by You could have knocked me over with a feather when I heard that Marion Hammer was agreeing with Buz Mills regarding setting up a search committee to find the permanent Executive Vice President and CEO for the NRA. I had assumed – wrongly it seems – that she was in the camp pushing Charles Cotton to be the EVP/CEO for the next few years. Something along the lines of “a steady hand on the rudder” as the NRA transitions away from the Wayne era.
This is her email sent to the Board today:
It has come to my attention that another NRA BOD Member is making phone calls trying to gain support for yet another NRA BOD Member to take Wayne’s job.
Please, please, stop and think about this. I personally believe we need a dedicated Search Committee to find someone who is actually qualified to take the helm at NRA.
Any member of the Board who thinks he or she is qualified for the position can submit his or her name to a Search Committee to be vetted along with other candidates.
This is a turning point for NRA and a time when we need the most qualified, dedicated person we can find to lead NRA and lead the fight to save Second Amendment rights.
The NRA President can appoint a Search Committee at any time and I believe should do so immediately. Search Committee members can be confirmed or rejected and replaced by the Board of Directors at it’s next meeting.
Please, this is a critical point for us and the future of NRA and it’s members is in our hands. Let’s do it right. Under our By-Laws we have a process to fill the EVP position on an interim basis while we search for the right person.
Please do not be stampeded into anything.
I know that there are a significant number of Board Members who agree that we need a Search Committee because they have told me so. And, I also know that previously another Board Member has emailed you suggesting a Search Committee. And while that particular Board Member and I rarely ever agree on what’s best for NRA, this time we happen to agree that we need a Search Committee.
Marion P. Hammer
Marion’s letter may also be seen as a way to head off those who are supporting Wade Callender to be the EVP/CEO such as Texas AG Ken Paxton, Utah AG Sean Reyes, and board member Rick Ector. However, while it is probably not her intent, I do think it could work in his favor as an honest Search Committee would have to consider him a candidate.
I think the person most disappointed about this letter beyond Charles Cotton has to be Bill Brewer. I got the feeling that Brewer was hoping to maintain the cozy relationship between the leadership and himself so as to keep the money flowing to his firm.
“I think the person most disappointed about this letter beyond Charles Cotton has to be Bill Brewer. I got the feeling that Brewer was hoping to maintain the cozy relationship between the leadership and himself so as to keep the money flowing to his firm.”
Of course he does. He literally found the goose that lays the golden egg. If it stops laying or escapes, it’ll hurt his bottom line.
I think you may be falling for the trap. Let’s say that having a search committee is a given. Let’s say that because something is in our bylaws, that is the process we must follow (crazy talk, I know).
Okay, now the question is about picking the proper interim position by appointment, because search committees take time. Hammer is saying we should stick with the current joker until the lengthy search committee process can be completed. What does that accomplish? You still have the old guard running the show for >= 8 mos post trial, and importantly, exerting significant influence on the remediation plan and response to the court for next steps, and significant influence on the search committee itself.
No, I think these are separate questions, and she’s presenting them as a false dichotomy. The answer is both: Yes to search committee and Yes to different interim leadership.