership they represent, then they should be replaced with someone that will... if we did a real poll of our members, I am betting we would have no trouble finding many competent members that would love to offer their time and effort to creating a new NAA image. On a volunteer bases, as needed. 

The NAA needs to retake control over the Level 1 & 2 certification program and restructure it to reflect modern teaching techinques and coaching theories that come from appropriate accredited educational sources, along with as experienced archery educators.

I don't know how many of you have seen the new Level 1 & 2 material and tests... but, it is gonna be interesting to see how that plays out.

There should never be a change in our teaching format, theories and materials that hasn't been overseen and approved by specific representation that covers all disiplines, that representation really should come from properly educated, experienced coaches and again, accredited education sources. After all, this is OUR future we are diddling around with.


----------



## NADA (Sep 30, 2004)

Those of you who know me know that I don't post to this very often. That it exists is a fact of life. This thread has grown to be so horrible in it's mis-representations, bitterness and accusations that it's amazing it's being read by adults. 

Normally, I wouldn't care what you all say about each other, or about other archery organizations, but when NADA is brought up in such a mis-used and un-factual way by people using nothing more than screenames, I feel I must respond. Here is my response:

Whatever challenges USA Archey, or any organization for that matter, is facing right now have nothing to do with NADA. Likewise about any issues we have from time to time...no one's problem but ours. I respect USA Archery very much, as I do the other organizations. I count myself fortunate if I earn their respect in return.

Our organization has always represented itself as a neutral alliance of certified instructors and coaches who work for the betterment of those in the field. We do not involve ourselves in any way in the inner matters of any organization we work for or with. We work under the full authority of the partner organization, and regularly communicate back and forth to insure their needs are met. These agreements are publicly stated, and often come after extensive review and comment.

Since we are a public charity, our tax returns are available for public viewing on any number of websites. These returns clearly state what we earn and what we spend. If you have any questions about this organization, I suggest you contact us for direct information, and if you need verification as to what we tell you, then direct your questions to an official of any of the other organizations who has direct knowledge of what we are doing.

In terms of this previous post: NADA was approached by members of the JOAD Committee last summer, as has been publicly stated before, about assisting in the marketing and daily fulfillment of certain limited JOAD services. I put together a proposal, with input from the JOAD Committee, and presented it in person to the USA Archery Board of Governers last October for consideration and discussion. Mr. Brown did not partipate in the discussion, nor in the voting, even though he has no actual conflict of interest. The contract Mr. Camp signed was read and agreed upon by Neal Foster and Guy Gerig who were assigned by the BOG as our overall supervisors. 

Mr. Brown is not on the NADA Board of Directors, and his influence upon NADA is the same as any other coach we work with. 

Currently, we pay for and manage the JOAD section of the USA Archery website, we publish and distribute promotional materials, we fullfill orders for Stars pins as well as the cloth patches we were sent, and we process some of the club sign-ups for the full club and some of the camp clubs. We maintain a seperate phone line for this, and answer the phone "USA Archery JOAD", as per the agreement with the BOG (try it sometime). We maintain JOAD billing, email addresses, and mailing labels...all to protect the interests of USA Archery. We work under the supervison and authority of the USA Archery BOG who have assigned a staff member to act as our laison. I attended the JOAD Nationals to answer questions and find out how we could best serve. My display table had nothing but USA Archery materials on it.

Contrary to the previous post, we did not hire additonal staff because of JOAD, and have not syphoned off any of the profits or copyrights that belong to USA Archery. When you take into account the expenses and the labor that USA Archery would have to devote anyway, I feel we have provided them the best service we can, while protecting their rights, authority, name recognition, and profitability. 

Also contrary to the previous post, the Stars Pin program had already been voted on and approved several times by the JOAD Committee and the BOG long before we submitted our proposal. 

USA Archery hasn't conducted Level 1 Basic courses for many many years. Prior to NADA being formed 7 years ago, Easton Sports Development Foundation conducted the courses for the previous 15 years. Back then, it was a financial break-even for USA Archery, and since NADA has conducted the program, USA Archery enjoys a healthy profit. Regarding Level 2 Intermediate, NADA has facilitated this for the past 7 years, and requires a membership of either NFAA or USA Archery before we send out credentials. Those of you who work with us as instructor trainers know how dilligent we are in our requirements, per the requirements we ourselves have gotten from both USA Archery and NFAA. We routinely send both organizations the databases of new instructors, and make suggestions on how they can market to these people. The new materials are a real departure from the older ones, in that they reflect teaching new archers the BEST method. If you ever see one of these manuals, you will plainly see the copyright information inside the front cover. The only part that is NADA's is the "Drills & Skill" section that was reviewed and approved by your National Coach and adopted by the BOG. Here, we have managed to link both organizations in recognizing a common certification once the membership requirement is fullfilled. I applaud both organizations for agreeing to this since it makes it much easier for the recreation agencies and the coaches who teach the classes. I also thank Easton Sports Develpment Foundation II which paid for the printing of the new materials.

