So then what?

[T.N. Trosin]

Cool bill I would love that a free hat that will become a collectors item when the afa eats itself up from the inside out and is but a misty watercolored memory

See I told you guys Frank is no dummy.

This is not the first time an AFA executive has done something foolish, yet we have never gone through the lengths that the EC is currently going to as far as asking for a resignation. Are they justified in doing so? Absolutly, it is part of their job as the the first line of stewardship of the association. Further they have more information on the subject than I do at the moment. But for those of us who are currently out of this loop I would like us all to take a breath and think insted of being a bunch of knee jerk reactionaries.

First of all I want to make clear that I by no means condone what David did. I have made this clear to him as well. But by the same token we who sit here and pontificate on this board have no earthly idea what Bryan wants from all of this. From what my BoD rep to the EC has told me, he to this point hasn't seen a formal letter from any attourney, just an email. We do know a recording exists, but what if David fully cooperates to resolve the matter and Bryan is fully satisfied with the outcome, then what? Do we still ask him to step down?

I want all of us to think back to the whole licencing debacule and think about the final outcome. We were all out for Walts head, yet he was afforded the oppertunity in Omaha to speek his piece and we all walked out of that room thinking that this didn't turn out so bad. As for Bryan, same thing with the Farnam deal. Sufice to say that there hasn't been a BoD meeting where someone didn't walk in to with a pocket motion to dismiss someone. While none of the above had the potential legal implications that the current issue has the people involved were afforded the oppertunity to appologize state lesson learned and carry on for the good of the association, despite the cries of the membership.

Before I leave this discussion for the day I remind all of you, thought David doesn't seem to have the support that Walt and Bryan were afforded from the Board or the EC he does have the support of the general membership who voted him in. At which point I am left with the question of who do I represent as a board member? It's the membership, at which point I have, as Rick likes to point out, a feducary responsiablility to so at the moment I'm pretty lucky. Unlike John and Rick I am afforded the luxury of waiting for further information before I am going to be forced to act. So therefore I won't speculate on what is going to happen, it would be irresponsiable of me to do so at this time. But what I want the AFA members to think about while we wait for this to come to truly come to a head is whats next?

[Rick Burten]

Tom,
The difference between the situations involving Bryan, Walt, etal and the current one involving Dave is that Bryan, Walt, etal, committed no illegal act.

The existance of the tape is not in dispute. The Maryland statutes regarding recording telephone conversations are not in dispute. That the other members of the EC were unwittingly made complicit in the activity is not in dispute. That another AFA member who is neither a board member nor a member of the the EC was unknowingly made complicit is not in dispute. That playing that illegally obtained tape for others, and thus committing a further illegal activity is not in dispute.

It is necessary I believe, to seperate the personalities involved from the actual act(s) committed and to focus solely on those acts.

I will not speculate but ask yourself this. Knowing the facts at hand and that these facts are not, to my knowledge, in dispute, if the election were held tomorrow, would you still vote for Mr. Ferguson to be President of the AFA?

If the answer is yes, and if the answer was from a majority of the membership, then I would have to think long and hard as to whether I wanted my name and reputation associated in any way with an organization that was willing to condone illegal and potentially, unethical behavior from its elected leader.

[Jaye Perry]

First of all I want to make clear that I by no means condone what David did. I have made this clear to him as well. But by the same token we who sit here and pontificate on this board have no earthly idea what Bryan wants from all of this.

Good. It really doesn't matter what Byran wants; there is a sense of impropriety with and within the situation.





From what my BoD rep to the EC has told me, he to this point hasn't seen a formal letter from any attourney, just an email. We do know a recording exists, but what if David fully cooperates to resolve the matter and Bryan is fully satisfied with the outcome, then what? Do we still ask him to step down?

Yes, any atmosphere of impropriety or sense thereof tarnishes the AFA's credibility .

I want all of us to think back to the whole licencing debacle and think about the final outcome. We were all out for Walts head, yet he was afforded the oppertunity in Omaha to speek his piece and we all walked out of that room thinking that this didn't turn out so bad. As for Bryan, same thing with the Farnam deal. Sufice to say that there hasn't been a BoD meeting where someone didn't walk in to with a pocket motion to dismiss someone. While none of the above had the potential legal implications that the current issue has the people involved were afforded the oppertunity to appologize state lesson learned and carry on for the good of the association, despite the cries of the membership.

In the debacles of both proposed and closed deals, no state or federal laws were broken. Confidences and maybe some bylaws of the AFA were absconded but no prosecutable(alledged) crimes by the justice systems; Big Difference.




Before I leave this discussion for the day I remind all of you, thought David doesn't seem to have the support that Walt and Bryan were afforded from the Board or the EC he does have the support of the general membership who voted him in. At which point I am left with the question of who do I represent as a board member? It's the membership, at which point I have, as Rick likes to point out, a feducary responsiablility to so at the moment I'm pretty lucky.

Yes you have a responsibility to the general membership. Part of that leadership responsibility is to lead with integrity. If the BOD or EC cannot see the "sense " of impropriety, that " administrative sight" will be guilded for the future. Sometimes vision can be blurred by misplaced loyalties.



Unlike John and Rick I am afforded the luxury of waiting for further information before I am going to be forced to act. So therefore I won't speculate on what is going to happen, it would be irresponsible of me to do so at this time. But what I want the AFA members to think about while we wait for this to come to truly come to a head is whats next?

True facts have been stated. Laid out in public by a respected member of the AFA; Rick Burton CJF. I trust his clarity of thought and honesty . I for one will not be apart of any group in which there is "any" sense of impropriety or misplaced loyalties. :(
Just saying "I am sorry" , with a long diatribe of why it was done ,will not cut it.

[Ronald E. Kramedjian]

This is not the first time an AFA executive has done something foolishTom,

Foolish and criminal are two different things. Criminal trumps every possible consideration or defense. There is no justification what so ever for violating the law. This wasn’t even foolish, it was ******.

Are they justified in doing so? Absolutly, it is part of their job as the the first line of stewardship of the association. Not only do they have the responsibility to ask him to resign they have an obligation to bring the BOD together and to inform the membership. As members, this is our association, and the EC has a direct obligation to keep us in the loop as our directly elected representatives.

First of all I want to make clear that I by no means condone what David did. I have made this clear to him as well. But by the same token we who sit here and pontificate on this board have no earthly idea what Bryan wants from all of this. From what my BoD rep to the EC has told me, he to this point hasn't seen a formal letter from any attourney, just an email. We do know a recording exists, but what if David fully cooperates to resolve the matter and Bryan is fully satisfied with the outcome, then what? Do we still ask him to step down? This is a no brainier. The only satisfaction that can be taken away from this mess is that the EC got on top of this issue as quickly as possible. It is distasteful, disheartening and down right disgusting to have to deal with this kind of problem and it is damaging to the AFA to have someone in office that was willing to drag us all into his unethical world. We have no choice but to ask him to step down.

While none of the above had the potential legal implications that the current issue has the people involved were afforded the oppertunity to appologize state lesson learned and carry on for the good of the association, despite the cries of the membership.I am sorry, but there are no apologies or lessons learned to be had here. A crime has been committed. The bell is rung and there is no un-ringing it. Anyone that thinks that this can be slicked over with an apology is sadly mistaken. The most unfortunate thing is going to be the fact that there are good men who might be supportive of Mr. Ferguson in his defense that are going to be tarred with the same ethical brush as him because of their support. Had Mr. Ferguson resigned at least his friends and supporters would have been spared this humiliation.

But what I want the AFA members to think about while we wait for this to come to truly come to a head is whats next?We move on from here with the knowledge that our system of governing our association works. In the future we must look closer at our candidates and try to be sure that we are electing people that have enough of a moral compass to not expose the AFA to this kind of negative publicity and legal liability.

To my way of thinking there is no way that we can keep Mr. Ferguson in office. None. No way, no how. We need to be men and woemn of charicter and ethic's. Anything less would continue to demean the AFA.

[ray steele]

Gentlemen and Ladies,


In this let's not forget that we are in the USA, and the old saying "innocent until proven guilty". We have Ricks say, not to demean his word, we have no official word, no criminal charges brought,

may I suggest that we put the proverbial ropes away and await the wheels of justice to grind.

Should there not be an official word from your Association?

My guess is that the AFA will come out stronger and more universal for all of this, I base that assumption on a gut feeling.

Regards

Ray Steele

[Roy Amaral CJF]

My guess is that the AFA will come out stronger and more universal for all of this, I base that assumption on a gut feeling.


I agree competely! I'm proud to be a part of this organization and I'd like to commend the members of the EC for stepping up and doing the right thing. John especialy as this must be hardest on him.

Ray, does this meen you're going to join? I could really use a new hat..... ;)

[Rick Burten]

In this let's not forget that we are in the USA, and the old saying "innocent until proven guilty". We have Ricks say, not to demean his word, we have no official word, no criminal charges brought,Of course you are demeaning what I stated. In fact, you've just called me a liar.
What "official word" do you require? The existance of the tape is not in question. The illegality of how it was obtained is not in question. I have a copy of the letter sent by Mr. Quinsey's attorney to Mr. Ferguson demanding he turn over the tape and issue a formal written apology.
I have been told directly by a member of the EC that the EC asked Mr. Furgeson to resign and he has refused.

