Well Rick, it seems once again that "no good deed goes unpunished". My hat is off to you and Ron for trying to make things better.

FarrierCarrier wrote:Frank,

The AFA's Web Services have never been more stable and secure than they currently are and it was the work of the individual in question that made them so before he submitted his bill. The exigency of the request has been well explained elsewhere but one last time, in simple steps for you.

The AFA was noticed that it had a finite deadline for replacing its web services.

The deadline was very short.

The party in question, Mr. Weaver, agreed to help us make this conversion on a very short deadline.

During the move we discovered many problems that needed to be corrected to make the move and to secure the services being provided.

Due to the increased level of need, Mr. Weaver did not work on other projects that would have paid a higher hourly rate to him for his services immediately.

Mr. Weaver stuck to his agreed limit on hours billed, even though he put in many more hours than he had originally agreed to.

Mr. Weaver had a long scheduled vacation with his daughter and I requested expedited processing of his invoice as a way of thanking him for all of his efforts to give him a little cushion during his trip.

Mr. Weaver was slated to be a long term on call asset for the AFA and after paying him to learn our system retaining him seemed better that having to pay someone else to learn the system all over again.

There it is in a nutshell of simple easy to understand steps. Nothing untoward or sinister in this. I was simply trying to tell a guy that had made sacrifices for the AFA thank you for doing it by making his life a little easier.

Derin,

One of the wonderful things about transparency and providing all of the facts to people is that there are no shadows for misunderstanding or misrepresentation to hide. The brilliant light of sunshine will kill out infestations of half truth and manipulative recitation. The membership of the AFA has the right to know absolutely everything that is going on. That information stream should be unfiltered and it should be unmolested by individual opinion or desire. It is the memberships association and the elected officials of the AFA, Officer and Director alike, hold a sacred trust to serve and protect the memberships interests above their own. Transparency would go a long way toward eliminating many of the situations that develop in the dark.

One of the harshest things about transparency is that truly honest and dedicated men are forced to put aside their preconceived beliefs, their personnel feelings, even their loyalties to other men if they are going to stay honest with themselves when they consider situations such as the one we have been discussing. When the membership is fully informed it is doubly hard on our elected leaders because the membership will likely be critical of their decisions, especially if those decisions can not be supported by the facts that are available, and all of the facts supporting any statements must be made available for the real truth to be known. Unfortunately for our new leaders it is rapidly becoming clear that the old way of doing things is becoming obsolete because the new breed for AFA member wants full access.

In my opinion there are going to be no winners in this current conversation. The AFA has lost something, Andrew, Dick, Rick, Tom and I have each lost something or been placed in the most difficult of situations, the membership of the AFA has lost something and some of our vendors have lost something. Even the Board has lost a little something in this. I do however believe that this was a discussion that needed to be had and that the membership is significantly more well informed about this situation and the behaviors that have led up to it than they were or would have been. Thank you for starting this conversation. I hope that it has been beneficial.

Personally I still believe in what the AFA has to offer and can be. It is my hope that it will find its way to living up to its promise and potential. We are all human and we all make mistakes. It is how we respond to those mistakes and how those that we associate with respond to those mistakes that will make or break the bond that holds the AFA together.

Now may I suggest to everyone involved that the time has come to let it be. Everything that needs to be know has been brought out. Keep the AFA Board of Directors in your thoughts as they consider what to do next.

Also pray for brother Nygaard. I understand he is quite ill and all the good thoughts will help.

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:
Ron,

I have been traveling myself but had a chance to do some further investigating on this whole matter and quite frankly I find your rationalizations reprehensible.

Mr. Weaver it seems worked for the AFAs contracted web/IT company eresources.

Weaver had a non-compete agreement with regard to AFA work at eresources.

Because the AFA had eresources under contract, Weaver couldn't bill the AFA for any work until the AFA and eresources no longer had a relationship and contrated services.

To everyone's amazement, you being fully aware of this chose to ramrod Weavers bill down the AFAs throat and pay it immediately. In doing so, YOU blatently violated the terms of THe very release you negotioated!!!!!!!

THEN YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY to APPROVE Weavers $4,800 bill to the AFA for services in which he performed as an employee/contractor of eresources, THE SAME SERVICES ERESOURCES BILLS THE AFA FOR WHILE UNDER A LEGITAMATE CONTRACT!!!!!

