ATA by-laws - What by-laws! It is only $250,000? What BOD?

The EC in executive session voted to give an endowment program $250,000 without consulting the board of directors. For those not in the know, the ATA delegates are the BOD. This is the same / or similar program that the OSTA and other states considered without by passing any bylaws.

Not a word from a single delegate? You tell me.

I report. You decide.

Merlo out.

 

Silence speaks volumes ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Are there an attorneys here that will take a pro bono case against the lawlessness of the ATA and EC. I wonder who is the recipient of that money?

Can H.B. find out for us? Roger C. State delegates are just about a worthless as tits on a boar hog. Roger C.

 

That's just part of the "Fantastic Direction" of which were heading.

 

As it was told to me by a Former Delegate:

"Most don't get informed until after the fact, and the ones who do don't really give a damn".

And Most ATA members really do not care at all either...As long as they have a place to shoot, why worry ?

The only Delegates who find out anything are the ones who keep silent, do not question the EC decisions, and just roll with the flow.

 

Roger: Midway Foundation

 

BAT, Even if the money is moved to a worthy endeavor, they do not have the right to donate the ATA finances with out the OK of the delegates. They are the BOD are they not. Time to drain the swamp. Roger C.

 

Did the EC get approval from the BOD when they GAVE the State of Illinois $250,000.00 to help build that Horse Barn on the STATE OWNED Grounds.

Remember, the Museum .

I really cannot remember IF the BOD gave approval or not...

And if they did, did ANY one of them stand up and ask WHO will own this building ???

 

Roger, what provision requires them to get the Board's approval for that? I thougt they had all the powers of the Board that were not specifically denied to them by the Board. I don't know of any restriction on making a grant to Midway Foundation. Maybe there is a restriction that would cover it, but I don't recall one. Should there be one? That's a different question.

 

Roger,
Prudent business practices would suggest that you are correct. But it appears subject to Article IV Section 3(c) that the BOD has delegated "full & complete authority" to the EC to do all things in the intervening time between
annual meetings. As others have stated the BOD is little more than a bunch of head nodders & tail waggers.

 

Roger,

I think Merlo is referring to the decision made by the Executive Committee to accept an offer made to the ATA several years back by the Potterfields, who as mentioned by Bat, owns MidwayUSA. It was nice of the Potterfields to repeat the offer and the ATA was wise to finally accept. Here's the history for those interested :





The 2nd offer from Mr. & Mrs. Potterfield - E.C. Minutes of December 2016 :

 

I concur with 10Guns that the Board of Directors have relinquished their authority and sadly they have turned their backs to their duty to manage the affairs of the corporation as required.

​

With all the technology today regarding communications and meetings, why would any 5 people on an Executive Committee want to make the decision themselves instead of taking a few days to discuss it with the Board of Directors? This goes for all important decisions. Delegates are like mushrooms and I believe most like it that way.

Yes, Bat, there should be restrictions for the protection of the association as well as for improving communications with Delegates and members. Spending $250,000 should require discussion with the Board of Directors. In fact, spending $5,000 should be approved by the BOD in my opinion. I won't accept the excuse that it would require too much time and energy to involve the Delegates so the E.C. can make the decision themselves and let everyone read it in the minutes 4 months later.

You may remember a Delegate challenging the E. C. on making unilateral decisions on rule changes without following past practice procedures and By-law provisions prohibiting such. Well, with the current By-laws, Delegates allowed themselves to lose the control so carefully provided by those in charge when the Amateurs took control of the ATA back in 1923.

If Delegates ever wish to accept their duties and responsibilities again, thankfully, they can regain controls designed to safeguard the organization, by amending the current By-laws to permit the E.C. to make decisions after matters are thoroughly discussed with the BOD.

That's my view.

HB

 

Thanks HB, that confirms my understanding of the bylaws and the EC's powers. So the questions raised about any legality of the grant are settled, I would think.

I will ask this: You stated "Well, with the current By-laws, Delegates allowed themselves to lose the control so carefully provided by those in charge when the Amateurs took control of the ATA back in 1923. " I'm not sure I follow that quote in regard to this grant to the Midway Foundation? Has there ever been any restriction on the EC that would have impacted this decision? I know nothing has changed recently, and I doubt in at least several decades.

