top of page

Minutes, Bend Trap Club Board Meeting, May 2, 2016



Board Members Present:  Grafton, Sanders, Winebarger, Stenberg, Dodd, Reed, Partain, Martin, Holtz, Oeltjen


Board Members Absent:  Brooks, Ramsey, Mahnken,


Guests:  Rohrbacher, Ashcroft


Martin opens the meeting at 6:10pm and distributes a four item agenda. 



The first item on the agenda is that after discussion with an attorney, Grafton notifies the attendees that in order for a non-profit to operate the club must have a president and a secretary.  The lack of a president calls into question all actions the board may have done since the annual meeting.  Stenberg nominates Winebarger for the position but it is not seconded and the discussion continues.  Grafton addresses conflict of interest concerns.  He points out that the standards are higher for directors and that actions need to be beneficial to the club.  He points out that as best it could be done the club has always had a caretaker primarily for facility security and that the mobile home provided was best maintained by being occupied.  Grafton said that he was not uncomfortable with the conflict of interest issue with Winebarger as president.  He noted that recusal may be necessary on occasion and that overloading may become an issue. 


Stenberg said he thinks the president should be a trap shooter.  This belief has been noted in the past by other board members active at the skeet end of the club.  Grafton said that it is inevitable that a skeet/5 stand shooter will have to step up as the future of the club diversifies away from trap shooting.  The board asks for anyone else willing to take the responsibility.  Holtz is willing if Winebarger is not.  Winebarger is OK either way but has concerns with PITA shoots and turkey shoots.  Holtz is willing to be PITA shoot manager and Grafton will cashier this year.  Partain asks about turkey shoots and Martin responded that Gerold will manage them. 


Another motion by Stenberg, seconded by Dodd, to approve Winebarger as president was approved.


Consent agenda items:

Grafton reported that shooting levels were down compared to 2015 but were comparable to 2014.  There are 94 non-renewals from the 214 members at the end of 2015.  Martin discussed the telephone membership retention effort being planned.  There were some expenses still to be paid out from the finances reported in Grafton’s email of 5/2/2016 and the development fund was funded with the $1 per round increase since April 1.  Important financial numbers are:  equipment reserve $5446, reserve cash $17083, target account $5913, checking $12787, component reserve $4153, facility development $3537, April youth shooting $116.25, and April Bend bucks $280.  Grafton reported that the new PayPal account and our bank account are now linked so that membership or target purchases made through PayPal can be transferred to checking. 


With the president position filled and a minor revision on the cost of the well decommissioning the April minutes could now be approved.  They were with a motion by Reed, seconded by Grafton.  With some uncertainty about the validity of the original approval of the March minutes they were also re-approved following a motion by Grafton, seconded by Holtz. 



Martin raised the issue of a $7/hour payment after 10 hours of volunteering.  There was no mandate for the 10 hours and no enforcement intended.  Would solicitation for volunteers drive members away?  Stenberg asked about the mechanism for distributing BTC bucks coupons.  It was agreed to make this a part of next month’s agenda.  Rohrbacher expressed concern about the amount of work done by Grafton and how to get volunteers to do those tasks.  Oeltjen and Rohrbacher will develop alternative language for soliciting volunteers.  Partain thinks addressing members directly will get volunteers.  Sanders noted that BTC Bucks is not getting volunteers and that requiring 10 hours before benefits won’t help.  We need more volunteers not the existing volunteers working more hours.  Oeltjen says many members don’t have the time and we should hire a manager, throw more sporting clays and keep the kitchen open.  Martin responds that this is a giant leap and not a simple thing.  After more discussion Rohrbacher will reword, drop the $7 and 10 hours and wait until after the telephone membership solicitations. 


ODFW Grant:

The last item on the agenda was a board review of the ODFW grant and it’s status.  Grafton had referred questions to Ramsey about how the grant would be funded and about potential conflict of interest over compensation to Partain.  Dodd was surprised about the application and questioned who authorized the application for the grant.  Grafton outlined ORS statues that cover conflict of interest conditions with directors of nonprofits. He also stated that this particular case is the first he has encountered for a director of the club and therefore required all due diligence to present and examine all related facts.  Grafton reported that statues on unlawful (i.e. conflict of interest) distributions could leave board members personally liable. The conflict of interest question has arisen due to the proposed 30% commission for work related to sourcing the grant application.


As outlined, the project estimated cost is $37,000 and ODFW grant would fund $26,000 (70%), resulting in club required funding of $11,000.  Subtracting the proposed 30% commission for Partain of $7,800 would require the club to fund $18,800. Tony commented that there could be secondary grants that would help cover some of that $18,800.


Dodd asked who would provide labor for the field.  Martin responded that very little labor is needed.  Reed said that this is the first time board members could see the financial breakdown.  Grafton reported that statues on unlawful distribution would leave board members personally liable.  Partain turns the grant over to the club, stating it is not worth the aggravation.  Martin asks for suggestions given what we now know.  The board needs to understand that operational labor will fall on the skeet and 5 stand members.  Unknown is whether the grant allows the new field to overlay existing trap fields and what ODFW requires for acceptance and approval.  Dodd states that from his experience the ODFW is strict.  Partain states the money is from Pittman Robinson taxes and would not be available until July.  Dodd feels that more information is still needed.  Oeltjen suggests calling it “super sporting clays” and thinks it will bring in lots of shooters.  Sanders thinks it will take targets from the 5 stand, take additional labor, and not bring in new members.  He also says if this is a good thing to do and someone is giving us most of the money then we should do it.  That said he remains uncertain about the goodness of doing the new field.  Oeltjen is sure it is worth doing.  Holtz asks the important question.  How many shooters will this bring to the club?  The board agreed to return to the ODFW grant issue at a later time.


Other issues:

Grafton received a request from Facebook to host about 30 shooters of little experience on May 18th or 25th.  Many of them would not have shotguns.  This event would be on the trap fields and would be a competition.  Rohrbacher suggested providing the shooters with a video prior to the day of the shoot to simplify and shorten the initial safety introduction.


Meeting was adjourned at 9pm following a motion by Holtz, seconded by Sanders.


Darrell Sanders


May 7, 2016

Revised May 9, 2016

bottom of page