Thoughts on the Nominating Committee references from President Barr's letter to the board this morning

More Style over Substance?

Quoting from the letter: “1.    Expand the Board Candidacy Path.   The Court suggested that the NRA “expand, for at least three years, the  path to candidacy for board elections; specifically, limiting the  hegemony of the Nominating  Committee for enough board cycles to cover all 76 members . . .  one  option would be to mandate that, for the next three elections, at least,  any proposed candidate who meets certain minimum qualifications would  be on the ballot, full stop, without no need  to rally for hundreds or thousands of signatures.”

Because  the NRA cannot alter the petition-signature requirements without revising bold, italicized, member-adopted Bylaw provisions, the SLC will propose to the NYAG that the Nominating Committee adopt a Director  Nomination Policy, resembling those in use by major public companies,  that sets forth transparent, merit-based qualifications for recruiting  directors.  The policy will also place an emphasis on finding “new”  directors, possessing baseline objective qualifications,  who did not serve on the Board between 2014-2022.   The Nominating  Committee will aim to place as many new, qualified directors on the  ballot each year as the available ballot slots feasibly allow.”

1. A Director Nominating Policy that resembles those used by Major public companies is a good thing. We need to see the specific policy. One of the main components of most board policies is mandatory attendance minimums, or you are not renominated.

2. Merit-based qualifications are also a good thing. We need to understand the specifics of what constitutes “Merit.”

3. Baseline objective qualifications are also a good thing. What are those qualifications?

4. What is the number of available ballot slots? There should not be any maximum. The ballot already has 2 sides….

A cynic would see these recommendations as saying the right things and leaving the specifics vague so that you could actually just continue the current nomination process without change under these statements.

True transparency would make public the Director's Nominating Policy, what constitutes Merit, what constitutes objective qualifications, and the actual limit on the number of candidates.