vthorseshoe wrote:Tom, when you were in (or still maybe), the Guild, were there similarities there as with the AFA ?
I think the Guild was already past the point of no return when I joined. I tried to shut it down, especially when I had 3 monthly conference call meetings in a row where the board of directors didn't show up.
Others stepped in to try to reinvent the Guild in order to make it more inclusive. I went along with that and helped create a strategic plan to roll out a new examination process. Well some folks got impatient and decided to roll that process out early and put it in front of the public. It is one of my greatest regrets that I went along with that.
Communication, finding available and willing help, people sticking to a plan and following through, Accepting leadership and "if" some disagreement arose did they still work with the powers to be and "in place plans" with out causing problems until the proper time came along for changing thoughts ,direction, leadership etc.
The difference between the Guild and the AFA is the Guild never had any "commercial interests" or "sponsors" or "advertisers." The original agenda was pretty simple. But like every other volunteer organization, most of the members just went along for the ride.
I can count on one hand the folks who made significant contributions to the Guild. OTOH, I can name about 30 people who said they were interested, acted like they wanted to be involved and once presented with that opportunity - disappeared into hiding. In spite of changing the Guild's structure to make it more inclusive - so that the organization could have access to some of the "second career" talent - there seems to be a lot more casual BS than actual "vested interest" in creating a real "accredited profession."
Rick your thoughts on the comparison of the AFA and the FHRC would be interesting reading. The why's and what for's.
Rick is my dear friend and fellow soldier in many efforts to get some organized professionalism into the profession. The difference between Rick and I is that he actually still gives a damn about other farriers and still believes in the dream of an organized profession. Me, I don't think y'all are worth it.
Marks research and graphic's that he presented to the AFA were formulated from polls he sent out to members and other information he gathered.
It was presented to leadership along with other board members presentations.
No doubt there was good stuff in that and no "agenda" to skew the reports.
I was given a task under Andrew Elsbree when he was AFA president. I asked Mark if he would help.
I didn't have Mark's experience in certain area's and he was invaluable to me.
To be quite honest I was not much more than a recognizable sounding board.
Mark was the real task master and with out him I would have been spinning my wheels.
The greatest asset to an analyst is that "sounding board." Raw data never tells the whole story.
What Andrew and others did with the information quite honestly I haven't a clue.
The information didn't serve the Andrews agenda, and like every other executive committee, the board just went along with whatever the EC did.
I resigned feeling "I was a fish out of water" and incapeable of performing the job as it should be. After a while someone else took on the task I read somewhere.
Seems to me that you did the job, got Mark involved as a resource, and supported him. The board didn't follow through and instead let the executives run their personal agenda as usual.