MILESFORTIS

Personally, I think 46 is still 3 times too many. These are ‘prestige’ positions and should be relegated to some sort of Vice President for promoting NRA’s goals and programs with no voting rights and only getting expenses paid for performing actual, approved promotional functions

NRA Board Member Blasts Egos Blocking Effort to Shrink 76-Member Board

Opinion: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Dick Fairburn, and do not represent the official position of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

In 2025, I was elected to the NRA Board of Directors but only received enough votes to fill 1 remaining year of a term vacated by someone else. In 2026, I received enough votes for a full 3-year term of my own. At this point, I am unlikely to run for re-election to another term. Partly because I am a huge proponent of term limits, and partly because the role of a BOD member isn’t well-suited to my temperament.

I served 45 years in the US Army, state & local Law Enforcement and the Fire Service. I spent my professional life preparing for and executing dangerous missions, many of them on an emergency basis. The role of an NRA Board of Directors member, based on my experience thus far, is primarily legislative. It functions much like a mini-Congress. The committee-driven nature of this work, along with the propensity of “amendments” being used to dilute the original intent of many proposals, frustrates me.

NRA Needs a Smaller, More Responsive Board

When I campaigned around Illinois running for the BOD, I espoused two primary changes I wanted to make. One issue I had/have is the NRA bureaucracy. Most NRA employees are great, hardworking folk, but they sometimes act like helping members with a problem is an inconvenience. Several older life members, who are uncomfortable using computers, told me they had to call HQ multiple times to get a change of address through the system to continue receiving their monthly magazine. And they told me the calls weren’t particularly friendly, either. Calling the NRA for a member service shouldn’t be like dealing with the DMV. NRA employees aren’t dealing with “the public,” they are dealing with dues-paying members and should always be respectful and helpful to those callers.

Secondly, I wanted to reduce the size of the Board of Directors. The NRA was sued by AG Letitia James in the NY court system in her failed attempt to destroy the NRA. The former NRA Executive VP Wayne La Pierre was ousted by that court and ordered to repay $4.4 Million Dollars largely because of the irresponsible spending by the management team and Board of Directors. The NY Judge did not order a board size reduction but strongly recommended the board become smaller.

I have been given several reasons by current board members why the NRA needs 76 members on the Board of Directors, the most common being the large number of committees which need members. I think the number of committees is also reflective of an antiquated competition shooting-based organization badly in need of streamlining. I am now even more firmly convinced that the board size needs to be reduced, and I have heard from many rank-and-file members who agree.

At this point, I want to stand up for the honor of the current members of the NRA Board of Directors. Those I felt were leftover La Pierre supporters during my first year on the Board are virtually all gone, voted out or resigned. I think all current Board members are individuals of high integrity and staunch Second Amendment supporters.

At the same time, virtually all current board members are high-energy people who have been very successful in their own fields of endeavor. Several board members spent their lives in the military or law enforcement. Others have been highly successful as engineers, attorneys or in other professions. When you combine 76 highly successful egos into one elective body, some of those egos are likely to clash.

A Proposal to Cut the NRA Board From 76 to 46

One of NRA President Bill Bachenberg’s first actions was to create a Special Committee on Reorganization, and one of the first tasks he assigned that committee was to look at reducing the size of the Board of Directors. I am not a mover and shaker on the Board, not an “insider” by any means. I hadn’t heard of any progress on the board-size issue after more than a year and a half.

So, when President Bachenberg submitted a board reduction bylaw change to be acted on at the September 2026 BOD meeting, I was in complete agreement. To say President Bachenberg’s proposal was met with resistance is an understatement.

I attended the meeting of the Special Committee on Reorganization in September, the committee tasked with developing a board reduction plan. Instead of supporting Bill’s plan, they voted to present an amendment which would postpone the vote and refer the proposal to their committee for review. In other words, the committee, which had not made any significant movement on the matter, argued to refer the matter back to that same committee.

Death by circular analysis paralysis.

Their amendment was approved by a wide margin. By delaying the September vote, the matter of board size reduction was kicked down the road by at least one year.