Thanks

 

Bat,
The EC has complete control of all ATA functions. Read section( C ) under the powers section. What it does is leave complete control to the EC. All they have to do is make any decision they want to, as long as it falls in between meetings. Why have meetings with delegates at all, they seem to be of no value to the shooters.
Section ( B ) is where the delegates could and should exercise their control over the EC. I do not think they have the will or the intelligence needed to accomplish what they should be doing. I wonder if they even know what their obligations are to the members of the ATA. Roger C.
Bat, 10guns, I replied before reading either of your posts, we are in agreement. The origional post did not mention the receipient of the endowment.

 

Yes Bat, the current language granting the Executive Committee such power happened many decades ago. I didn't mean to be confusing and it was not my intent to leave readers believing it was a recent change.

My point being that in my opinion our By-laws have always made it perfectly clear that the Board of Directors are the controlling body of the sport; and they must do a better job keeping involved with important matters such as the $250,000 grant, lease agreements, property purchases, etc. as it is a necessity in upholding their responsibility as it relates to providing oversight of our association. If they are being excluded from the decision making process, they must start restricting the authority they have granted the Executive Committee. Checks and balances lead to better governance.

Delegates shouldn't learn details about leases, grants and rule changes from ATA members. They should have the information first hand from the E.C., and have the desire to be involved in the decision making process. The fact that they often are not, is very disturbing, even more disturbing is the fact that they don't seem to care. Additionally, the Executive Committee should want to hear the opinions from their Board and the fact that they do not is equally disturbing.

I found the below summary on the internet and even though it pertains to the proper operation of 501(c)(3) not for profit organizations, (which the ATA is), it appears to explain the main reason why our Delegates must engage themselves in the ATA's business.

The Rubber Stamp Trap: Do Your Nonprofit Board Members Understand Their Form 990 Responsibilities?​

“Has the organization provided a complete copy of this Form 990 to all members of its governing body before filing the form?”

The IRS poses this important question very directly on your organization’s Form 990. Here, the IRS is essentially asking if your board is aware of its Form 990 responsibilities. In other words, the IRS wants to know if your board received and took the time to review the provided information regarding your nonprofit’s finances and governance practices — rather than simply “rubber stamping” its approval.

The Value of an Independent Board​

A nonprofit board is not designed to be a rubber stamp for management. Instead, it is charged with critically analyzing and evaluating the organization’s policies, practices, and finances. Board members are not afraid to ask questions, and they are always prepared to address potentially unsound or imprudent decisions.

One way to ensure proper oversight of your nonprofit is to meaningfully engage your board in the preparation and review of Form 990. Consider the ideas below for better involving your board— as well as staff and executive leadership — in reviewing this important document.

HB

 

Yes Roger, that is the point I was trying to make. The first 5 posts here make it sound like something was done in violation of the bylaws, but that is simply not true. If everyone is up in arms over a decision to fund an endowment account at Midway Foundation, the BOD should call for a special meeting and rescind the EC's action. Likely too late at this point though. But, realistically, I don't think many here are really complaining about the Midway grant, it is the mistaken belief that the EC violated the bylaws that was driving this thread.

I think the 2 for 1 matching in this offer was a great inducement and likely was a strong factor in the issue being approved so quickly.

 

I agree the E. C. made a wise decision in joining the MidwayUSA youth program. For the life of me I cannot understand why the ATA leadership felt it was not in the best interests of our association and to youth shooting programs when it was offered back in 2010.

I don't believe it was necessary to make the decision without first engaging the Board of Directors. In 2010 five (5) E.C. members convinced the majority of Board members the program was not good for our organization. Fifty-two (52) Delegates voted against the MidwayUSA affiliation, two (2) voted in favor of the program.

Perhaps had there been more involvement and desire from our leaders in understanding the benefits of the MidwayUSA Foundation and how it gave life to the many youth shooting groups, our ATA would have been supporting this effort for about 6 years and would not have only nearly recouped their investment, but more importantly provided needed assistance to the youth shooting sports.

I'd sure like to know what changed to make MidwayUSA's program more acceptable to our association?

Why was there time to vote on the MidwayUSA Foundation program in 2010 but not in 2016?

 

I would guess the 2 for 1 matching was a large part of it. I could be wrong, but I believe the normal match is 1 to 1. This reduces the payback period quite a bit. That, and several more years of observation seeing how it has worked out positively for many youth programs would help overcome those with reservations.