This is a classic case of double billing. WOW, Ron, you should really pat yourself on the back for this one! Do you have ANY ethics at ALL????????:confused:

Frank Rothe, Pennsylvania

FarrierCarrier wrote:There is some disagreement over the wording of that contract and what it meant.Not quite accurate. And, there is an e-mail from e-Resources Corporate Counsel that states that the ambiguity of the contract could well lead someone to interpret the contract differently that some one else. And the corporate counsel took full responsibility for that ambiguity, as he wrote the contract. Once Mr. Elsbree interfered, e-Resources chose to "flex their muscle" and forced the AFA to pay a much larger bill than the AFA would have had to pay had Mr. Elsbree, without authorization or permission, or discussion, not interfered.you yet again are both mistaken and misspoken.Ah, I see you must have been talking to Mr. Elsbree. And, he, in talking to you, gave you erroneous and bad information. No wonder you are so confused. Had Mr. Elsbree not gone "off the reservation", without authority, permission, discussion or forethought, and without it even being part of his job description, there would not have been a problem. And it would not have cost the AFA even more money. Had Mr. Elsbree done the responsible thing and contacted the IT committee, all this would have been avoided. However, Mr. Elsbree, in a fit of pique, or self righteous indignation, chose to play the part of a renegade. Or perhaps, Rebel without a Cause....Again, you are misinformed. Once Mr. Elsbree interfered, and remember he did so without permission or authority, discussion or IMNTBCHO, the application of common sense, the original invoice from Mr. Weaver became moot and void, and the only billing that was done, was by e-Resources. Let me try to put this in words you should be able to understand ONLY IN MR. ELSBREE'S MIND WAS THERE DOUBLE BILLING. or, put even more simply, THERE WAS NO DOUBLE BILLING. That the AFA received two bills for the work, is entirely the fault of Mr. Elsbree and rather than merely attempting to micro-manage the IT committee, Mr. Elsbree ended up micro mis-managing everything.

And, for the record, Mr. Elsbree was informed of the fact(s) of why the AFA got two invoices and that the first one had been cancelled.Yes, he absolutely should. He/the committee, were given a difficult task, were under the "time gun" and with limited resources, he and the committee accomplished a task that not one of the other 30 or so businesses/associations that had the same problem with e-Resources was able to do. And he did it within the constraints of the IT committee's approved budget. And the committee gave the AFA a more robust, more secure and more stable server and system. Yes indeed, as Project Manager for this task, Mr. Kramedjian as well as Mr. Weaver, Mr. Bloomer and Mr. Brammell all deserve the thanks of every member of the AFA.

Instead, there is an attempt to drag them to the pillory and along the way, excoriate them. But, God as my judge, that just ain't gonna happen.

Shame(and, a pox) on the President for first causing this to become what it has, and then for encouraging and allowing it to continue. IMNTBCHO, that's not leadership, its petty, vindictiveness with a dash of Napoleon Bonaparte syndrome stirred into the witch's brew.Mr. Kramedjian did nothing wrong or unethical, nor did Mr. Weaver. And that fact is borne out by the e-mail from e-Resource's corporate counsel. But to directly answer your question, Mr. Kramedjian's ethics are intact and free of any tarnish. The same cannot be said of some other parties to this matter.

So why don't you ask that question of the true fomenter of this mess. It seems you are already in contact with him, so another phone call shouldn't be much of an ordeal for you though getting the truth might be.

Rick Burten

Rick,

As always and in your classic public forum style you have twisted and convaluted the facts, and layed blame to others, in particular the AFA President, apparently because hasn't lowered himself to your street fight on this forum.

I didn't need to speak with anyone to interepret the actions that led to double billing the AFA for IT/Web stuff, the paper trail speaks louders than words. It's no wonder you didn't want to go before the AFA Board.

Frank Rothe, Penn. USA

FarrierCarrier wrote:Say what?

Haven't you understood a thing that Rick has said. He was and still is more than willing to go before the BoD. He just wants to do it at their regular meeting next month, in person face to face. Not on a telephone confrence call!!!!!!!!

Frank, do yourself and all of us a favor. Go back and reread everything that has been said, on this site and on the AFA site. Do it this time to understand. Make sure you read the e-mail trail file as that is where you will get the facts. Then and only then come back and post your findings. I think you will have a diffrent prospective.

FarrierCarrier wrote:Frank,

I am glad you continue to research the matter. I am however not surprised that you choose to have an opinion not based on fact, but rather what someone has told you vs. the documentation that they have yet to provide you.

