It’s still amazing to me how these threads disinagrated. So to Keep Ron's thread germane to, well, Ron I moved this here.

BS-Horseshoeing]OK, couple of questions. 1. We have a 60 member BOD right, how many of these members post here? Or even lurk and watch from a distance? If your out there just let us know by posting at least once here. If some of the BOD members don't or can't use computers, how the heck does the BOD get anything done? Snail mail, telephone (if not to busy), and two meetings a year sure seems like they are just beating ther heads against the wall. Bruce's idea of Pal Talk or the like seems very good if all the BOD can get a handle on how to get access to a computer and the internet. That could be a big task but should be looked at very seriously.[/QUOTE]

Well to my knowledge I'm the only one who posted here until Vermont was granted their seat last month, so that would make Bruce and me I guess.
Next, to my knowledge only one AFA BoD member doesn't have internet access. Most AFA Board business is handled through snail mail. Pal talk sounds like a good idea but if it excludes one member of the Board then we can't use it, further there isn't currently a provision in the By-laws for us to "meet" electronically.
All of this contributes to why I believe the AFA and its membership would be better served by a smaller Board.

BS-Horseshoeing wrote:
One of the unintended consequences of the internet and these bulletin boards is that it has eliminated the quaintness of the farrier association. Used to be that a candidate could put their statement in a newsletter and it was taken a face value. Now with the Boards, there seems to be room to discredit someone through a rumor about them wronging a person or a horse and then that person is a no good SOB, and much like other politics their issues and beliefs get swept aside and ignored, kind of what is happening over on Ron’s board at the moment. At the moment, I don’t blame anybody who doesn’t come here to campaign when wrote:
If I were running for AFA office I only want to reach AFA members. It’s after you get elected and can truly offer the non-members something that you reach out to them.

Mr. Trosin;

My interest in the AFA is sincere, or I wouldn't have pushed for our Assoc. to become a chapter.
I believe in the AFA and I believe in the good it can do and definitely does.

On improving communication throughout the time between meetings.

You have stated you are for a smaller BoD.
I am in accord with you that two many hands in the stew and you end up with pot roast.
But how can a smaller BoD be accomplished, ( and you may be right ! but how do we go about it ?) and still effectively represent the chapters ?
After all isn't it the chapters that the AFA is actually made of ?
Without the chapters would there be an AFA or a private club made up of a select few ?
Re-reading this I asked myself, has anyone stated or is it written somewhere, "just how big does the AFA want to grow ?"

Can it be that the AFA has reached the limits of it seams ?
The Roman empire grew to a point where it could no longer effectively control its borders and eventually crumbled.
Kubla Khan had the same eventual problem, and so on throughout history.

Is it the size of the BoD that is the problem or is it the "system of communicating" throughout the year keeping members informed and up to date on proceedings.
Going back to the Roman Empire and kubla Khan Empire, if they had better means of communicating in a more efficient manner, their longevity most likely would have survived much longer.
When they no longer had an up-to-date- handle on the happenings they lost control and the rest is history.
Being informed means good decisions at the actual meetings, and less time bringing folks up to date on the items at hand. It also means less tableing an item because folks want more time to "be informed".

If increasing membership is a goal, membership means revenue in turn means funds for projects and payrolls, in turn means education and events supporting education for the members who pay the dues,, then better involvement of the members is crucial in my mind.
Better communication leads to better involvement.

Can the AFA continue to grow if it can't effectively perform at the meetings where the decisions are decided upon ?
Do all the members have a good understanding of what they are voting on when they vote?
(How many folks go to the voting booths to vote for a political candidate and say to themselves, I don't know anything about this person or what he can do. or they may not know any of the candidates and just make a check mark hopeing they are making the right choice.)
Yes it can if membership involvement is improved, and this can be done by better communication between BoD and Officers throughout the year.

What modes of communication are available and workable for this type of widely spread organization.
What adjustments need to be made in the organization so new modes of communication can be employed for the betterment of the whole group ?

The PF is a great venue and I enjoy reading it and appreciate all the work that goes into it, but I am left in limbo between each issue.

I joined the AFA a long time ago. My membership lapsed for a while then I rejoined and was offered my origional # of 1300 and I accepted it with pride.
10 + yrs have come and gone since I first joined and I stand in awe of all the wonderous folks who have brought the AFA to where it is today. I am in awe of the folks who continue to put themselves in the forefront working so hard to make the AFA better and moving forward.

I consider it an honor and a privelige to have an opportunity to voice my opinions/suggestions and have them mulled over by all the folks of the AFA.
It is because of this feeling of honor that I am trying to be as informed as possible.

I openly ask for help from all BoD members in learning and guidance.
Being the new kid on the block I want to be able to make informative decisions.
I am only as far away as my phone.
802-888-7505 home
802-279-5367 cell
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

T.N. Trosin wrote:
I think that's correct for current activity. Rick Burten was on here as a BoD member. Jay Flynn was on here as a BoD member. I was posting here when I was on the BoD and when I was an elected officer, and it was clear (at least at that time) that many of the BoD members were reading these boards, even if they weren't joining in the fray.