 

The election of delegates must stop being a good old boys club. Candidates should be vetted for their knowledge of the office they seek. The members have got to stop being lemmings as to who is qualified to be a state delegate. The nicest guy you know may be the worst delegate to rep. your state.

 

Spoken like a true ex-EC member. Since it was a good decision in Bat's mind, then the end justifies the means.

It does not matter what the fund was or was not. The decision should have been made by the BOD. The EC chose not to consult the BOD.

What reason was it that caused the EC to make the decision not to consult the BOD? My guess is that it would have been a bad precedent.

 

I never stated it was a good decision or a bad decision, just that it was not done in violation of any bylaws provision. With the doubled matching it sounds pretty good to me based on what I see, but I am no expert on the program. You are free to think it was a bad decision, I'm fine with that. I simply stated why I thought they acted at this time and not several years ago in reply to a question asked.

Since there is no requirement to consult the BOD on a decision like this, I don't think consulting them would have set any precedent that would have meant anything. Would have been nice, but not anything required under the rules that have been in place most likely since any of us were members. They say they were concerned about losing the extra matching offer and other additional grants, that makes sense to me until better info comes along.

 

How many times did you justify the act? hmmmm
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Bat, we can read your posts.

 

Those quotes are mainly replies to questions asked about why they approved it now instead of years ago. I think those are likely big issues in that decision. Of course, I don't have all the facts, so I can't say either way whether it was good or bad. That's their job to decide.

What is clear is that nothing was done in violation of the bylaws, which is what I believe some readers were assuming based on the opening posts. Like it or not, unless the bylaws specifically impose a restriction, or the BOD directs the EC about something specifically, the EC makes the day to day operating decisions. BOD can override them if needed.

It's easy to just say the BOD "should have" made the decision, but the ATA does not ever appear to have felt that way, since they placed day to day control in the hands of the EC probably from the start, but certainly many decades ago. This is nothing new.

 

Cut the crap Bat. They are quotes / your opinion on why the vote by the EC was justified. You quotes Bat! Your defending this puts you there with the rest of thugs that have ruined the org. The EC will continue to ruin the org. It's downfall will lead us to a better org. No skin off my back. Another will appear.

It is the attitude that the BOD has no duties and the EC has no one to answer to. The spiral will continue.

 

Like, "that it was not done in violation of any bylaws provision", would make any difference .....

The "shotgun gift" WAS "in violation of any bylaws provision", so they just made the "bylaws" fit the desire. NOTHING done about ANY PAST VIOLATIONS .....

For some reason the ATA leaches feel the "youth programs" will overlook those who are self-serving ..... and invest time, money, and effort for plastic ducks and "points" ..... "Smart-money" says IF something NEW is NOT put in place, "Sporting Clays" will be the venue of choice ....

 

I don't have any opinion on whether the decision was "justified" or not. For me to have an opinion on whether it was "justified", I would want to know more about ATA assets and whether we could afford it. The "opinion" I do have on this is that anybody suggesting this vote was in conflict with the bylaws is mistaken. Since it seems that issue is settled, I guess you are down to arguing about whether it was a good decision to make the grant, or to not voluntarily seek BOD input. The EC described why they did what they did, but everyone is free to disagree with those reasons. Those are opinion's, and I'm fine with anyone feeling either way about that.

 

This might help in deciding if the $250,000 donor endowment decision was justified.

​

As for the being "down to arguing whether it was a good decision to make the grant or not" I think the majority will decide it was a good decision, however, in my opinion, there is no reason why five (5) Executive Committee members should need to spend that much money without first thoroughly discussing it with the Board who should vote on it by roll-call.

Let's take a closer look at the reasoning given for the quick decision: "a delay by the ATA in making the donation could result in both losing the two for one matching funds as well as the substantial donation by the Potterfield family to the 2017 AIM National Championship."

The MidwayUSA Foundation program was started in 2007 the same year the ATA established the Junior Shooting Trust Fund to the already established Youth and Education Fund. In 2009, the ATA started another youth shooting program called AIM. Even though the Midway USA program was growing every year, I can understand the ATA's wait and see attitude when the declined Mr. Potterfield's offer in 2010. With the 1:1 match I think the ATA should have joined the movement and should have looked at the benefits to the youth shooters and not worry about how long it would take for a 'pay-back."