Please explain to me how, when someone commits an illegal act, is caught having committed said act, that individual remains "innocent until proven guilty'? Inquiring minds just want to know!

may I suggest that we put the proverbial ropes away and await the wheels of justice to grind.Of course you can make a suggestion.
Should there not be an official word from your Association? Excuse me. I am a duely elected representative to the AFA board of directors. As such you may consider what I have to say when it comes to the facts regarding this matter as being "the official word" of a member of the board of directors.
My guess is that the AFA will come out stronger and more universal for all of this, I base that assumption on a gut feeling.It is my sincere and ferverent hope that you are correct. It is to that end that I have always dedicated my efforts.

[Tom Stovall, CJF]

Rick Burten in gray, deletia

Please explain to me how, when someone commits an illegal act, is caught having committed said act, that individual remains "innocent until proven guilty'? Inquiring minds just want to know!

The United States legal system is based on the presumption of innocence. No one is "guilty" of any crime until they are judged guilty by the legal system.

No matter how damning the evidence, when one is accused of a crime, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution: One does not have to prove oneself not guilty, the prosecution has to prove that one is guilty.

That said, if ******ity were a capital crime, I can think of a candidate for a hemp necktie. :)

[ray steele]

Of course you are demeaning what I stated. In fact, you've just called me a liar.
What "official word" do you require? The existance of the tape is not in question. The illegality of how it was obtained is not in question. I have a copy of the letter sent by Mr. Quinsey's attorney to Mr. Ferguson demanding he turn over the tape and issue a formal written apology.
I have been told directly by a member of the EC that the EC asked Mr. Furgeson to resign and he has refused.

Please explain to me how, when someone commits an illegal act, is caught having committed said act, that individual remains "innocent until proven guilty'? Inquiring minds just want to know!

Rick,

In our system of justice ie the Justice system of the USA, every person is allowed his day in court, even if he/she pleads guilty, vigilante justice didn't play at Mi Lia nor in the Oxbow Incident. Presuming that you are the "inquiring mind" I hope that answers you.


Of course you can make a suggestion. Just remember that Mr. Ferguson put the rope around his own neck and then kicked the footstool away all by himself. What's left is to remind him that he has no pulse and its time to bury the body.

If he did what you reported, I have no 1st hand knowledge, because of that I have hearsay. I am attempting to keep an open mind to all the info.

Excuse me. I am a duely elected representative to the AFA board of directors. As such you may consider what I have to say when it comes to the facts regarding this matter as being "the official word" of a member of the board of directors.

Official according to you, While I do not doubt that you are an official of the AFA BOD, I have not seen anything nor heard officially from anyone that you are an official spokesperson for the AFA, "defacto" , that seems to be true. You are excused.

It is my sincere and ferverent hope that you are correct. It is to that end that I have always dedicated my efforts.

I sincerely hope that I'm right also for the good of farriers/horseshoers/.... everywhere.

Hey Rick, sincerely I appreciate your efforts.

Regards

Ray

[Jaye Perry]

....No matter how damning the evidence, when one is accused of a crime, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution: One does not have to prove oneself not guilty,.....


No, one doesn't have to prove they are not guilty, but there is an aire' of guilt that follows that person and their assiociations. The blue dress thing comes to mind. :)

[Gary_Miller]

In this let's not forget that we are in the USA, and the old saying "innocent until proven guilty". We have Ricks say, not to demean his word, we have no official word, no criminal charges brought,

may I suggest that we put the proverbial ropes away and await the wheels of justice to grind.
Ray, what Dave has done is unethical as well as it was against the law.

The AFA does not need to, nor should they, await for the justice system to find him guilty to take action agianst unethical behavior.


Gary

[ray steele]

Gary,
i agree

We 1st have to prove that he did it! and so far in my eye, we have not done that, if i were to say that Gary did something , should we drum you out of the ... you pick the assoc, group , etc. . Your ethics and mine or Joes' maybe somewhat different.

all that I'm saying is that we need to agree on a common ground, and in the USA the common ground is the written law. My ethics, your ethics are non defined and variable as allowed and held to the highest esteem in OUR way of life.

Regards

Ray Steele

PS because I'm to computer illerterate to do the quote thing well please read the reply to Rick in it's entirety, I answered Rick in his own quote, If you think that your confused , I'll best ya. Ray

[Ronald E. Kramedjian]

The United States legal system is based on the presumption of innocence. No one is "guilty" of any crime until they are judged guilty by the legal system.Tom,

You are absolutely correct. But I do not think that this presumption applies in this case. The actions of the BOD of the AFA are governed by the bylaws of the AFA and the Laws of the State of Kentucky. So fortunately for our protection, as members of the AFA, the framers of our bylaws did not include any provision or requirement of anything for an officer to be removed from office. Article IV, Section 7 of the AFA bylaws says, "The Board of Directors may remove any Officer at any time, with or without cause, by a vote of three-fourths of all Board of Directors members in good standing."

No matter how damning the evidence, when one is accused of a crime, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution: One does not have to prove oneself not guilty, the prosecution has to prove that one is guilty.In criminal court you are again absolutely correct. However, this standard does not and need not apply in this case. We are talking about an officer of a corporation that is required by the very bylaws that created the office that he holds to conduct themselves to a certain standard of conduct. That standard is outlined clearly and it has been violated.

ARTICLE XIV. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

The American Farrier's Association as represented by the Officers, Board of Directors, and members, has the responsibility of conducting itself in a businesslike and professional manner when dealing with colleagues, businesses, and other equine professionals. An obligation exists to set a standard of conduct befitting the professional farrier. The actions of the American Farrier's Association are expected to enhance the honor and dignity of the farrier profession, expand the base of professional knowledge of farriery and render service to the community.

That said, if ******ity were a capital crime, I can think of a candidate for a hemp necktie. :)Yup.

[ray steele]

Ron,
Please correct me if I'm wrong,

I believe that the laws of the USA, supercede the laws of the States and of any corporations / entities endowed by those states in question. . If I'm correct then Tom and I are correct in presuming that a person is innocrent until proven guilty... yes or no.

Regards

Ray Steele

[Rick Burten]

all that I'm saying is that we need to agree on a common ground, and in the USA the common ground is the written law. My ethics, your ethics are non defined and variable as allowed and held to the highest esteem in OUR way of life.
If a Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Maryland should so determine, then Mr. Ferguson will have his day in court.

That fact however, is not germane to his situation with regard to the AFA. He is an officer of a corporation. The corporation has been vested with the right, power and obligation to remove any officer and for that matter, any member, with or without cause, so long as the corporation acts within the statutes of the State of Kentucky.

Remember, "WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE". From the moment an applicant's money is accepted and that applicant becomes a member of the AFA and each and every time a member of the AFA renews his/her dues, they tacitly agrees to this and every other provision of the Bylaws

As a farrier, I know that the stench arising from hot fitting a shoe to a hoof is the smell of money. As a reasonably sentient being and a member of the board of directors of the AFA, I know that the stench arising from an illegal act, an unethical act, a breech of the expected code of conduct and/or leadership, is the smell of decay. Absent a mortician or forensic pathologist, I don't know of very many individuals or outside corporations or businesses that want to be associated with or run the risk of getting , that stench on their personal, or corporate bodies.

[Jaye Perry]

Please correct me if I'm wrong,

I believe that the laws of the USA, supercede the laws of the States and of any corporations / entities endowed by those states in question. . If I'm correct then Tom and I are correct in presuming that a person is innocrent until proven guilty... yes or no.

Ray, this Jaye :cool: . It's for the courts to decide the criminal intent and or guilt. Whether criminal or civil. That's a whole 'nother ballgame.

The game on now, for the AFA, is whether the administration can withstand a "so called" unethical elected leader.(?) Ethics and morality can be mixed about easily, but character and integrity stand on their own.

The question to be answered is "Why was the method used in that conversation and why it was deemed necessary?"

[brian robertson]

I wonder how high the dues will be next year to cover the cost of this latest fiasco.
It would appear that Mr. Quincy has hit the lottery, if he so chooses, thanks to Mr. Ferguson. Talk about your "golden parachute".

[Tom Stovall, CJF]

ray steele in gray

I believe that the laws of the USA, supercede the laws of the States and of any corporations / entities endowed by those states in question. . If I'm correct then Tom and I are correct in presuming that a person is innocrent until proven guilty... yes or no.

No. The presumption of innocence is not at issue in this case.

Unless it's qualified or contradicted by some other bylaw, as I read the bylaw Ronald quoted, an AFA president can be removed from office without cause by a two-thirds vote of the BOD, which means the president literally serves at the pleasure of the board.

[ray steele]

Jaye,

I do not believe that you or I can say that it (the taping ) happened unless we heard the tape. The tape at least for me exists in the words of Rick, I have no reason to doubt Rick, nor do I have reason to believe him ,except if I choose to, but that still does not make the tape exist or not exist. That's how lynching parties evolve, and I do not want to ruin a persons name on hearsay, even if it is true. The alternative possability is that after the lynching we find out that it was the wrong person. There is a saying in New England, "the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow but also exceedingly fine" . I'm willing to wait for the full story.


That said, I would suggest to the AFA that any future hirings be contracted in such a way as to let a future employee/ voted officer/ volunteer know that all dealings and conversations /controversies are subject to member review and that such disclaimer be signed by that person.

The membership cannot make a decision without information, and in some cases the infomation cannot be distributed because of confidentiality laws. How can one make a decision with this conundrum.

regards

Ray Steele

[Ronald E. Kramedjian]

Ron,
Please correct me if I'm wrong,

I believe that the laws of the USA, supercede the laws of the States and of any corporations / entities endowed by those states in question. . If I'm correct then Tom and I are correct in presuming that a person is innocrent until proven guilty... yes or no.

