Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Lawsuits fill in NWTF speculation gaps
Mark Taylor
Mark Taylor's Outdoors column and notebook appears regularly in The Roanoke Times.
Recent columns
In an April 2 letter to the membership of the National Wild Turkey Federation, president Peggy Anne Vallery said the organization was experiencing a "time of transition."
That's putting it mildly.
On March 25, two of the organization's top officials were fired. A day later, well-known CEO Rob Keck resigned.
The news has prompted frustration among many of the organization's members, in large part because so few details are being released.
Vallery's note acknowledged that the NWTF's "brief inward focus allowed speculation to fill the gaps."
But other than clarifying that no criminal activity or financial wrongdoings were suspected, the note offered no specific details regarding the dismissals of chief operating officer Carl Brown and vice president of sales and marketing Dick Rosenlieb.
Keck cited "personal and family reasons" for his decision to step down.
When details about the firings finally started to emerge last week they came from unlikely sources -- Brown and Rosenlieb. And they came in an interesting format -- lawsuits filed by the two men against NWTF.
In their lawsuits, filed last week in the Edgefield, S.C., County Court of Common Pleas, Brown and Rosenlieb allege that the firings weren't justified.
Instead, they say, the dismissals were the result of a "well-orchestrated smear campaign" by board members and an outside consulting group hired by the board to examine the NWTF's internal practices.
Furthermore, they say statements from the NWTF in the wake of the firings were "false and defamatory."
The lawsuits offer a look at the board's reasons for the firings, reasons both men claim weren't justified.
Among other things, Rosenlieb's suit claims he was wrongly accused of accepting a free or discounted African safari trip from a vendor with which the NWTF does business, which is not allowed under the group's internal rules.
Brown's suit contends that he was accused of "fraudulent manipulation" of financial and membership records by assigning donated memberships to expired members.
Brown, who was with NWTF for 27 years, doesn't deny the practice. Rather, he says it's been a long-standing accepted procedure at NWTF.
The donated memberships come from banquets and functions where attendees participate in raffles to buy memberships for youth and disabled hunters. While most go to new members whose names are provided by attendees, according to Brown's lawsuit, about 30 percent have no names, so the memberships are assigned to expired members.
The practice has helped result in membership of more than 225,000 in the NWTF's youth JAKES program and 20,000 in the group's Wheelin' Sportsmen program for the disabled, Brown contends.
The NWTF says its total membership is more than 525,000.
Brown's suit also claims that the board tried to have him fired last fall, but that the effort failed in part because Keck said he would resign before being forced to fire Brown, a longtime friend whom Keck recruited to the NWTF.
The suits represent only one side of the story, of course.
The NWTF has 30 days to file a response, which should be every bit as interesting as these suits.
No matter what happens if these suits go to trial, one near certainty is that NWTF members who have wanted to know more about what goes on behind closed doors at the NWTF's headquarters should get their wish.
Beach driving hits snag
If you're heading to the Outer Banks anytime soon, don't yet bank on being able to drive over the sand to your favorite fishing or surfing spot.
A tentative agreement in a lawsuit that sought to close several popular beach areas would allow vehicle access with certain restrictions while the National Park Service develops a permanent beach management plan.
But the consent decree agreement between the National Park Service and the team of the Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society remains in limbo while the federal judge overseeing the case seeks answers to specific questions he has about the agreement.
Another hearing on the case is set for Wednesday in judge Terrence Boyle's courtroom in Raleigh, N.C.
Driving is currently allowed on the beaches, with exceptions for areas temporarily closed to protect fragile wildlife species.
When the parties in the case brought the agreement forward in mid-April, Boyle hit the National Park Service with a number of questions.
When he got those answers, Boyle asked a few more questions, including asking them to provide information about staffing and budget needs for managing the plan, what kind of alternatives were available to gaining beach access, whether the Park Service will seek public comment on a proposed beach driving plan, and whether or not witnesses will be provided to provide testimony on closure maps and beach access.
Among other things, the agreement would increase buffer zones for unfledged piping plover chicks.
The plan also would restrict night beach driving from May 1 to Nov. 15 to protect nesting sea turtles, and would require all beach drivers between Sept. 16 and Nov. 15 to carry a special permit.
Opponents of the move to close the beaches have said a major closure would deal a huge blow to the economy on Outer Banks because they believe visitors, many of whom like to drive on the beach, would vacation elsewhere.
Some defenders of beach driving also have complained that the public was not given an opportunity to have input on the details of the consent decree.