The 2-for-1 match was new this year I think and since it continues throughout the entire 2017 year, there would be no loss of "matching funds" at that rate and even if there was, who would not be very appreciative of getting a 1-for-1 match? Secondly, I just cannot imagine any one of the Executive Committee members believing that Mr. & Mrs. Potterfield would go back on their word and withdraw their promised support. They are not kind of people and our leaders should have know that if they truly conducted due diligence of the matter.

Had someone taken time to look into MidwayUSA Foundation, within 5 minutes or less, they could have found the below IRS Form 990 information on their webpage under the heading of TRANSPARENCY, which shows assets of over $90 million. Our ATA should do the same.



A quick Google search led me to a Youtube clip of ATA shooter Randy Moeller, (formerly with Remington & Cabelas) Executive Director of the MidwayUSA Foundation. In the April 2017 video Randy states the foundation now has $100 million in assets and suspects to give out grants this year of up to $5 million to more than 3,000 youth groups.

A missed opportunity from 2010-2016. Thankfully the opportunity was finally recognized and there wasn't a wait and see, or 3:1 fund match yielding an even quicker return on the grant. Better late than never I guess.

I'm not buying any of the excuses given. I think the foundation has been secure and successful since its inception.
That's my opinion.

HB

 

The problem is not always what they do, but how they do it that is the cause for concern ... The ATA has become a piggy bank (cash cow ) for way to many people, greed once again has reared its ugly head ... This particular move was not a bad one, but there are so many others .that are not justifiable ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

If you look at HB's post number 27, and this page, https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-p...schedules-a-and-b-public-charity-support-test ..... then answer this .....

How in the hell is the "ATA" making the over a four million a year from the declining Sport of "Trapshooting", to make the six million plus "income" in 2016 work ?????

"an organization can receive no more than one-third of its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income." from the link above .....

 

Good management decisions regarding individual and sponsor donations. I don't want to overlook the time and effort that is spent to obtain donations and other avenues of income. Remember the ATA has also reported that income from the Grand American Handicap tournaments provide over 40% and sometimes higher than 50% of the ATA's total annual income. Which leads me to two questions:

1. What is the master plan the organization has that requires them to have so much assets?
a. Establish or become owners of new homegrounds?
b. Increase grants to youth shooting, State Associations and gun clubs?

2. Are ATA shooters being overcharged for participating in the Grand American?
a. Should the entrance entrance fees be reduced?

Correct, but the ATA has computed just under 26% in 2015 (2014 calendar year - tax beginning 10-1-2017 and ending 9-30-2015) and just over 27% in 2014. I don't have the IRS Form 990 for the 2015 year yet (10-1,2015 through 9-30-2016) .

 

I have "seen" what the "ATA" reports to the "IRS" ..... but a steady "decline" in "Trapshooting" is "reported" to produce more "income" for the "ATA" each year .....

IF ..... you have an "income" of $10,000.00 per day, every single day of the year, you will have a "yearly income" of $3,650,000.00, less than the $4,000,000.00 needed to show a $6,000,000.00 yearly "income" for the "ATA" .....

Look at "2008", over 3.7 million in "income", and a "drop" in "assets" ..... "1. What is the master plan the organization has that requires them to have so much assets?" ..... What are these "assets" ????? "Investments" ????? It sure can not be a $80,000.00 "Office in Sparta" and some "traps and voice-calls" .....

Some things make you go ..... Hmmmmmmm

 

Has the "ATA" become nothing more than a "hedge fund", that only has an interest in "Trapshooting" as a way to keep from paying taxes ?????

Looking at the post above, the "ATA" is "reporting" just under 17 million in "assets", and seem to only "own" 100 thousand dollars worth of "Office building and Trap related equipment" ..... With zero interest in "Promoting the Sport of Trapshooting", or paying "added money" to those still willing to participate .....

It does look like a "fantastic direction", for a "hedge fund" with the purpose of funding the "shooting hobby" of a select few .....

 

User 1,
Do you mean like a personal piggy bank, could this be what is implied by the FANTASTIC DIRECTION? But for who? Have they set up a retirement fund for them selves yet? I'm sure they would record it in the minutes or at least inform the members. OH//// I forgot about only giving info out on a need to know basis. Roger C.

 

I am not sure if any on the "ATA Gravy Train" want to "retire" from it ..... It looks more like "till death do us part" .....

It also looks like the "primary function" of the "ATA" is "investing" just for the sake of "making money" ..... Then try to use what remains of a once-proud organization as a "tax shelter" .....

 

Your memory is serving you correctly Roger !