Regards

Ray SteeleOK, stand corrected. You are wrong.

Here is the disclaimer. I am not a lawyer and make no claims to be. However I did do my first year of law school, worked for a litigation law firm and have been an executive long enough to have picked up a couple of things along the way.

Here is an interesting fact about constitutional law, the Constitution Of the United States does not trump state law in most cases. It provides a framework that states are required to follow in criminal procedure and there are other protections for civil rights, governing interstate commerce, etc. But it specifically gives the states the right to make their own laws about crime, commerce and such. States in turn have passed laws that delegate certain rights to self governance to the corporations that are formed in their states. This body of law is the corporate code.

So to lay this out for you as clearly as I am capable of laying it out.

1. Mr. Ferguson’s status as the President of the AFA is solely governed by the Bylaws of the AFA.
2. If the State of Kentucky has provisions in the corporate code that govern the removal of an officer of a non profit corporation then those provisions would need to be followed.
3. The US Constitutions only real requirement would be that the laws of the State of Kentucky be applied equally to everyone, the equal protection clause.

The AFA EC, BOD and membership are not empowered to try Mr. Ferguson’s criminal or civil conduct. Those are for a state court to decide. However, that said, we are empowered to enforce our bylaws in such a manner as is consistent with the law of the State of Kentucky.

I hope this clears things up for you.

[ray steele]

Tom,

I cannot argue what Ron, and you have pointed out , except to say the same, the laws of the USA supercede the laws of the states and those entities that the states recognize. Every person is innocent until proven guilty. Except and there is always an exception, The IRS.

Otherwise there would be a lot more private hangings.

Regards

Ray Steele

[Rick Burten]

Unless it's qualified or contradicted by some other bylaw, as I read the bylaw Ronald quoted, an AFA president can be removed from office without cause by a two-thirds vote of the BOD,
Just two point of clarification, Any officer can be removed and it takes a 3/4 vote of the BOD.(Article IV, Section 7)


which means the president literally serves at the pleasure of the board.
PRECISELY!

[ray steele]

Ron ,

In summary answer to your post #20, are you suggesting that a person is not innocent until proven guilty?

While the AFA and many other orgs. have bylaws , are those bylaws enough to relegate the rights of citizens non existant?

Even bylaws are subject to judicial review, I see it in my New England(MA) town.

My point is and I hope that others will see it also , while legal impropriety has been mentioned for the removal of a person from an AFA position by several participants of these forums, the law has not been called upon that I know of to handle the situation.

We are still at a he said/she said venue. I'm just asking show me and other forum members the proof! Otherwise we are at a lynching party and the sharks have begun to circle.


Regards

Ray

[Roy Amaral CJF]

Ray, it's not up to us to decide guilt or innocence only if we want Dave to continue as president.

The bylaws don't require any cause at all to remove an officer or a member for that matter.

[Rick Burten]

[quote]While the AFA and many other orgs. have bylaws , are those bylaws enough to relegate the rights of citizens non existant?
Argumentum ad obfusic-u-m. What rights have been rendered non-existant? Mr. Ferguson is a volunteer employee of the AFA. As with any other job, he can be fired. As can anyone else. Have you never been fired from a job? If you have been fired were your 'rights' violated or rendered non-existant'?

If I walked in to a BOD meeting and someone did not like my cologne, or my clothing or any other thing, they could make a motion to have me removed(fired) and if a majority of the BOD agreed, there is not one damn thing I could do about it. C'est la vie, C'est la guerre'.
Even bylaws are subject to judicial review, I see it in my New England(MA) town.
Since the bylaws have been vetted, and since they have been accepted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it is going to be, IMNTBCHO, rather difficult to successfully challenge them. And, over what? Remaining president of the AFA? What credibility or ability to act or gain approval would remain for any individual who undertook such an action?

The true power within the AFA resides with the Board of Directors. The power/duties of the President are quite constrained and should the board see fit, it could very well and easily completely ignore him/her, reserving for that individual only the ability to preside of all meetings of the BOD and EC. In other words, the board, should a sitting president whose time had come and gone, refuse to recognize the obvious, could, metaphorically speaking, emasculate that individual and render him effete.
My point is and I hope that others will see it also , while legal impropriety has been mentioned for the removal of a person from an AFA position by several participants of these forums, the law has not been called upon that I know of to handle the situation.
Your point is not germane.
We are still at a he said/she said venue. I'm just asking show me and other forum members the proof!
I'm sure that Mr. Ferguson is going to be quite willing to produce, for your education and edification, the illegal tape recording he made. Why don't you call and ask him? If he complies with the written request by the attorney for Mr. Quinsey, then that tape and any copies will be turned over to Mr. Quinsey's attorney. What then happens to the tape will be Mr. Quinsey's call. Further, I question whether Mr. Ferguson will comply with the demand for a formal written apology. To do so would, IMNTBCHO, not be in his best legal interests.
However, if I had not personally heard the tape and if Mr. Ferguson had not expressly told me that it was Mr. Quinsey speaking, then why would I have sent , the next day, the following e-mail? And, within two hours of receiving that e-mail, why would Mr. Ferguson have called me and said how he wished I had not committed my thoughts on the subject to paper?

If it comes to a certain point, then I am fully prepared to have a subpoena issued forMr. Ferguson's phone records to verifiy the dates and times he placed telephone calls to me. While this will not deliniate the actual conversations held, it will support my position as to what occurred and when. If that is not good enough for you, then probably nothing will be.
__________________________________________________ ________
SUBJECT: Our late evening conversation of 08April2006
from: RickBurten<hoofrx1@insightbb.com>
Date: 4/9/2006 8:56 AM
To: Mintvaleforge@intercom.net

Dave

First, thanks for the phone call. I appreciate being kept both in the loop and up to date.

After we spoke, I had a rather restless night . My concern is over the recording you played for me. Was Bryan informed that the conversation in question was being recorded? Was anyone else listening to the conversation, and was Bryan informed of that fact?

If Bryan did not know the conversation was being recorded, then an illegal act was committed and could well form the grounds for legal action against both you and the AFA.

If the conversation was illegally recorded, then I urge you not to share that recording with anyone else. In fact, you should destroy the tape and any copies you may have made.

If, on the other hand, you had Bryan's consent to record the conversation, then I suggest that you immediately have the tape authenticated and transcribed and the transcript posted on the AFA web site and/or any other place with easy and common access.

We have both seen and lived through the time when illegal recording of conversations helped to bring down a sitting United States President. We do not need even a minor repetition of that sad time.
If the contents of your tape become public and it is found that they were illegally obtained, I fear that your tenure as a member of the AFA, let alone President of the AFA may well come to a quick and tawdry end.

You have some interesting ideas and a vision for the AFA. Don't let them founder on the rocky shoals of impropriety.

Sincerely,

Rick

__________________________________________________ ______________
Otherwise we are at a lynching party and the sharks have begun to circle.
As I said before, only one person is responsible for the predicament he is in. Care to venture a guess who that person is?

[strongwindsmoon]

The only stench out there is the stench of yet another witchhunt. This happens every time there is a change of regime in the upper echelon ivory towers of the AFA. None of this advances the association. All it does is make ALL members of this association look like fools to the outside. No wonder a farrier is not consider a "professional". Appearances are 90% of a job well done and I do not consider any one of you on the EC or the BOD or the AFA "official representative" as professional.
It is an embarrassment to me and every other general member of this association to see our elected officers behave in this manner.
You raise my dues and hand me this nonsense.
Gentlemen, you are all wasting my time and my hard earned money.
If you all cannot get along well enough to get the job done of representing me to the outside world then what good are you.

[ray steele]

Good folks of the forums,

I will not be able to continue this discussion untill Monday ,4/24/06, to some or all you may see that as a blessing. Keep up the good work!


Regards

Ray Steele

[George Geist]

Ray,
I believe Ron was referring to the 10th amendment.
Rights not specifically given to the federal government as spelled out in the constitution are reserved to the states.
George

[Rick Burten]

The only stench out there is the stench of yet another witchhunt. This happens every time there is a change of regime in the upper echelon ivory towers of the AFA. None of this advances the association. All it does is make ALL members of this association look like fools to the outside. No wonder a farrier is not consider a "professional". Appearances are 90% of a job well done and I do not consider any one of you on the EC or the BOD or the AFA "official representative" as professional.
It is an embarrassment to me and every other general member of this association to see our elected officers behave in this manner.
You raise my dues and hand me this nonsense.
Gentlemen, you are all wasting my time and my hard earned money.
If you all cannot get along well enough to get the job done of representing me to the outside world then what good are you.
First, your credibility will be considerably greater than zero(where it presently resides) as soon as you stop hiding behind a nom de plume' and use your real name to identify yourself. Are you embarrassed or ashamed to take credit, in your own name, for your thoughts?
Second, it is demonstrable that your assertion that it is an embarrassment to me and every other general member of this association to see our elected officers behave in this manner is completely wrong. Perhaps you would care to restate your contention using realistic and hopefully, verifiable numbers.
What is truely embarrassing is to have a sitting president conduct his office in the manner that has thus far happened.

[Jaye Perry]

Rick Burten......The true power within the AFA resides with the Board of Directors. The power/duties of the President are quite constrained and should the board see fit, it could very well and easily completely ignore him/her, reserving for that individual only the ability to preside of all meetings of the BOD and EC. In other words, the board, should a sitting president whose time had come and gone, refuse to recognize the obvious, could, metaphorically speaking, emasculate that individual and render him effete...


AS members, when should we expect to hear from the BODs with a public comment and or decision / ruling regarding this matter.(?) Has a conference or quorum be called?
I would like to know because my membership expires 6/01/06, I have to make a decision .

[Rick Burten]

Good folks of the forums,

I will not be able to continue this discussion untill Monday ,4/24/06, to some or all you may see that as a blessing. Keep up the good work!
Hopefully by then the matter will have been resolved.

TTFN. :)

[strongwindsmoon]

Your response is uncalled for as moderator of this site. I would like to see you resign as it is obvious you have no idea how to conduct yourself in a manner appropriate to the job.

[Jaye Perry]

Your response is uncalled for as moderator of this site. I would like to see you resign as it is obvious you have no idea how to conduct yourself in a manner appropriate to the job.

I love new people on these boards; that means a full cleansing and baptism :rolleyes:

[George Geist]

Hey Moon,
I'd be a little careful if I were you. Mr. Burten's fine command of the written word is well known. Don't bite off more than you can chew in that area.
George

[Phil Armitage]

Hey Rick, you have no problem calling others a liar or questioning the credebility of others on this forum. Your pretty quick to get this news out to everyone and have a hanging. Come down off of your self appointed throne and quit being a jerk. If others want to wait and get both sides of the story that is there perogative. Back off a little, your sounding like you couldnt wait to find a problem.

[Ben-Sturman]

Hey Moon, this is basically a put up or shut up type of forum. Most of the long timers here have always used their names and have never hiddin behind an internet handle. We expect people to sign there posts and give their opinions freely, but without knowing who you are, you have no credibility and your gibberish means nothing. All we ask is that you be proud enough of who you are and have enough guts to tell us so we know. Then we will accept your point of view and answer with how we see it and have a good meaningful and helpful discussion. Entering here and blowing steam without respect gets you nowhere. Let us know who you are and how you feel and why and then we may get someshere. Other wise you mean nothing.

[T.N. Trosin]

AS members, when should we expect to hear from the BODs with a public comment and or decision / ruling regarding this matter.(?) Has a conference or quorum be called?
I would like to know because my membership expires 6/01/06, I have to make a decision .

Thats a good question Jaye.

Just doing the quick math, based on if I got a notice to sign on to a board meeting, 5 days to process and collect the board response + 3 to 5 for production and mailing and recipt of the notice + 2 for long distance delivery + 30 for date of notice so about 42 days if the majority of the of the board asked on the 20th of april so that puts us 2 days in to June which is a direct conflict with the RMFA's 4 corner contest so ad 7 So we're looking at about June 10th which could be another conflict, blah blah, blah. Again thats if the BoD acts within the next 2 days. So sufice to say we are probably looking at around the end of June ot the first part of July. So chances are that it will be after your dues expire so as Trevor Denmon (track anouncer at Santa Anita) says, "Thanks for being with us, now good night to you all".

Today I asked you guys a simple question. Whats next? I got a lot of reitteration on the legality of the issue but no answer as to a contingency plan or what you guys thought the AFA should do in either case.

I await your answers

[Gary_Miller]

Hey Rick, you have no problem calling others a liar or questioning the credebility of others on this forum. Your pretty quick to get this news out to everyone and have a hanging. Come down off of your self appointed throne and quit being a jerk. If others want to wait and get both sides of the story that is there perogative. Back off a little, your sounding like you couldnt wait to find a problem.
It has to start somewhere and be started by someone to get the proceedure started. I believe in this case Rick had the information needed to get it started. It now up to the BOD to take action. I'm sure the facts will come out and Dave will have his chance to speak. Then a discussioin will beheld and the BOD will do whats it deems correct and necessary for the association. Only when this happens will the AFA be able to move on.

If your waiting to hear from Dave on the matter to get his side you can forget it. He has already made it clear on another tread, as well as in a phone converstion I had with him last weekend, that he will not waste his time posting on this form. I don't think he wants a paper trail, as he always says to give him a call.

So Phil, don't have to make a dicission, you don't have to take sides. However you do have to let others, Rick, do what he thinks is correct and right in his mind, and as he is a member of the BOD I think he is doing the right thing.

You don't really think Rick would do this just fun, do you?

Gary

[Jaye Perry]

.......Today I asked you guys a simple question. Whats next? I got a lot of reitteration on the legality of the issue but no answer as to a contingency plan or what you guys thought the AFA should do in either case.

I await your answers

Isn't there a vice president?

[Rick Burten]

Your response is uncalled for as moderator of this site. I would like to see you resign as it is obvious you have no idea how to conduct yourself in a manner appropriate to the job.
The care and feeding of trolls is no longer my responsibility. Nor that of any other participant on the forums.

[Rick Burten]

Hey Rick, you have no problem calling others a liar or questioning the credebility of others on this forum.
Absolutely true. I also have no problem calling someone a fool. What's your point?
Your pretty quick to get this news out to everyone and have a hanging.
You want it both ways. When information is slow to come out, you scream bloody murder. When transparency is sought, and quickly so, you want to shoot the messenger. Make up your mind.

That said, the issues at hand were feeding rapidly into the rumor mill. Speculation was ramping up. Because I was(and still am)in possession of factual information I posted what I knew/know. For whatever reason(s), that got your undies all wadded up and apparently you have not figured out how to undo a wedgie.

As I knew it would, the recriminations are not being focused on the person who is responsible for this mess, rather, they are being focused on, for lack of a better term, the whistle blower. So be it. My moral compass is still pointing due north. I can look in the mirror and the man in the mirror doesn't avert his eyes. You clamor for honesty and integrity and transparency from those in leadership positions and then you damn them when you get it. Its a wonder that anyone wants the thankless task of representing you.
Come down off of your self appointed throne and quit being a jerk.
Your paranoia and insecurity are manifesting. Obviously, you find no problem with criminal or unethical activity, particularly from those in leadership positions. Fine with me. Just remember the old adage, "When you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas". Interesting isn't it how words, used when physical deeds are not an option, will always bring out the true measure of a man.
If others want to wait and get both sides of the story that is there perogative.
Absolutely. Just don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining.

And, in case you missed it. There is no other side of the story. For a change, focus on the facts and not the personalities.

Do you actually believe that if the enumerated events had not occurred, you would have silence from the principle? Do you believe that I concocted this entire sad saga? Or is it merely that someone you have/had respect for, supported, someone whom you trusted and looked to for help, leadership, whatever, turns out to have feet of clay and accepting that fact is a bitter pill to swallow and digest?
Back off a little, your sounding like you couldnt wait to find a problem.
I didn't find the problem, the problem found me. And it started when Mr. Ferguson tried to make me complicit in his illegal activity by playing the illegally recorded tape recording for me.

As for backing off, the EC is, at present, the lead dog in the traces. As with most all lead dogs, they have the best and most diverse view. And that is fine with me. I still believe that Mr. Ferguson should resign. And, as you have witnessed, I am far from alone in this feeling. And , in that regard, you have knowledge of but the tip of the iceberg.

So, instead of assailing me, do some homework yourself. Make calls like I did and continue to do. Get the information yourself since you doubt it when others present it in an effort to keep everyone informed.

Do your due dilligence and then get back to me/us.

[Rick Burten]

Today I asked you guys a simple question. Whats next? I got a lot of reitteration on the legality of the issue but no answer as to a contingency plan or what you guys thought the AFA should do in either case.

I await your answers
Tom,
you are, of course, right.

The office is functioning with Mike Nolan there as consultant, Linda Jiulianti as Office Manager, Jill Ballard ,and one or two others whose names escape me at the moment. The members of the EC are in regular contact with the office and business is on -going, if somewhat slowed down by the absence of and Executive Director.

What should the AFA do in either case?

The AFA, IMO, should continue to provide services and conduct business to the best of its ability. If the president resigns or is removed, then the Vice President moves into the vacant slot and potentially, fills out the full term of the office, and the board elects a new vice president to fill out the remainder of that term. If the president remains in office, then nothing changes and the AFA continues with its mission.

I don't know that there is a formal contingency plan. This situation has never before occurred and there is no specific policy on how to function in a situation such as this.

It seems to me that the longer this situation exists, the more the harm to the credibility and viability of the AFA. Certainly, right now, I think we are treading water trying to hold our own.

Perhaps we, the membership, should call the office and find out what needs to be done and then help with the tasks. With the collected skills, knowledge and wisdom that define the AFA, surely we can move the AFA forward regardless of who is at the helm.

[Ronald E. Kramedjian]

Just doing the quick math, based on if I got a notice to sign on to a board meeting, 5 days to process and collect the board response + 3 to 5 for production and mailing and recipt of the notice + 2 for long distance delivery + 30 for date of notice so about 42 days if the majority of the of the board asked on the 20th of april so that puts us 2 days in to June which is a direct conflict with the RMFA's 4 corner contest so ad 7 So we're looking at about June 10th which could be another conflict, blah blah, blah. Again thats if the BoD acts within the next 2 days.Tom,

Given the following provision:
Any action which may be considered at a meeting of the Board of Directors may be considered without a meeting by mail ballot or voting by other electronic communication.Couldn't the BOD cut 30 days from the process and keep expenses under control by discussing this matter via a conference call set for a date and time in the mailed notices? Further couldn't the mailed notices contain the factual description of all information available to the EC at the time the notices are mailed for BOD member consideration prior to the call? Couldn't the discussion of the facts be reasonably brief as none of the facts have been disputed? Wouldn't that resolve this problem in as efficient manner as possible? If Mr. Ferguson is removed, couldn't the BOD while on the conference call accept the nomination to fill the VP and in fact fill the VP seat with a suitable candidate?