T.N. Trosin wrote: I also think the AFA would be better served by a smaller board. However I would have voted no on the last proposal as well. I don't think it is necessary to have a board set by states/regions/or areas. A 16 member board nominated and voted on by the members at large would be much better. Anyone wishing to run could run no matter what thier status was in the association. Members could vote only for 16 and the top 16 would make up the board. Board members should serve two years with half the seats coming up for election every year.
In cases where the board may have a tie vote on an issue the President elect would have the decideing vote.
T.N. Trosin wrote: I think your wrong.
That day has already started with Rick and Ron steping up to the plate. It will be intresting to see if the other canidates will step up to the plate as well.
T.N. Trosin wrote: As the top farriers association in the U.S. what the AFA does affects farriers all over the country members and non-members alike. As an elected offical of the AFA you have an influance on the whole trade.
What better way to influance non AFA members than by letting them know what you would do for the trade if you held office. Though they may not be able to vote. They will be more likely to join if they know you really cared about what they thought even though they were not a current member of the AFA.


Gary

Mr. Trosin,

You said in an earlier post, "I don’t blame anybody who doesn’t come here to campaign when; to be quite frank, one of the board moderators is running for office."

Rick only acts as moderator occasionally, when I need to be out of contact with the internet for short periods of time. It's a job he takes very seriously, and to my knowledge he has never abused the position. If it will make anyone (such as yourself) feel better, I'll remove him from the moderator position. It's simply easier for me to leave him assigned, so I don't have to put him back, then take him off, then put him back.... When I'm back, he doesn't touch those moderator keys.

So let me know. If it will bring the other candidates here, and the only thing holding them back is this issue, I'll take care of it. (It's a red herring in my book, but perception is reality, and I don't want any perception of conflict of interest.)

By the way, FYI and the candidates as well: If they're looking to get the word out as to what their positions are, and answer questions, The Resource Center is currently being viewed by over 150,000 different people a month. Of course the vast majority are lurkers, but still, they're out they're soaking it all up.

Baron

T.N. Trosin wrote: Tom,

While you are correct in your statement about the bylaws not having a provision for electronic meetings the following would make official meetings unnecessary.
Clearly the bylaws allows for the board to handle the AFA's business without having to have an official board meeting. So in my interpretation the Pal Talk solution would allow the BoD to transact the AFA's business on a much more timely basis.

T.N., thanks for moving this over to a new board, I should have done that in the first place. Just wanted to get input from those two candidates and wasn't thinking to straight at the time. Trying to type as fast as things were running through my head. Sometimes that doesn't work.

Partly, I guess what I was trying to figure out, was not just how many BOD members were around, but also how many AFA members in general come here to get info and see what we are up to. I know many are here, but not many compared to the 3000 paid up members that the AFA is suppose to have. I know our leaders no longer come here to post, but maybe they do to read and see what we are talking about. I know it was said that for AFA business to be discussed on the internet made those people pond s***, but this seems to be the best way to get the most people informed. I'd rather be looked at as informed pond s*** than feel like the mushroom being kept in the dark and only fed the bs that someone wanted me to hear. As I said before, this is the place that it is happening. The AFA boards are deader than disco. There seems to be a posting over there every now and then, but when something like this is hot and going on here, nothing is happening over there. Why are the boards even there if we are not going to use them? I haven't used them either, but that's because I feel it could be a huge waste of time since the activity is so low. So again I ask, why don't more AFA people post here? It has even been posed to start a board for just that purpose just like was done for the guild. It would sure make it easier for all involved to be on the same page and up to date if we all knew where to go and that ther would be activity and information on a continuous basis. Just my thoughts.

The Pal Talk thing is a pretty good idea and is not very expensive for a general membership that would be needed for conferencing. All communication can either be typed or done with micrpones and with small cameras you can even see each other. I'm sure if there is only one person that doesn't have access, that could be remedied fairly easy if we really wanted this to work. I just think the idea of faster and better communication and more meetings would mean faster and better business administration, therefor a better more organized more infomred AFA general membership. Again, just my opinion.

Why wait to recruit members until after you are elected? Shouldn't we all be trying to do that all the time anyway? Your way seems to say that those individuals who are not members don't matter until you recruit them to your way. This again makes it look like the AFA feels it's better and it's members are better than non-members. By including them all the time and keeping them informed also, you have a better chance of recruiting them as well as becomming the most sought after organization to join by those non-members. If we include them as much as possible and entice them by having the best organization, then we stand the chance of them wanting to join and becomming the association we want to be. Number one in the horse/farrier world. We probably need to doulbe or triple or even more than that up our membership numbers to become that type of organization, and by using exclusionary ways in any aspect of what we do, we will drive more people away than we can attract. JMO again.

