by Amanda Suffecool is now the chair of the NRA’s Special Committee on Reorganization and Leadership. As I noted in my report on the NRA Winter Board Meeting, there was a great deal of discussion within that committee on finding the right size for the Board of Directors. There were quite a diversity of comments and suggestions. They ranged from leave it as is to set up a board of 12 paid managers.
Amanda has sent me an open letter that she requested I post which I was more than happy to do. The letter includes some of her thoughts on the matter. I am in full agreement that the Board needs to be a working board. There is no room for slackers who just want the title of being a director without putting in the work. The days of giving out honorific directorships similar to honorific doctorates awarded at university graduations are over.
More importantly, Amanda wants your thoughts on rightsizing the NRA Board of Directors. You can send your thoughts and ideas to her a couple of ways. First, she requested that you use eyeonthetargetradio@icloud.com if you want to use email. Second, there is good old USPS snail mail. The address there is PO Box 77, Wayland, Ohio 44285.
Her open letter in its entirety is below:
An Open Letter to Our Members 1/15/26
From the Chairman, Committee on Reorganization and Leadership
Dear NRA Members,
The Committee on Reorganization and Leadership has been hard at work on several important initiatives—one of which concerns the composition of our Board. You may hear this referred to as board size, board reduction, or, less charitably, tossing the bums out. I prefer to call it right-sizing the Board—ensuring that it is structured appropriately for the work our organization must accomplish.
Many voices are calling to make the Board smaller. But before we decide that a smaller Board is the answer, we must ask the more important question: What problem are we trying to solve? Reducing the number of members may not be the root issue—it may be merely one proposed solution.
So, I ask you to think deeply and share your thoughts. What are the real concerns driving these calls for change? Is it cost? The potential for misuse of resources? Challenges in decision-making? Comparisons to other organizations? Identifying the true problem allows us to address it effectively and craft lasting solutions.
Here are some key issues I believe we need to acknowledge and tackle:
1. A Trust Problem
We have faced serious challenges that tested the very stability of our organization. At one point, we were just a few votes away from losing everything. The battles on the Board floor were intense and critical. As we now consider ideas like appointing board members instead of electing them, I urge caution. Ask yourselves—Who do we trust enough to make those appointments? At this time, I would argue the answer is, quite simply, no one.
2. An Attendance Problem
Too often, Board members have been elected and then disappeared—never showing up, never contributing. This is a working Board, and that means full participation. Members must be active in committees, attend meetings, understand the ongoing motions and votes, and be able to speak knowledgeably about the issues before us. We need engaged members who are present and committed.
3. An Attitude Problem
Some Board members have seen their role as one of directing others rather than doing the work themselves. That won’t do. This organization needs leaders who contribute—who lend their skills, their networks, and their energy. This is not a role for those who want to take; it’s for those who want to give.
The Committee on Reorganization and Leadership has already taken steps to address some of these issues:
- Attendance Accountability: We passed a resolution ensuring that attendance is now a key factor in the renomination process. Any member missing more than one-third of meetings in their three-year term will not be automatically reconsidered. They may still choose to run by petition, but effort will be required to retain their seat—a reminder that commitment matters.
- Committee Reporting and Performance: Each committee now operates under a multi-step reporting plan with defined goals, milestones, and measurable outcomes. Committees must clarify their mission, track progress, and report results to the Board. We’ve enlisted members with expertise in key performance indicators to help guide this process.
- Ongoing Reforms: We are developing further measures that define the responsibilities and expectations of all Board members to ensure that each plays an active role in the organization’s success.
But now, back to the central question—Board size. Before we can decide what the right number is, I need your help in understanding why you believe a smaller Board is better. I’ve heard many suggestions: smaller boards, appointed boards, boards limited to specific skill sets. These may all merit discussion—but please, let’s not start with the solution.
Help us start with the why.
With respect and appreciation,
Amanda Suffecool
Chairman, Committee on Reorganization and Leadership
Before you can decide how big the board should be, you need to decide what the board is supposed to do. Does every board member sit on a committee? Two committees? Three? How many committees are there and what does it take to run them? What is the time commitment for each committee assignment? Etc. Any number most people throw out will just be a random choice.
According to my most recent directory, there are 37 standing committees, 3 special committees, and the Nominating and Executive Committees.
I now sit on six committees: Executive Committee and Audit Committee which are elected by the BOD as a whole plus Hunting & Wildlife Conservation, Leg. Policy (and a subcommittee of it), and Membership which are appointed.
I think there are or were a total of 110 committee appointments by Bill Bachenberg. Some were on the Board and some were just interested members who brought a specific talent.
In terms of reducing committee numbers, many of the competition committees could be made part of an uber-comp committee and have subcommittees for all the specialties. Of course, I’m not a competitor with a dog in the fight.
What gripes me is that you had some board members who decided they didn’t want committee assignments. Excuse me? WTF? You were elected to work and not just so you could have a nice lapel pin!
I spent almost all of my career working for boards. I was either in the C-Suite or early on direct staff to people that were so I got a pretty intimate view of how they work. I worked for appointed boards, elected boards and self-perpetuating boards. There really is no difference in how they functioned- good, bad or neutral. They were of varying sizes too and again no difference. As a former boss was wont to say: “There are no bad boards, only bad staff.” This seems to be the NRA problem in a nutshell. The question I cannot answer from my experience is did the NRA board size or structure prevent them from dealing with the bad staff problem. Outside intervention in the NRA case actually helped to fix the problem, even though the intent was to destroy the organization. I have experienced outside intervention too where a board I was working for was abolished and recreated by statute with mostly new members and a new CEO. That led to a Golden Age for the organization. Here is hoping that can be true for the NRA. Alas the Golden Age didn’t last so the trick is making changes sustainable.