Today I asked you guys a simple question. Whats next? I got a lot of reitteration on the legality of the issue but no answer as to a contingency plan or what you guys thought the AFA should do in either case.Tom, I answered your question. We keep moving forward. Regardless of outcome, the EC, with or without Mr. Ferguson, will continue to move the day to day business of the AFA forward and the BOD will continue to set policy and review the EC's actions. Nothing changes, except potentially the names of the people holding a particular office.

Changes of leadership happen in corporate America every day. When changes occur the corporations involved keep moving forward. There are absolutely no reasons that I can see that this shouldn't be handled in the same fashion.

What we all must realize and internalize is that an officer, director or member of the AFA is just a caretaker of the AFA. Our duty is to take as careful and wise care as possible of our association while we are a part of it. By doing that we are working to improve it and pass it on to those that will be following us into our profession and our organization. Every new member of the AFA is inheriting the legacy of every member that has come before them. So the real question is what kind of AFA do we want to pass on?

[Phil Armitage]

T.N. you said it very well when you started your thread. Ray Steel and Tom Stoval made excellent points and suggestions. It seems Rick and a couple of others want Daves head now. Criminal offense or not we as AFA members are all entitled to hearing both sides of the story and then decideing what to do. Rick is up to his same ole self as the forum bully, it would be one thing to post the information, but anyone who opposes his views is attacked. I think Rick should have informed AFA leadership first and allow due process, I do not understand Ricks role and why he feels releasing this on an open forum is helpfull. If anyone has an opposeing view he resorts to attack mode. Personaly I do not see how Baron considers him an effective moderator.


I think the next step is to wait and get all the facts, no matter what Rick or anyone else says on a public forum, this is not the official AFA process or venue for these types of matters. Dave is innocent until proven quilty. The membership should not be bullied into makeing a decision or critisized for useing good judgement.

What is next? Wait and be professional.

[Rick Burten]

Criminal offense or not we as AFA members are all entitled to hearing both sides of the story and then decideing what to do.
Just as an intellectual exercise, what would you say is the other side of the story? ie: what information would you expect to be presented?
Rick is up to his same ole self as the forum bully,
ROTFLAMO! Say it ain't so, Joe*. You might want to try again. Start with reading for content in context and keep track of from which quarter the insulting comments and attacks originated.
it would be one thing to post the information, but anyone who opposes his views is attacked.
You, as a scholar, will by now have noted that I did post the information. Then waited and watched what happened next. Then I replied. Being of the scholarly persuasion, you also will have noted that it was my views that were attacked, and someone(I'll leave it to you to figure out whom)wanted to take me to the woodshed for posting the information in the first place. Said something about airing dirty laundry or the like.
I think Rick should have informed AFA leadership first and allow due process,
What leads you to believe that the AFA leadership was not first informed(and you might want to try and discover by whom and when) and that they were/are not undertaking action? Yet again you make accusations without being in command of the facts. Yet another example of your failure to do your due dilligence. It is precisely because of this attitude that I released the information I had/have. To date, no one has contradicted it or shown it to be in error. Perhaps you should cognate on what that is.
And, contrary to your statement that "I think", quite the contrary is in evidence.
I do not understand Ricks role and why he feels releasing this on an open forum is helpfull.
Since I have offered explanations for this, here and elsewhere, it appears that your inability to comprehend is beyond my ability to explain.
If anyone has an opposeing view he resorts to attack mode.
Since you don't like interacting with me, don't. If you want to give, then you had better be ready to receive. And be able to do so without crying "foul" just because you(any one in the collective) can't take the heat or lack the requisite skills to adequately respond.
Personaly I do not see how Baron considers him an effective moderator.
Instead of whining, why not ask Baron straight away? One thing though, you might want to consider that I really don't wear my moderator hat when I'm interacting on a thread. But if it so vexes you that I do hold the moderator position and have, on rare occasions, used it, then I'll be more than happy to not be a moderator at all. That way, you'll have one less thing to whine and snivel about. Better yet, I'll suggest to Baron that he suspend my role as a moderator and that, on a trial basis, he assign you that role. Watcha' think about that idea? ("Watcha' gonna do when they come for you? watcha' gonna do when they come for you?")
I think the next step is to wait and get all the facts, no matter what Rick or anyone else says on a public forum,
Like Nero, you would fiddle while Rome burns. Whatever trips your buzzer.
this is not the official AFA process or venue for these types of matters.
Since you apparently are in the know, what pray tell is the official AFA process and/or venue for these types of matters? Is that process or venue the same for , say, a discussion about the AFA's position on Licensing and Registration? Or a dues increase? or anything else for that matter?
Dave is innocent until proven quilty.
Though I am loathe to do so, I feel I should point out that this is not a court of law. Nor does the AFA or any other corporate entity have to act like it is a court of law. As has been repeatedly said, the business(in this case, the AFA) can fire an officer, or any other member, with or without cause. You might want to take a moment or two to ponder the import and implications of those four words.
The membership should not be bullied into makeing a decision or critisized for useing good judgement.
In case you overlooked it, the membership would not even be aware of what is going on had it not been brought to their attention. In point of fact, the BOD could have removed Mr. Ferguson, making it a done deal, and then have gotten around to letting the membership know what was going on. How would you have felt then. What might your comments have been in that cir***stance?

Sorry Phil, but your dog just won't hunt.

What is next? Wait and be professional.
It would be nice if you were to heed your own advise.

* from the movie, "Eight Men Out"

[Tom Stovall, CJF]

Phil Armitage in gray

T.N. you said it very well when you started your thread. Ray Steel and Tom Stoval made excellent points and suggestions.

Whoa! I pointed out the presumption of innocence in US jurisprudence, I did not question the right of an organization to enforce its bylaws.

It seems Rick and a couple of others want Daves head now.

As an outsider considering joining the AFA in order to make my voice heard on matters that affect me, I'm very concerned with the appearance of scandal at the top of the AFA's heap. As Jaye correctly pointed out, even the appearance of impropriety can be extremely damaging to an organization's credibility.

Criminal offense or not we as AFA members are all entitled to hearing both sides of the story and then decideing what to do.

An AFA member, or the member of any other organization, is entitled to management's strict adherence to the organization's bylaws. When management assumes it no longer operates under the same rules and regulations that govern the membership, Enron happens.

Rick is up to his same ole self as the forum bully, it would be one thing to post the information, but anyone who opposes his views is attacked.

Attacking ideas is kosher, attacking the person who expresses an idea - as you have done in the previous sentence - is called "argumentum ad hominem" and is a common logical fallacy. Logically, since Rick cannot affect any member of this forum physically or fiscally, how'n hell can he possibly "bully" anyone other than a weak-minded individual who allows himself to be bullied?

I think Rick should have informed AFA leadership first and allow due process, I do not understand Ricks role and why he feels releasing this on an open forum is helpfull. If anyone has an opposeing view he resorts to attack mode. Personaly I do not see how Baron considers him an effective moderator.

Personally, I think the laissez faire faire moderation of this forum encourages the free exchange of ideas and adds to its effectiveness: Kudos to the moderators!

I think the next step is to wait and get all the facts, no matter what Rick or anyone else says on a public forum, this is not the official AFA process or venue for these types of matters.

What "types of matters" are these? If they're political, they're apparently within the purview of a forum called, "The Political Arena."

Dave is innocent until proven quilty.

Guilt or innocence is not at issue, at issue is the appearance of malfeasance and its effect on the organization.

The membership should not be bullied into makeing a decision or critisized for useing good judgement.

Given the accusation of malfeasance and supporting evidence, it can be argued that the BOD's failure to make a timely decision - one way or the other - will cause the organization to take another credibility hit.

What is next? Wait and be professional.

Wait for what? The odor of internal putrefaction isn't going to go away, it will only get worse - and nobody is going to convince folks that stink is really the smell of gardenias.

[George Geist]

Phil,
Sorry but Mr. Stovall is right. It is refreshing to have a timely release of accurate information. I would personally like to thank Rick for that. If somebody needs to be dumped overboard for the good of the association then so be it. Hopefully this matter will be resolved soon.
George

[vthorseshoe]

Hi Jaye ;

Before thinking of quiting the AFA over this or any other arising problem in the future(and lord knows there will be many other issue's that will surface for the members and the BOD/EC to cope with in the future) I would suggest everyone sit back and look at the scales of weight and balances.

I can come up with a scale full of good/great things the AFA has done for the industry and members and the horse world.
I am sure many can remember issue's from the past that brought on heated discussions and warranted actions of different degree's.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face (I think that is how it goes ? ):rolleyes:

Problems always get handled. A solution is always reached through one form or another. Time always seems to have a way to heal.
Take this problem and learn from it. Prepare or set up methods to prevent it from happening again, but don't quit because of it.

Joining an organization is a choice usually made on a valid, logical decision to become a part of said organization. Taking part in its workings and helping advance said organization to higher and better things.
If everyone quit with the onset of every bump in the road then why have any organization ?

After 20+ yrs of marriage, I have probably made every mistake a husband can make, yet my wife hasn't said I quit !! (she has cuffed me a few times, but I am a better man for it. A bit lopsided, but a better man.) :D


I am learning and hearing more information about this incident involving Dave. On the board and off the board.
I am making my own conclusions and decisions on the facts as they are presented to me.
On the legalities that may arise, I believe that is for the courts or a judge to decide(if it should go that far).
As a long time member of the AFA my concerns lie with the ramifications, present and future for the AFA.
As a member I want what is best the future of the AFA.
I am interested in what decisions the BOD/EC will make.
I am also interested in knowing what directions/changes will be made to use as a guide for future officers to adhere to.

The wheels of progress move slowly, but there are a lot of very good people in position of authority and I have faith and believe that things will right themselves through good judgement and cool heads.

One last word;
I questioned the word of witch hunt myself and I have seen it in other previous posts. I want to say on record, after a number of discussions with others that "I honestly don't believe that word or the impression it implies is valid here."
I truly believe that the actions of the folks involved are being done with the sincerest of intentions for the betterment of the AFA.

With that said;
There are always two sides to every situation and we all need to REMEMBER this.
I have made decisions that I thought were valid and held water only to have a clearer mind point out a better more prudent manner to do something.
In my mind I was correct. In the other persons mind it was a good idea but had room for improvement.
I could see there was room for improvement after LISTENING to what others had to say.
Is the word quarrem ? a goup of people agreeing on a decision ?
I am always saying two heads are better than one.

Bruce Matthews AFA #1300
Northeast Drafthorse Shoeing LLC

[Ronald E. Kramedjian]

Criminal offense or not we as AFA members are all entitled to hearing both sides of the storyPhil,

Given the undisputed facts as presented, is there anything that Mr. Ferguson could possibly say or any evidence that he could present that could justify his behavior, rehabilitate his reputation and restore the confidence of the membership that he will act ethically and in the best interests of the membership sufficiently that would justify the BOD voting to keep him in his current position and if so what are those things in your mind?

[T.N. Trosin]

Phil,

Given the undisputed facts as presented, is there anything that Mr. Ferguson could possibly say or any evidence that he could present that could justify his behavior, rehabilitate his reputation and restore the confidence of the membership that he will act ethically and in the best interests of the membership sufficiently that would justify the BOD voting to keep him in his current position and if so what are those things in your mind?

Kinda my point and I really didn't want to go this direction but I'm going to play the Bush card here.

The President of the United States, a position that is obviously more important than the President of the AFA, recorded several telephone conversations without either participants knowledge yet nobody is asking him to resign. He's made no appologies for his actions, and yet the worst thing that could have happened to him was a censure.

Now as I see it, and I want you guys to answer honestly, because I will bring this back to haunt you, had the election gone the other way and had Jeff Ridley done the EXACT same thing would you be asking for his head? Is this truly a matter of legalities or is it a matter of personalities?

Should all parties DIRECTLY involved in this issue walk away with a satisfactory result, shouldn't we allow the this issue to subside in the intrest of progress of the AFA?

I feel that I don't need to answer the former becuse I feel I have made my position clear. My answer to the latter is in the event that everyone is satisfied, we should in the intrest of business and progress let the President stand, and should the membership deam that his removal is still necassary let them vote him out at the end of his term.

Finnaly I would like to appologize to you guys for not spell checking my responsed lately, but it's show season. Off to another today see you Monday.
T

[Tom Stovall, CJF]

T.N. Trosin in gray, deletia

The President of the United States, a position that is obviously more important than the President of the AFA, recorded several telephone conversations without either participants knowledge yet nobody is asking him to resign.

Nobody 'cept every Democrat and Independent in Washington. :)

He's made no appologies for his actions, and yet the worst thing that could have happened to him was a censure.

As a member of the party with a majority in both the House and Senate, Dubya wouldn't be impeached if he was caught in the sack with a dead woman or a live man - but he could be. On conviction, the president of the US can be impeached and removed from office for, "Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes or Misdemeanors..." The House starts proceedings, the Senate conducts the trial, and the Chief Justice of the Supremes runs the show.

Now as I see it, and I want you guys to answer honestly, because I will bring this back to haunt you, had the election gone the other way and had Jeff Ridley done the EXACT same thing would you be asking for his head? Is this truly a matter of legalities or is it a matter of personalities?

Relative to my decision about joining the AFA, I don't care who caused the organization's reputation and credibility to be placed at risk, the salient point is that it is. I feel the BOD should address the situation in a timely manner and take whatever action they deem to be in the best interest of the AFA.

Should all parties DIRECTLY involved in this issue walk away with a satisfactory result, shouldn't we allow the this issue to subside in the intrest of progress of the AFA?

Since the president serves at the BOD's pleasure, it's up to that group to make the determination whether or not there can be a "satisfactory result" without somebody's head rolling.

Nobody is going to lose any sleep about whether or not I choose to join, and I'm not really sure I want to be a member of any outfit that'd have me for a member, but you can rest assured I won't be enlisting if I think the BOD has made a decision based on any factor other than the AFA's best interest.

[Gary_Miller]

Kinda my point and I really didn't want to go this direction but I'm going to play the Bush card here.

The President of the United States, a position that is obviously more important than the President of the AFA, recorded several telephone conversations without either participants knowledge yet nobody is asking him to resign. He's made no appologies for his actions, and yet the worst thing that could have happened to him was a censure.
First of all PRESIDENT Bush did not do any recording at all. It was all done by the CIA, FBI, OSI,and other intellegence collecting agencies, in order to collect intellegence data in the intrest of national security to keep you safe and free. We are ar war, or did your forget that. By the order of the PRESIDENT who job is to protect and defend the Constitution United States of America against all ENEMIES both for foreign and demestic. Its not against the law or the constitution for the president of the United States to do this. I for one am glade its done as the intel has protected my butt more than once.

It total diffrent and does not even come close in comparisoin.
Now as I see it, and I want you guys to answer honestly, because I will bring this back to haunt you, had the election gone the other way and had Jeff Ridley done the EXACT same thing would you be asking for his head?Yes. And by the way if I had voted I would of voted for Dave. Now I'm calling for his resignation or dis****al. Is this truly a matter of legalities or is it a matter of personalities? Its a breach of the AFA Standards of Conduct in which the President should up hold and set the example.

ARTICLE XIV. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

The American Farrier's Association as represented by the Officers, Board of Directors, and members, has the responsibility of conducting itself in a businesslike and professional manner when dealing with colleagues, businesses, and other equine professionals. An obligation exists to set a standard of conduct befitting the professional farrier. The actions of the American Farrier's Association are expected to enhance the honor and dignity of the farrier profession, expand the base of professional knowledge of farriery and render service to the community.

What Dave did
1. Was not businesslike.
2. Was not a professional manner when dealing with colleagues.
3. Was not a professional manner when dealing with other equine professionals.
4. Was not a standard of conduct befitting the professional farrier.
5. Did not enhance the honor ond dignity of the farrier profession.
Should all parties DIRECTLY involved in this issue walk away with a satisfactory result, shouldn't we allow the this issue to subside in the intrest of progress of the AFA?No, see above.

I feel that I don't need to answer the former becuse I feel I have made my position clear. My answer to the latter is in the event that everyone is satisfied, we should in the intrest of business and progress let the President stand, and should the membership deam that his removal is still necassary let them vote him out at the end of his term.If per chance Dave does not resign, as he should. Then you as a member of the BOD will be able to make a decission and vote the way you feel is best. However, I do hope you will call all the members of your association get their point of view and vote the way the the view of the majority even if its diffrent than yours.


Gary

[George Geist]

Tom,
To add to what Gary just said, I'd like to point something out here. All of you guys have seen me write on behalf of licensing. No secret there you all know where I'm at on that issue. However, and this might come as a shock to you guys but had I been a board member, I too would have voted to back off on that subject. Reason being I think peace within the association would have been more important than addressing that issue. No way in the world would I have ever backed off on the horseshoeing schools though, nor would I have involved Ralph Casey in it in any way. All of that is water under the bridge now though.

Point being I think the BOD was thinking along those same lines. I believe it was in the interest of peace.

However, there were a few individuals who would not let it go. They continued flogging that dead horse right up to the election. This caused discord and disharmony within the association. It was a destructive scorched earth tactic used for the purpose of getting elected. This served their own selfish interests but with little or no regard for the good of the group. This as I said before was very revealing of their character.

To operate so unethically during an election it should come as no surprise that their term should bring such shenanigans. To answer Tom's question, yes, had Jeff Ridley been elected I dont believe anyone would wish to tolerate such behavior. I for one have a hard time believing that we would see this from him.

The character issue always comes home to roost. From national politics all the way down to a Mickey Mouse group like the AFA.

The thing I find humorous about it is that the way they conducted their campaign wasn't even necessary. They would have won anyway. Rank and file AFA members will always elect the guy who makes the prettiest horseshoe. That's all it takes to impress a horseshoer shame on them for forgetting that. In the unlikely event that the board chooses to do something about this, I'll bet that will be a major criteria for a replacement.
George

[THamilton]

I have been considering joining the AFA. I have been coming to this resolution after carefully studying the situation. I even remained objective during the Licensing issue. BUT... I am like Tom.

I do not want a leader who is going to do these types of things like what has occurred. IF the issue were to go on for another four years or whenever
Mr. Ferguson's tenure is up, then it will be that much longer before I join.