FarrierCarrier wrote:In this you are wrong. Mr. Weaver was an independent consultant that eResource used to manage the LINUX servers supporting the Wrigth Internet client base. To my knowledge and based upon the documents that I was sent by Mr. Bonci at the beginning of my tenure as the IT Chair, and the very long discussions that I had with the eResources Chief Counsel, the AFA’s contract with Wright Internet was long expired and there was no written agreement for services with eResources. We were simple receiving web services on a month to month basis, billed in advance, and were being billed for extra consulting services on an hourly basis. If you or anyone else can actually produce a written contract with eResources I will gladly included it in the documentation available at http://www.kramedjian.com/Resignations.html .

FarrierCarrier wrote:I’m sorry, this is also an unsubstantiated opinion, not to my knowledge a fact. In my discussions with Mr. Weaver he was working on an hour to hour basis for eResources on a handshake agreement with one of his oldest friends, the CEO. But again should someone be able to produce the documentation supporting this assertion I will happily post it on http://www.kramedjian.com/Resignations.html and until someone does produce this stating this as a truth is yet another attempt to manipulate the facts.

FarrierCarrier wrote:Actually this assumption on your part and the part of others has been used as a justification for attempting to brow beat me for my actions many times. Unfortunately, had then President Elect Elsbree discussed the matter with me he would have been informed that this assumption was in error and he would not have put the AFA in the difficult position that he did by going behind the committees back. As it is, his unauthorized and uninformed interference cost the AFA a little money, cost Mr. Weaver a little money and made eResources a little money. Had Mr. Elsbree worked through the IT Committee none of this confusion would have occurred.

FarrierCarrier wrote:I am sure amazed that everyone was amazed because as I have said above the assertions that you are making are not supported by facts. Listen carefully here. No matter how many times someone says it their saying it without a shred of actual documentation does not make it true. If you are a truly honest man then I suggest that you go back to those peddling this unsupported version of their fantasy of how things worked and ask them for the documentation. Provide it here or send it to me. I will apologize if I made an error, otherwise I would expect that you and they should apologize for yet another attempt to defame me.

FarrierCarrier wrote:No audacity here, just doing my job in the real world using real factual information not the stuff that has been made up to justify the hateful and vindictive behavior directed toward me repeatedly and that is well documented in the record posted on my website.

FarrierCarrier wrote:I have no doubt you are confused. You are presented with actual facts from my side and opinion and fantasy from the other. You are invested in believing that no one would make up the assertions that my accusers are trying to peddle, but they are made up and not once regardless of how many times they have been asked to has a single accusation been substantiated to date with any document, much less one of any authoritative value. I am sorry that this is so difficult for you. It would be easier if you just check your facts.

Everything that I have done is well documented and supported in the record. If I have made mistakes I am more than willing to admit that they were made, learn from them and then move on. I do not need to make up a story to support my actions. Those actions and the support for them are in the record for all to read.

Now before you come out here and call me names or make further defamatory accusations I strongly suggest that you go back to your handlers and get the facts absolutely correct and make sure they are documented. Present your documentation here or shut up. Had everyone involved just stuck to the truth and the documented facts instead of trying to generate up mistrust and hatred using unsupported opinion and statements this whole mess would not have happened.

FarrierCarrier wrote:Oh really? Please enumerate for me and the other forum members where it is that I have done as you accuse. When you do, you will need to be able to substantiate with documentation your accusations. Otherwise, you brand yourself as nothing more than a yappy little dog doing its best to do its master's bidding.Mr. Elsbree is a grown man and can come forward at any time and provide the necessary information to dispute the facts that are in evidence.It certainly does. And anyone with more than one operant brain cell and the ability to read for content in context, with comprehension, would have by now concluded that the stench created by the paper trail leads not to my door or Ron's door or Mr. Weaver's door. Care to hazzard a guess as to whose door it does lead?

By the way, Mr. Elsbree has not even bothered to comment on the AFA members only forums. What's up with that? After all, he is our exaulted leader, right?Has reading comprehension always been such a problem for you? Perhaps you would be good enough to show us where I ever said I didn't want to go before the board.

As Mr. Miller so succinctly noted, that is not at all the case. And I can document that. Can you do the same for your ludicrous accusation? I thought not.


Rick Burten

Just so everyone stays on their toes, FarrierCarrier has been temporarily banned because the information provided in his (or her) profile is false. Everyone knows that the prerequisite for posting in the Political Forum is providing correct info and a real, verifiable name. If he (or she) corrects their profile info and provides a verifiable name, the ban will be lifted. Censorship is not the goal. A free and vigorous exchange of information by verifiable sources is the goal.

Baron

Eric Russell wrote:

Eric Russell wrote:

Cyber Farrier wrote:Go Figure. ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

Rick Burten

Eric Russell wrote: