Being unaware of the true function or purpose of the device in question I am not able to give any more than a unqualified opinion. If this device gives an unfair advantage to a shooter then it may be a problem that the BOD needs to address in a way other than waiting for the next BOD meeting.
The manufacture of the device may be the sosurce that the BOD should be making inquiries. I'm sure that it would be much better to ask the manufacturer for the purpose and functions of the device and possibly even furnishing a sample for evaluation than to just cut off a product of a potential sponsor for a year or six months which ever the case may be.The President or the CEO should be able to call a meeting either by conference call or at a shoot where a quorum would be availabale. Tlhis issue is one that seems to be rather simple and may be one that could be solved in a way that would make the majority of the shooters and the manufacturer happy with very little effort on the part of the BOD.The device in question is available to everyone regardless of what class they are shooting. Promoting a product that is new is often done by word of mouth only and restricting the use of the product may even help the sales but making it available to everyone is the most important thing.
Loosing one shooter because of such a trivial matter is not worth it and how many potential members may we loose?
The BOD is doing what is correct based on previous expierence. Maybe it is possibale that there are ways to expedite such questionable items approval or disapproval and an explanation for either.
The persons using this item had no bad itentions and no basis for thinking that they were violating any rules.
IMHO