I believe, as an outsider that codes, rules, by-laws, what have you; have been broken and the situation needs to be rectified. Unethical behavior has occurred and I in good conscience can not be a part of the until solved.

I think that some of you are upset at the fact that we are only hearing one side of the situation. Some parties involved are chosing/refusing not to speak on the issue for whatever reasons. That is their perogative.

The difference between this and the licensing issue is that during the licensing issue it was hard to exactly place a source to the issue. Here it is easy.

Tony

[Jaye Perry]

Before thinking of quiting the AFA over this or any other arising problem in the future(and lord knows there will be many other issue's that will surface for the members and the BOD/EC to cope with in the future) I would suggest everyone sit back and look at the scales of weight and balances.


Bruce,

Thanks for the cheer-leading! :)
I have been a member for a long time, involved at times and non-participant at others. But Always a member in one facet or another.







.....Don't cut off your nose to spite your face (I think that is how it goes ? ):rolleyes:

.....Joining an organization is a choice usually made on a valid, logical decision to become a part of said organization. Taking part in its workings and helping advance said organization to higher and better things.
If everyone quit with the onset of every bump in the road then why have any organization ?

..

Being a member of anything; a church, a glee club, Jameson's Irish Whiskey Tasters Association is a cognitive decision. I have seen "Bumps in the Road", pot holes and the organization slip into the ditch on occasion and I still re-upped. In the past, some lines had been drawn and not crossed, teetered on the edge but not crossed; now a line has been crossed that ethically can't be re-drawn or with drawn.
Do I as a member choose to associate my business, which feeds my family, with an UN-ethical current leader . I don't think so.

"Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity " Teddy Roosevelt.

[Jaye Perry]

Kinda my point and I really didn't want to go this direction but I'm going to play the Bush card here.
The President of the United States, a position that is obviously more important than the President of the AFA, recorded several telephone conversations without either participants knowledge yet nobody is asking him to resign. He's made no appologies for his actions, and yet the worst thing that could have happened to him was a censure.

I didn't recall talking to my Father -In -Law (B-17 Pilot, Pacific '42-'45) and he said people were NOT wanting FDR's head when he, FDR, signed the original executive order to do what Bush did to protect us now! :confused:

Your analogous paragraph has no merit, it's the apples and orange thing, you said it yourself.



Now as I see it, and I want you guys to answer honestly, because I will bring this back to haunt you, had the election gone the other way and had Jeff Ridley done the EXACT same thing would you be asking for his head? Is this truly a matter of legalities or is it a matter of personalities?

It doesn't matter who it is ,will be or not be. It is a matter of legality and ethics. Yes, I would ask for theirs, yours and even mine head if line had been crossed.




Should all parties DIRECTLY involved in this issue walk away with a satisfactory result, shouldn't we allow the this issue to subside in the intrest of progress of the AFA?

If the result is in the TRUE interest(s) of the AFA, not the "personality " thing you alluded to and mis-placed loyalty thing I mentioned.



I feel that I don't need to answer the former becuse I feel I have made my position clear. My answer to the latter is in the event that everyone is satisfied, we should in the intrest of business and progress let the President stand, and should the membership deam that his removal is still necassary let them vote him out at the end of his term

The BOD is charged with that responsibility. The membership voted the man in to the leadership chair with confidence of his abilities. He, as it stands now per stated facts, broke the confidence provided him by the membership with unethical actions. Per the stated, for the 5,6,7,8th times, AFA Bylaws termination is deemed for unethical conduct or things thereof.

[Ronald E. Kramedjian]

Kinda my pointTom,

No, you did not answer my question and in my opinion my question was not anywhere near your point.

Now as I see it, and I want you guys to answer honestly, because I will bring this back to haunt you, had the election gone the other way and had Jeff Ridley done the EXACT same thing would you be asking for his head? Is this truly a matter of legalities or is it a matter of personalities?Yes, I would expect Mr. Ridley to resign or be removed and that also applies to anyone else in a leadership role in the AFA, you and Mr. Burten included.

Tom, honor is not fungible. It is not a commodity that can be exchanged for something else. It is not something physical that can be repaired with a little bit of putty and paint. You either have it or you do not and the proof is squarely demonstrated by behavior.

Men of honor stand up to be counted as men, always strive to act in a honorable fashion, always apologize when the make mistakes and most of all always take full responsibility for their actions regardless of the likely personal result. They do not lie, steal, cheat, break their word, break the law or try to weasel out of their responsibilities. Men of honor to not sit back and let others fight their fights for them, they stand up for what they believe in completely and without reserve. Personally, I want men of honor representing me in the elected offices of the AFA and the AFA's BOD.

Mr. Burten is such a man of honor. He has set the standard by standing up like a man and reporting on the activities of an AFA leader that appear to be dishonorable. Mr. Burten knew full well what he was getting into before he made his decision to go public and still, knowing he could end up being reviled by those he has chosen to serve, he chose to do the honorable thing and tell the AFA membership the truth as he knows it. I am honored and humbled to have him call me his friend and I hope I am as good a friend to him as he is to me.

In my mind, the only question left pending is are the remaining members of the EC and the remaining members of the BOD able to stand next to him as men of honor, accept their responsibility as outlined in the bylaws and deal with this unpleasant bit of business in a timely, professional and expedient manner?

So Tom, what are you going to do?

[Rick Burten]

Now as I see it, and I want you guys to answer honestly, because I will bring this back to haunt you, had the election gone the other way and had Jeff Ridley done the EXACT same thing would you be asking for his head? Is this truly a matter of legalities or is it a matter of personalities?
On your first question, assuming I did in fact vote for Mr. Ridley, I would indeed be demanding his resignation. See, for me, it doesn't matter who is in the position. And, yes, it is about the actions done by the individual, not the individual.

Should all parties DIRECTLY involved in this issue walk away with a satisfactory result, shouldn't we allow the this issue to subside in the intrest of progress of the AFA?
Once the process has run its course and the AFA can get back to doing what it was chartered to do, the issue will subside of its own accord.

I feel that I don't need to answer the former becuse I feel I have made my position clear. My answer to the latter is in the event that everyone is satisfied, we should in the intrest of business and progress let the President stand, and should the membership deam that his removal is still necassary let them vote him out at the end of his term.
So, you are saying that we should ignore what has happened? from my POV, all parties will never reach an accord or be satisfied.

In my lifetime I have watched as one sitting United States President resigned rather than endure the public humiliation an impeachment would bring, and another sitting US President be impeached and defiantly remain office. He , hands down, wins the coveted "spotted blue dress" award.

[Rick Burten]

Do I as a member choose to associate my business, which feeds my family, with an UN-ethical current leader . I don't think so.
Precisely!

"Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity " Teddy Roosevelt.
As true today as it was when Teddy penned it.

[Phil Armitage]

You guys are too funny. Honesty just means you tell the truth and that you are not hideing anything. So if Dave says, yes I recorded Brian without his knowledge, he is honest, not brilliant but he is being honest. Maryland's law might say it is illegal to record a phone conversation without ones knowldge, are there states that do not have this law? I may be wrong but I recall that all the FCC requires isthat a beep tone in the backround and that is enough to clue in all partys that the phone conversation is being monitored and recorded, talking away after you have knowledge of being recorded is consent. Why did Dave feel he needed to record Brian? Did he feel Brian is not honest? I worked with a guy that was not honest, frequently lied. A bunch of us wanted to record him and finaly get him out of our unit, but if he knew he was recorded he wouldnt tell a lie would he? So we did not bother, he finaly lied to the wrong person, someone with authority to fire him and he got what he deserved. Since then I have learned to trust the process. People do get what they deserve in time.

[Jaye Perry]

You guys are too funny

Thanks.

Honesty just means you tell the truth and that you are not hideing anything.

Yes


So if Dave says, yes I recorded Brian without his knowledge, he is honest, not brilliant but he is being honest.
Yes, half honest, but still concealing aspects of why it was not disclosed to the other participant on the other end of the phone; you mentioned hiding something? :confused:





Maryland's law might say it is illegal to record a phone conversation without ones knowldge, are there states that do not have this law? I may be wrong but I recall that all the FCC requires isthat a beep tone in the backround and that is enough to clue in all partys that the phone conversation is being monitored and recorded, talking away after you have knowledge of being recorded is consent.

Your back to your esoteric hyperbole Phil; stop.



Why did Dave feel he needed to record Brian?

He only knows at this point.




Did he feel Brian is not honest? I worked with a guy that was not honest, frequently lied. A bunch of us wanted to record him and finaly get him out of our unit, but if he knew he was recorded he wouldnt tell a lie would he?

Believe you are stepping on someone toes here, hypothetically speaking.

So we did not bother, he finaly lied to the wrong person, someone with authority to fire him and he got what he deserved. Since then I have learned to trust the process. People do get what they deserve in time

Yep, you contemplated breaking the law, then thought better of it. As a serviceman, in which I thank you, there is a code of conduct in the service also. Why didn't you bring charges of breech of conduct? You and others in your unit had that prerogative and obligation. That my speculative hypothetical for your analogous conte.

[Ronald E. Kramedjian]

Maryland's law might say it is illegal to record a phone conversation without ones knowldge, are there states that do not have this law?Phil,

It does not matter if there are states that have laws different that Maryland. Mr. Ferguson was in Maryland at the time of the call so only those statutes apply.