Currently, 25 board members are elected each year for a 3-year term (making for 75 board members). A single board member is elected each year at the annual meeting for a one-year term (the 76th board member). President Bachenberg’s proposal was to reduce the number of board members elected in each cycle to 15 for the next three years, which would reduce the board size to 46 at the end of those three years. A competing idea, which never came to light due to the issue being referred to the Special Committee on Reorganization, would have reduced the board size by attrition when a member resigned or died, rather than the arbitrary figure of 10 per year. I would have supported the attrition method.

The election of board members is merely a popularity contest, with most who vote feeling they really know very little about the candidates. In most cycles, fewer than 3 percent of the eligible NRA members even cast a vote. Board members running for re-election cannot be certain of re-election under this system. Under President Bachenberg’s bylaw proposal, sitting board members would need to be in the top 15 vote getters rather than the top 25 vote getters to remain on the board, changing their odds of success in a dramatic way. That change in re-election odds probably influenced some of the votes at the September meeting.

Did Personal Egos Derail NRA Board Reform?

I came away from the September BOD meeting feeling that much of the opposition to Bill Bachenberg’s reduction proposal was a “Me” issue. If the proposal had been “their” idea, more of the opponents might have supported the reduction. But since President Bachenberg hadn’t consulted them, some were offended. Bruised egos can be very painful.

I was not consulted on President Bachenberg’s plan, but that did not surprise or offend me. My reading of the plan convinced me it was simple, straightforward, and in line with my personal thoughts on the matter. For that reason, I supported the board reduction proposal and will continue to do so. Thinking that a committee will make the plan more workable or less painful to those board members who might not get re-elected is a fool’s game in my humble opinion.

Warren Bennis, an American pioneer in leadership studies, once said, “Just as no great painting has ever been created by a committee, no great vision has ever emerged from the herd.” A camel has been described as a horse designed by a committee.

If you want an even better example of the unworkable nature of “group think” we need look no further than the 1,000-page convoluted laws passed by the US Congress. Yet the nature of the NRA Board of Directors, unlike smaller for-profit corporate boards, is to allow committees, using Roberts Rules of Order, to kill simple, easily understood changes.

NRA Members Must Demand Accountability

I serve on five different NRA committees trying to improve the organization’s ability to function effectively, respond to the wishes of the membership and hopefully re-grow our membership numbers. But remaining on the Board of Directors is a primary preoccupation of some board members and reducing the size of the board interferes with their goals.

If the NRA is to survive and regrow its influence, it MUST become more efficient and more responsive to the wishes of the members. I do not currently see those unselfish aspirations in several of those currently serving on the Board of Directors, but that is just my opinion.

If you, as an NRA member, think the Board of Directors should be smaller, less costly and more responsive, make your wishes known.

About Dick Farirburn

Dick Fairburn is a career Public Safety professional with more than 40 years in Law Enforcement and the Fire Service, in both Illinois and Wyoming. He holds a B.S. degree in Law Enforcement Administration from Western Illinois University and was the Valedictorian of his Basic Peace Officer class at the Illinois State Police Academy.

Dick has been a certified Law Enforcement firearms instructor since 1978, including NRA Police firearms instructor certifications for pistols, shotguns and rifles. As a part of his writing for various police magazines and websites, Dick led the movement to replace shotguns with Patrol Rifles for US police agencies.

Dick is a former competitive shooter in IPSC/USPSA and SASS events and helped found the first IPSC-affiliated club east of the Mississippi in 1979. He is the author of two firearms training books – Building a Better Gunfighter (2010) and Police Rifles (1994) – and hundreds of articles in magazines and on websites. He is currently an author for the USCCA’s Concealed Carry magazine, writing primarily on long-gun topics. He also operates the YouTube channel – “Lock & Load with Dick Fairburn“, which creates content on firearms, self-defense and hunting topics.

Dick is an avid big game hunter, US Army veteran and was elected to the National Rifle Association Board of Directors in 2025.