The previous poster mentioned Mr. Brown has somehow gotten a "piece of the pie"---I fail to see how. It's true that when we want something done, we tend to pay for it. It's called "work for hire," and Mr. Brown has indeed been hired on several occasions--but be very careful about singling any one coach out for uncalled-for criticism. At last count, NADA has "hired" over 25 other coaches from time to time, to do everything from creating curriculum, magazine articles, attending trade shows, conducting NASP pilots, conducting youth specialty camps and corporate teambuildng events, creating website content...you name it, we need it. These coaches are sent 1099 forms at the end of the year like any other contractor. Those of you who are NADA members often get press releases from our office announcing our needs, and the ability to earn some money doing them...no secret.

As of today, NADA has 541 dues-paying members. We serve the teaching needs of any coach, however, whether they are NADA members or not. Since we are neutral, we accept members who are already certified instructors of USA Archery, NFAA, 4-H, and NASP. If you feel we have somehow been overly successful, it's due to the efforts of these coaches...all we do here is answer the phone and provide what they need to do what they do for the organizations for which they do it. Also, if you think we have been unduly successful, I challenge any of you to come to the office on temporary duty and go through what the staff goes through on a daily basis--recruiting host sites, tracking down information, arrangement of resources, tracking down people, researching future growth, entering in countless databases, etc. The NADA staff works hard and gets paid little.

On the plus side, the course instructors have completed another successful summer camp training season, and we in the middle of our summer Air Force specialty camp season. A complete run-down of NADA activities are posted using our traditional communication methods.

As I've said before, you are free to contact me directly if you have questions or want to help. If you feel I have not been forthcoming, or have given unaccurate information, you can contact me at the below phone number or email address and I will respond, since I do not frequent this discussion forum.

Best Regards,
Doug Engh, NADA
doughengh at teacharchery dot org
(352) 472-2388


----------



## CloverArchery (Dec 28, 2006)

Howdy Eveyone,


For those of you who were not at the NAA Nationals in Colorado Springs and did not attend the meeting are now left in the dark.


Several of the above questions were asked and answered in this meeting held at the OTC in Colorado Springs.


As to the financial health of the NAA the reports are being prepared and will be available for all to view ASAP. They were unable to print out a report as done in years past to pass out at the meeting due to a new financial accountant that is still reviewing the books. The statment prepared stated that the NAA would break even and possibly make a small profit for this coming year.


A small statement was made by Brad Camp regarding the recent alleged (innocent until proven guilty) theft of funds from the NAA's past financial director. The NAA's present attorney has advised the NAA Board of Directors to not speak to much into depth on this until the Criminal Case goes to court in September. After the case goes to court the NAA will determine whether Civil charges will be brought against the individual. There was a lot of unrest and I can assure you that the board did hear an earfull from several of the members that were there.


In regards to Lloyd being removed as President of the NAA BOD, a simple answer was given that he was not satisfactorily completing the requirements of this position. Details were not given in this circumstance either.


The situation with NADA was addressed and NADA is only there to offer assistance with the JOAD programs. They have not taken over this program.


A vote was taken on the change of the bylaws at the meeting. It was approved by 2/3rds majority to keep the voting rights of the four representatives along with the 20% athlete representation. In my opinion this is not going to make the USOC very happy and I am concerned with them withdrawing funding from the teams outside of Olympic years.


There are still many more questions to be asked and many to be answered, Due to the heated debates that were going on, the meeting was set to rest and I can only assume will be continued at a later date. I hope that that information I have provided can help.


It was made quite clear by Neil and Brad Camp that if you have any questions regarding the NAA and any positions about anything you should send an e-mail to your regional rep. Reminder that two reps have resigned and they are looking for replacements at this time. You can find all contact information located on the NAA website. If you have any complaints take it there first... If they do not receive anything from you then you are wasting your time complaining on here about it.

CloverArchery


----------



## FLarcherymom (Jun 10, 2007)

CloverArchery said:


> A vote was taken on the change of the bylaws at the meeting. It was approved by 2/3rds majority to keep the voting rights of the four representatives along with the 20% athlete representation. In my opinion this is not going to make the USOC very happy and I am concerned with them withdrawing funding from the teams outside of Olympic years.
> CloverArchery


The vote was not to approve the amendment and thus the amendment did not pass thus we are in complete compliance with the USOC. Therefore there is no threat to funding from the USOC.


----------



## CloverArchery (Dec 28, 2006)

FLarcherymom said:


> The vote was not to approve the amendment and thus the amendment did not pass thus we are in complete compliance with the USOC. Therefore there is no threat to funding from the USOC.


Thank you. I stand corrected


----------