Why did Dave feel he needed to record Brian? Did he feel Brian is not honest?It does not matter. Regardless of reason there is no justification in those reasons to violate the law. That is ends justify the means thinking.


People do get what they deserve in time.Not nearly as often as we would all like to believe and then the only time they do generally is when those around them hold them to account.

[Phil Armitage]

Yep, you contemplated breaking the law, then thought better of it. As a serviceman, in which I thank you, there is a code of conduct in the service also. Why didn't you bring charges of breech of conduct? You and others in your unit had that prerogative and obligation. That my speculative hypothetical for your analogous conte.

If you were there in those days, you would have been very proud of us. I lost a promotion and management posistion fighting to remove this guy, he was in a very high management posistion, close to God. Which directly affects my retirement pay for ever. I gained a lot of loyal life long friends, so I have no regrets. I have a very good understanding of processes and how to properly get to the truth. It is not always a fun process. By the time the right people got into leadership posistions we lost a lot of very good people that just got sick of the whole situation and process. A lot of good jobs out there with better pay and a lot less headaches so people got out. Which is a shame. I new people who did there jobs not for the pay, but because they loved what they did and this one leader changed this by being a liar and unfair leader. So I have zero tolerance for poor leadership.

[Rick Burten]

So I have zero tolerance for poor leadership.
That being the case, how do you reconsile this statement with your current stance with regard to the leadership and quality of leadership existant at this time in the AFA.

[Phil Armitage]

That being the case, how do you reconsile this statement with your current stance with regard to the leadership and quality of leadership existant at this time in the AFA.

Rick, there is nothing to reconcile. My current stance is to get all the facts before passing judgement, not just your word. I would be remiss takeing just your word on this issue.

[Mike Bailey]

Has the AFA's misson statement be forgoten here?

[Phil Armitage]

Has the AFA's misson statement be forgoten here?

Hi Mike, I am not sure what you mean and how it relates to this issue?

[Roy Amaral CJF]

Mission of the AFA-
“To further the professional development of farriers, to provide leadership and resources for the benefit of the farrier industry, and to improve the welfare of the horse through continuing farrier education.”

[Mike Bailey]

Thanks Roy I was not paying attention to this thread at th moment.

[Mike Bailey]

I am not sure what you mean and how it relates to this issue?
Phil I am not sure how it could not relate.

[Phil Armitage]

Well Mike I trust the AFA will live up to the mission statement. Part of liveing up to that mission statement is also being fair and getting all the facts. We will have to wait and see what happens.

[Mike Bailey]

Phil, I have nothing aginst Dave but I think with this issue the AFA needs to do somthing to show we are dilagent in up holding the regulations we have set.
Even if that means some type off probation until the matter is setteled but somthing has to be done and not just Dave but all parties involved.So if we wait we wait with some type of enforcement in place.
Mike

[Rick Burten]

Even if that means some type off probation until the matter is setteled but somthing has to be done and not just Dave but all parties involved.So if we wait we wait with some type of enforcement in place.
Mike
You bring up a good point. On one of the other threads on this issue, Phil quoted John Blombach as saying that prior to the phone call to Bryan, the EC was meeting in Executive session(although it seems to be oxy*****ic to say the Executive Committee is meeting in Executive Session :confused: ). If that is indeed the case, then while the minutes of the meeting may be redacted either in part or in full, a record should exist that shows that a meeting was indeed being held.

Assuming for the moment that a meeting was indeed being held, then why, when Bryan was called, was he not informed of:
1. the fact that a meeting was being held
2. what the purpose of the meeting was
3. Which members of the EC were present
4. That the conversation was being recorded

Since members of the EC(absent Dave Ferguson) have already said that they did not inform Bryan of their presence and/or that the conversation was being recorded, then they are complicit in the events that followed.

To that end, on the other thread, I offered that it is now my considered personal opinion that the other four members of the EC should be held accountable for their action(s) or lack thereof. IOW, if we are going to hold Dave to the Standards of Conduct, and judge him accordingly and then mete out whatever punishment is appropriate, then we need to hold the other four members of the EC to the same Standards of Conduct and decide if their actions merit the same end as is set for Dave. If this means a complete house cleaning, then so be it. If this means no action is taken what so ever, so be it. If something in between is decided on, so be it.

If the membership of the AFA wants honest, ethical, legal, appropriate, open, leadership, then they are going to have to step up and demand it and do whatever it takes, whenever it is necessary, to insure they get just that. Otherwise, they will get whatever those in the leadership positions want to give them.

[Mike Bailey]

I am not much in the politics,I do not chose sides but I belive if the AFA wants a $150.00 next year it needs to prove it can function dose it not? Why has there not been a press release or somthing to let the membership know what they intend to do with this, oh maybe because it is the EC in question.

[Rick Burten]

I am not much in the politics,I do not chose sides but I belive if the AFA wants a $150.00 next year it needs to prove it can function dose it not? Why has there not been a press release or somthing to let the membership know what they intend to do with this, oh maybe because it is the EC in question.
The increase in dues is going to go towards the costs of member services, including but not limited to, increased office expenses, increased publication expenses, insurance expenses, etc.

I urge you to request a copy of the FY2007 budget so you can look through it and compare what is going to be spent, and where, with what has been spent, and where, in prior years.

It may give you a bit of a headache and eye strain, but is very enlightening. Since there is a new Finance Committee Chair, I'm not sure if he will be able to adequately answer any questions you may have at this time. Not sure if John will be much help yet either. Only way to find out is to ask them.

[Mike Bailey]

Thanks for the info Rick I wil do just that as I begining to feel like I need to pay a bit attention more about what is happening here.
Mike

[Phil Armitage]

You bring up a good point. On one of the other threads on this issue, Phil quoted John Blombach as saying that prior to the phone call to Bryan, the EC was meeting in Executive session(although it seems to be oxy*****ic to say the Executive Committee is meeting in Executive Session :confused: ). If that is indeed the case, then while the minutes of the meeting may be redacted either in part or in full, a record should exist that shows that a meeting was indeed being held.

Assuming for the moment that a meeting was indeed being held, then why, when Bryan was called, was he not informed of:
1. the fact that a meeting was being held
2. what the purpose of the meeting was
3. Which members of the EC were present
4. That the conversation was being recorded

Since members of the EC(absent Dave Ferguson) have already said that they did not inform Bryan of their presence and/or that the conversation was being recorded, then they are complicit in the events that followed.

To that end, on the other thread, I offered that it is now my considered personal opinion that the other four members of the EC should be held accountable for their action(s) or lack thereof. IOW, if we are going to hold Dave to the Standards of Conduct, and judge him accordingly and then mete out whatever punishment is appropriate, then we need to hold the other four members of the EC to the same Standards of Conduct and decide if their actions merit the same end as is set for Dave. If this means a complete house cleaning, then so be it. If this means no action is taken what so ever, so be it. If something in between is decided on, so be it.

If the membership of the AFA wants honest, ethical, legal, appropriate, open, leadership, then they are going to have to step up and demand it and do whatever it takes, whenever it is necessary, to insure they get just that. Otherwise, they will get whatever those in the leadership positions want to give them.

Well said Rick, I would think a record or minutes of the meeting or includeing past meetings under prior leadership should exist. I believe if these meetings or sessions whatever, are held useing Roberts rules, which means someone is in charge of recording and provideing minutes. Wow, I recall haveing similar discussions about the previous EC, BOD and Pres.

[T.N. Trosin]

So I'm back a day early.

Leave it to Mr. Stoval to get my point.

At any rate while the EC is busy playing Basteil day, I have encountered an AFA situation that truly effects my general membership. So I'm going to lay off this subject for now and wait for who ever is in charge to call a Board meeting, which I have asked for as well.
At any rate I want you guys to keep in mind that the world keeps turning, progress continues to happen and much like the dues increase that happened while we were all argueing about licencing, there is always more than one issue to handle at a time.

It's easy to get wrappend up in an issue at eye level while another one slips past your feet, so keep that in mind.

Later
T

[Phil Armitage]

So I'm back a day early.

Leave it to Mr. Stoval to get my point.

At any rate while the EC is busy playing Basteil day, I have encountered an AFA situation that truly effects my general membership. So I'm going to lay off this subject for now and wait for who ever is in charge to call a Board meeting, which I have asked for as well.
At any rate I want you guys to keep in mind that the world keeps turning, progress continues to happen and much like the dues increase that happened while we were all argueing about licencing, there is always more than one issue to handle at a time.

It's easy to get wrappend up in an issue at eye level while another one slips past your feet, so keep that in mind.

Later
T

T, here is the reality of the whole thing, this is a non-profit orginization for the betterment of the trade and Equine industry, farrier and horse owner education. Buisness gets done by holding meetings that should include new and old buisness and someone holds the posistion and responsibility of takeing notes (minutes). These minutes are an official record (recording :rolleyes: ) that should be accurate and availble to all members. No secrets, nothing done behind closed doors. These records (recordings) should go as far back as the conception of the orginization and they should also be available to this day for all members. The reason for conducting buisness in this manner is to avoid issues. The AFA and its leaders have been around long enough and doing buisness long enough to know this and there is no excuse for not haveing accurate records.

No buisness should ever take place without being do***ented on paper or electronicly. Especially a non-profit orginization.

Doing buisness in this manner will protect the orginization and eliminate the temptation for individuals to conduct buisness for personal gain and agendas.

Any individual holding an official posistion in the AFA who disagrees with doing buisness in this manner should step down and do the AFA a favor.