Thanks for your answers and reading this.

T.N. Trosin]
, further there isn't currently a provision in the By-laws for us to "meet" electronically. [/quote]
Something that should be corrected at the next BoD meeting. Why don't you draft a proposal and submit it for consideration at the meeting. I believe there is going to be another 'special session' for further bylaws revision/tweaking, and that would be the time to discuss this matter. If you are willing, your proposed change to the bylaws should be at the office enough ahead of time so that it can be included in the BoD reps packet.

I want to let everyone know that Rick has been removed as a Moderator for the Political Arena Forum. This was my decision, with no discussion between Rick and I. I've always kept these Forums cleaner than Caesar's wife, and they're going to stay that way.

FYI, due to a glitch, Rick's name may still appear as a Moderator for the Politcal Arena Forum. I'm trying to figure out why it's still appearing. Technology is wonderful sometimes.... Nonetheless, he has no Moderator ability in this Forum.

Baron

So much to respond to and the Packer game is on. I'll do my best.
vthorseshoe wrote:
At the AFA Mid-year meeting the Board restructureing committee presented a system of by-laws that would have reduced the board to 15 Directors at large plus 5 voted officers and an inital plan of 4 face to face meetings a year to start with. I think that if there was an error on the committiees part it was that we didn't develop policy guidelines for the board to vote on had the by-laws passed.
vthorseshoe wrote:
Irronicly we currently are under the curent system. At last "published" count (which is what I have to go by) California has 290 something only 98 of which I cover as the WSFA's representitive. SCDFA has somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 which leaves about 162 with out representation in the current deffinition. Last count I saw for Vermont was 24 total AFA members and I have no idea how many you represent.
Cyber Farrier wrote:
My appologies dear leader, I was in a hurry this morning. I agree that it is a red herring,however I was going to the perception of an advantage. I beleive Rick to honest man who is going to run an honest campagin. However as I said there is a learning curve to the boards and frankly, Rick and Ron have more practice in the media and I think that is the reason that might deter candidates from posting here.
Rick Burten wrote:
I would Rick if I were in favor of such a thing. From time to time I have a hard enough time keeping order in my board meetings which has 6 members, I can't imagine any electronic meeting that would involve over seventy people if you included the committee chairs. Further I seem to get more done when my board meets face to face. Of course I can't speek for the rest of the committee so this could very well be part of the package.
Rick Burten wrote:
I appoligize for not seeing that post, and I by no means ment to impune you.

Tom T,
It really doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that this new deal with president, president-elect etc. Is asinine! As a student of history I fully well know history to be littered with examples of those who could not adapt to new operating environments. However, this appears to be a system that cannot possibly accomplish anything. That said, after some thought, I believe the solution to the BOD mess could be fixed as follows:

Board of directors remains intact as is. Regional director idea implemented also. Regional directors will have longer terms than BOD. No term limits on anybody. One cannot be a BOD member and Regional director simultaneously.

This compromise is precisely how the bicameral legislature we are governed by was created. All decisions or changes should go through both governing bodies.

Yes there are directors nobody sees or hears from. Same in house of Reps. if those respective chapters want more of a voice they'll elect somebody more participatory. worrying about it is really nobody elses problem.

On executive committee: Immediate past president should be gone. serves no purpose having him there. Presidents term should be longer than 1 year and should be re-electable at least once. I wouldnt limit at all but for those who insist he should have at least 2 terms available to him.

I know full well this issue will be re-visited. Keep this idea in mind. It will bring about the much needed stability that the organization needs.
George

T.N. Trosin wrote:
If nobody argued with Rick on these boards he would argue with himself just to keep us amused.

I don't allow arguing on these Forums. Only discussions.

Baron

tbloomer wrote: Since Baron doesn't allow arguments, all I can say is that anytime I am involved in a discussion, there is at least three of me present. And we don't always agree with each other.

Is this what it is like at a BOD meeting with the EC and any other officials ? :confused:

My first impression is we don't need to worry about Korea's nuke testing, hell were self destructing without help from any other country.

Would this be a good time for King Solomon to come in and split the baby down the middle and give each party one half ?
A western division of the AFA and an eastern division of the AFA. Coming together once or twice a yr to discuss things.

Rick has taken the contract and presented it verse by verse and yet he still has to go on explaining. If Rick isn't getting frustrated by now, then he truly has the patience of JOB.

Perhaps all this discention is best brought to a head !! Get everything out and vented, then perhaps cooler heads can prevail .
It always seems a calm comes after a storm.

A person, suggested: putting everyone in a boat and putting them in the center of the ocean.
They (anyone involved) will either learn to row toether or they will all sink.
(Not an exact quote but close enough)

A fissure starts from a rubbing causing a sore spot. More rubbing causes an infection. More rubbing causes an eurption. You can end up with a large hole or you can medicate and start the healing.
I think some folks need to stop rubbing so the healing can occur and the horse can be put back to work. :cool: