Rick Burten wrote:
We'll see if Rick sees this over here.

In the initial set of by-law writting setting the regions was the only question we addressed because we have to start somwhere. Since that time I have given the question a lot of thought, and it is a difficult question, becuse we have no static growth average (sga) to go by. When an association hangs around 3000 for so long with no growth it's kind of hard to plan for the future. But since you asked.

The big issue here is that we need to have a stable number of board members that cannot be exceded, the number we have hit is 20 (15 reps 5 exes) which made 5 regions with three reps apiece. So a plan would be, as the association grows there would be restructureing years (say every 5) where the SGA is examined and where the growth has taken place. It's obvious that where there is more growth is where we would make the divisions and move the board seats, with the end goal of still 20 seats. It is conceivable that there would still be large regions that would have 3 seats and small regions that would have 1 or 2, so there is the real question. Do we set the regions and make them perminent or do we leave the door open for redrawing regions or adding regions.
IF any AFA member has questions or sugjestions concerning this I welcome them by email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Here's my suggestion, though I think for some it is going to create some unhappiness.

We divide the United States by regions based solely on horse population as determined by USDA census. Since the horse population is relatively stable, adjustments to the regions would only be done on a ten year basis, again based solely on the USDA equine population location census. This would take all the potential charges of gerrymandering, politicing, etc . out of the equation. It is true that some regions would be smaller than others and might indeed have more members than others, but if we are looking long term, then as our membership numbers grow, based on equine populations, these numbers should start to equalize.

Now, the question is going to arise, "Yeah, but what about AFA members who are not living in the United States?"

For those members who are living outside the borders of the United States but are still United States citizens, their region would be the region that contains their place of birth.

For those members who are foreign nationals living outside the borders of the United States, a new category of membership would be developed. This category would be called "Foreign Members". This category would be a dues paying category and would provide all membership benefits except two:
!. The right to vote
2. The right to hold office.

Foreign nationals who are permanent residents of the United States and live within the borders of the United States, would continue to be classified as 'Regular Members'.

Rick Burten wrote:
I'm sure there would be a reduce rate of course.
The establishment of a new membership would have precident over the board reduction at that point, because I wouldn't be able to put that in to a board reduction policy until that was in place.

T.N. Trosin wrote: Tom,

It costs more in postage to mail things to foreign countries that in does in the US and there would be no reduction in services or benefits. Why would you suggest a reduced rate?

Ron

I received an e-mail with the following suggestion, and I think its a d-a-mn good one.

"Add a sixteenth board Rep who will be elected by and represent the members from outside the USA and Canada. That would create a 21 member Board. International member numbers are, at the moment, about equal to one-third the numbers in the proposed regions, so they would be equally represented."

In fact, I think this is such a good idea, that I officially and publicly support it and believe it should be incorporated into the proposal to re-structure the board.

I still think that the concept of dividing the country into regions based on horse population is a more (pardon the pun) stable one than having to constantly adjust the regional borders based on membership/region numbers.

As I understand it, under the current proposal, if a restructuring of a region became necessary, an entire state would be involved. Thus, a state could be in one region this year, and a different region the next or some ensuing year. Under that scenario, it is plausible that those reps elected in a region one year, may not be representing the people who elected them, the next year.

Butl let me emphatically say this. Even with some potential pitfalls along the way, the proposal to restructure the board is far, far better than what we now have. I am in complete/full support of this initiative and I beleive that without it, the future of the AFA is not nearly as bright as it can be under this restructuring proposal.

TomT, you and your committee have my full support. Let me know if there is anything I can do to turn this proposal into reality no later than the BOD meeting at the 2007 annual convention.

And, wouldn't it be nice if the AFA leadership publicly weighed in on this matter.

As a member living OCONUS, just my two bits worth:
1. Require all out side the U.S. to have e-mail address, then get the main office to use it more. This would cut out a lot of the "extra" postage. I received a membership reminder in the mail. Why not have a downloadable copy on the AFA homepage, then send an e-mail reminder to ALL MEMBERS when their time comes. Just think how much money would be saved????

2. If you are going to take away the voting rights, then why allow any non-U.S. farriers the full membership to begin with? Maybe establish an associate membership with a lower membership rate (because they have no say so in anything).

3. Depending on how many members live east of the Atlantic and west of the Pacific you could have a "representative" in each area. This rep would then answer directly to a board member - one on the west coast and one on the east coast.

4. Limit AFA membership to U.S. farriers only, then you don't have to worry about it anymore.

Just some ideas - use 'em or throw 'em out.

As a member living OCONUS, I was a little upset about not receiving the apology sent out from my AFA President. Most of you don't know it was only sent to AFA member in the States. Maybe it could have been posted on the AFA homepage??? - or maybe e-mailed to us. I don't know how many member live OCONUS, but if it is only one thing you remember - we do pay $150 a year the same as you.

Mikel

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:
You better get used to sarcasim if your planning on leading this bunch.
The reduced rate was retorical of course there is now ay in the current budget that we can reduce anybodies dues.

Rick Burten wrote: That would be great I supose but then we would have to give the Forigen farriers (FF) their vote back.
Rick Burten wrote:
Noted
Rick Burten wrote:
AISTR, I memtioned an every 5 year examination of the size of the association. But again Noted.
Rick Burten wrote: Appreciated
Rick Burten wrote: Appreciated and Noted
Rick Burten wrote: It would be, at this point where I might say "Hey kids check out americanfarriers.com" If wanted to suffer the rath of dear leader.

beslagsmed wrote: Mikel,

After I made my original suggestion on this issue, I ammended it. If we are going to hve 'open' membership then every member should have the vote. No one should be disenfranchised. That is why I put forward the concept of an additional BoD rep, elected by the OCONUS members.
I again note for the record that this was not an 'original' idea of mine, rather it was the idea of another AFA member that was forwarded to me. And I thank him for that suggestion.According to the information provided me, the total number of OCONUS members is approximately one third the number of members that would be in any of the regions that are to be established. Since each region is to have three representatives, it is felt that the OCONUS membership should be proportionally represented, thus, one BoD rep.Nah, that's not what we're about.Good suggestions. I suggest you forward them to Mr. Ferguson, Mike Nolan, and also, post them in the members-only section of the AFA website.Doing the math, I come up with appx. 200 OCONUS members. And, you are absolutely correct.

Rick

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:
Ron,
The AFA needs to begin to use the internet and e-mail more for mailing and contact. By now the office should have a good handle on who does and doesn't have e-mail. You think it cost to send things over here. It costs me more to send my membership back. This and many other contact things can be done on line with just an e-mail note to the farriers.

Rick I appreciate the ideas and thought going into the board setup and am very supportive.

Mikel

Rick Burten wrote:
For us kids who aren't hip to the lingo, what's OCONUS? I have tried for about 2 weeks on my own but I give up.

T.N. Trosin wrote:
Hang in there, Tom. You, too, can master the art of RickSpeak: "Outside the continental United States."

Tom,

Go to www.acronymfinder.com for all your acronym q's.
Mike

beslagsmed wrote:
You would be suprised. Daily, in the process of sending email to AFA members for one thing or another I get mailer Dammon notices. Farriers seem to change email addresses like socks. While I admit that there are acceptions to the rule, perhaps it would benift the Office if the OCONUS members had a hotmail or yahoo account that they would list as their address. It's what I had to do becuse where I moved to had no DSL and I had to drop my SBC address because of it.

danverschild wrote: Actually, the credit for first using that acronym here belongs to Mikel(seee post#21) . I merely figured it out and in a moment of eruditablness(I think this is a new word that will hopefully not find its way into the lexicon ) responded in kind to Mikel. My apologies for not clarifying the acronym for one and all.