-=Continued from previous post=- 
Ms. Hammer's "Opposition Statement" disdainfully dismisses the key provi
sions of the member Bylaw -- requiring disclosure of potential conflicts 
of interest -- as "a smokescreen."  Directors who have "special relation
ships" with NRA don't want to talk about those relationships, which is 
precisely why the Bylaw is needed.
For instance, though I had been a Director and officer for some years, 
and was well aware that at least a portion of President Hammer's salary 
from Unified Sportsmen of Florida was paid from a grant from NRA-ILA, 
many Directors did not know.  I was shocked to learn only this year that 
the 1996 grant was for $130,000 -- reportedly half USF's total budget -- 
paid monthly, like a salary.
I was also astounded to learn only a couple of months ago that the 1997 
grant to Ms. Hammer's organization had been paid each month until the day 
before the Seattle annual meeting -- when an ILA check was cut for 
$70,000, the remainder of the year's grant. It was well known that some 
members and Directors had said they intended to raise questions about the 
propriety of that grant.  Did someone want it paid before the door 
slammed?
The existing Bylaw requiring Directors to report "business" dealings with 
NRA over $2,000 per year failed to inform me of those matters.  I learned 
about them only because then-Second Vice President Ross had demanded a 
copy of the 1996 NRA-ILA grant list from Treasurer Wilson Phillips and 
Director Cathy Gilronan got a peek at the 1997 payments  -- but wasn't 
allowed a copy.
Obviously, Ms. Hammer's Opposition Statement is wrong when it claims: 
"There is absolutely no evidence to indicate these current reporting 
requirements aren't working."  The fact that most Directors and members 
didn't know of that grant, much less the amount (which is many times the 
ongoing support for any other state), is evidence that more complete 
reporting is needed.
Further, I am aware of other significant grants to organ- izations di
rected by Board members which are not now reported but which could be 
construed as serious conflicts of interest.  Such grants might never 
influence a Director's vote, but complete reporting  would guarantee it.
Political commentator H.L. Mencken wrote:  "Corruption cannot flourish in 
the sunshine."  NRA could stand more sunshine; this proposed Bylaw would 
provide it.
Ms. Hammer's Opposition Statement attempts to divert attention from those 
critical reporting requirements by focusing most of its criticism on the 
proposed member Bylaw's prohibition against officers attempting to in
fluence the election process.
The reason for that provision is obvious:  When anyone becomes a Direc
tor, much less an officer, he or she necessarily gives up certain free
doms while assuming that greater responsibility. The volunteer officers 
have a duty to promote and preserve harmony and unity in the NRA.  Cam
paigning by the volunteer officers for one or more candidates, particu
larly negative campaigning such as we saw in the last election, will 
assure continued disharmony and disunity.
In addition, that provision of the proposed Bylaw prohibits campaigning 
for a slate of Directors by the employee officers. Under no circumstances 
do the paid officers have any business getting involved in the election 
of their bosses!
There must never again be a divisive advertisement such as the one in the 
last election issue featuring the NRA President, the Executive Vice 
President and Executive Director of ILA which urged members to "Vote 
Against" the two Vice Presidents, the Chairman of the Finance Committee 
and all that committee's incumbent members. That disgraceful ad appeared 
not only in NRA publications but elsewhere in the gun press, bringing the 
NRA public ridicule.
Ms. Hammer's Opposition Statement makes absolutely no mention of another 
major feature of the proposed Financial Disclosure/Good Conduct Bylaw: 
The prohibition against NRA vendors and contractors participating or 
interfering in NRA internal elections that may determine whether they 
continue to feed at the NRA trough.
At least three present NRA contractors and their employees -- who are 
paid millions of dollars per year by NRA -- were directly involved in 
planning, preparing and funding campaign materials used to elect support
ers of the present management and officers.  That included the scurrilous 
anonymous mailings sent to thousands of NRA members, using supposedly 
secret NRA mailing lists.  (Some were sent with NRA member's money from 
NRA Headquarters postage meter No. 7016235).
Of all the distortions and evasions in Ms. Hammer's Opposition Statement, 
the most outrageous is the first argument, claiming "a small group of 
dissidents led by Neal Knox, Albert Ross and Ronin Colman tried a hostile 
takeover of NRA.  They tried to fire Wayne LaPierre, Marion Hammer, Tanya 
Metaksa, Jim Land, Craig Sandler..."
That is a lie.
Then-Vice President Ross, Colman and I had talked separately to EVP Wayne 
LaPierre about moving into a position where he did not control NRA's 
finances -- which were sinking precipitously and which were resuscitated 
only because of a "fire sale" of Life and contributory memberships.  
(Those $750 Life Memberships were sold in violation of the Bylaws for 
$500 and even $400 each, and much or most of the money raised has already 
been spent -- though NRA is obligated to service those members and pro
vide them magazines for the rest of their lives.)
But it is not true that Albert or I intended to "fire" or attempt to 
remove Ms. Hammer, Tanya, Secretary Land, or ED-GO Sandler.  When such 
troublemaking reports were circulated last winter I told each of them 
that those reports were lies; Albert was on the phone when I told Ms. 
Hammer that the tales were false, and my wife and Tanya's husband were 
present when I first told Tanya.
I defy anyone to produce any credible evidence that either Albert or I 
supported the "firing" of any of those key officers, other than attempt
ing to shift Wayne from his EVP position.
Ms. Hammer's libelous Opposition Statement says that the Financial Re
porting/Good Conduct Bylaw proposal was generated by "dissidents ... 
acting in self-interest."  On the contrary, neither Albert nor I, nor 
sponsor Colman, receive a penny from NRA, nor do our businesses or organ
izations.  The "self-interest" lies in those who do not want to report 
their financial dealings with NRA.
One last point:  Critics of this proposed Bylaw conjure up all sorts of 
convoluted examples of how it could be misused, such as failure to report 
a gun trade between two directors, or failure to report purchasing NRA-
approved targets or Eddie Eagle materials.
Let's be serious.  Like every other document written by man, this Bylaw 
certainly isn't perfectly drafted. But if it passes, the judge and jury 
will be the NRA Board and the NRA members.  A frivolous complaint would 
be laughed out of that court.
But when an officer or Director directly or indirectly receives tens of 
thousands of dollars in benefits from NRA, the Board and the NRA member
ship should know about it.  If not, why not?
I urge you to reject the spurious arguments against this proposed Bylaw, 
and begin a campaign through your clubs and associations to enact it.
Yours for the Second Amendment,
Neal Knox
======================================================================
...          ******** NOTE: THIS IS A FORWARDED MESSAGE ********
--- FMail 1.22
---------------