Gentlefolk,

The I&A controversy is serious and unfortunately to this point not backed by substantial doc-u-mentation. Below is a simple chronology backed up where possible with doc-u-mentation of what is being said. I have kept the Chronology as free of opinion as I possibly can. However I do have an opinion of the conduct that it demonstrates and a conclusion in regard the what it is saying about how some people in the AFA have conducted business to date.

First, this it is my opinion that this is a mess of Mr. Davidson’s choosing. As all of you that have read anything I have written in re Mr. Ferguson, I am decidedly not a fan of Ferguson. However, SIT DOWN FOR A SECOND, giving the doc-u-ments that I have reviewed Mr. Ferguson has with all his limited skill tried to engage with Mr. Davidson to resolve this matter before it reached the point that it is at. So I have to give him credit for that. Good on Dave.

Second, Mr. Davidson has asserted that Rich Garrison was dumped on by the Ferguson/Nolan cabal and fired as the project manager. This is a bald face lie. Mr. Garrison requested that he be relieved of the role in April. I personally confirmed this on the telephone in a conversation with Mr. Garrison. Was he happy with the choice or with the Fact that Mr. Ferguson was the one writing the letter, NO. But he acknowledged that it was done at HIS request and that is very simply all that counts.

Third, Mr. Davidson first entered into a contract to produce the AFA Certification Study Guide and then willingly chose to breach his contract with the AFA for its production. This contract was in fact a sub-contract created via the requirement in the I&A contract that I&A be given right of first refusal for all printing projects. It is my belief that this placed him in material breach of the overall governing agreement.

Forth, Mr. Davidson has stated clearly that he intends to breach the contract in re the publication of PF and has repeatedly refused to discuss the matter in a professional and rational basis. Regardless of how much Mr. Davidson has contributed in the past to the AFA, his actions are hurting the AFA now and his willingness to break his word to the membership by not acting like a professional and breaching his agreement wipe all of that good out in an instant. Honor is not fungible and there are no grounds to act the way that I see him acting in his exchanges.

Fifth, over the last couple of days I have been accused by I&A staff of being “Full of ***** (excrement)” and have received email containing the following amongst other accusations: “HAVE YOU TOO MADE A DECISION THAT YOU WISH TO RUN AN EMPIRE AS AN EMPORER. WOW - very disappointing!” I personal find these attempts at intimidation and accusation untoward and unprofessional. Be that as it may be I have invited Mr. Davidson and staff to submit any doc-u-mentation of their claims to me in writing and to date have not received a single response. Should they choose to reply I will edit the following Timeline to include their response for all to review.

Finally, what I see happening here is the continuation of a failed campaign. I like everyone involved with few exceptions felt/fell strongly that Mr. Ferguson should have resigned or been removed from office for cause. However, I watched the Board of Directors meeting in awe that not one single person stood to express these feelings on the record at the meeting, nor did any of them collect the necessary signatures from those present in Albuquerque to call a special meeting for the purpose of removing Mr. Ferguson. In effect Mr. Ferguson has received a pass on this. Since none of the men in the room had the intestinal fortitude to act when the acting was good, I think they should stop tearing the AFA up with continued bashing Dave because he is Dave. If they are men they will put this behind them and step up to help Mr. Ferguson move the AFA forward in a positive fashion. I am not advocating closing their eyes to any future wrong doing or ******ity, but I am saying that they need to grow up, be men and work for the welfare of the AFA, its membership, and the horses that we serve.

I advice any that read the following to read it with an open mind, ignore the opinions and dig for the facts. The true picture becomes a lot clearer when you want to find it, instead of listening to the opinions of people with an axe to grind and their own interests to protect.

If there is a question feel free to post it to me and I will dig out the answers and support them with logic, fact and do***entation, not emotionalism, opinion and obfuscation.


Chronology

April 20, 2006: (Per Conversation with Mike Nolan.)
Mike Nolan makes a verbal request for an electronic copy of the text from the 2005 Certification Study Guide. Scott Davidson indicates it is not available

May 22, 2006:
Nolan requests via e-mail that Ink & Anvil either supply the requested text or explain why it is not available. Davidson responds that the material is only available in a publishing software version.

June 6, 2006:
Nolan requests that I&A forward the electronic version, indicating that he will have it converted for the Committee. (Exhibit 24)


June 7, 2006:
Davidson sends email to Nolan and others with final refusal to forward electronic version of study guide. Includes the entire email exchange back to June 6th. (Exhibit 24)

July 10, 2006:
Scott Davidson declines a request to meet with the Executive Committee to resolve problems. But includes a list of grievances. (Exhibit 16)

July 26, 2006:
Davidson accepts the contract to produce the AFA Certification Study Guide. Includes Nolan acceptance of the Ink & Anvil bid to produce the 2006 edition of the Certification Study Guide. (Exhibit 25)

August, 11, 2006:
Nolan responds to Davidson Request for membership numbers. (Exhibit 33)

August 12, 2006: (I have requested a copy of the minutes from this meeting)
Certification Committee meets and reviews the revised Study Guide. Several additional changes are adopted. (Exhibit 35)

August 29, 2006:
Ferguson writes letter to I&A requesting meeting at Mid-Year Board Meeting. (Exhibit 23)

August, 31, 2006:
Ferguson sends letter requesting a meeting with I&A staff in Albuquerque with the stated purpose of discussing and trying to resolve the issues between I&A and the AFA. (Exhibit 23)

September 5, 2006:
Study guide text and cover photo sent to Ink & Anvil with directions to proceed with production. (Exhibit 26)

September 6, 2006:
Davidson refuses Albuquerque meeting because he has other plans. (Exhibit 6)

September 12, 2006:
Office Manager Jiulianti receives funding request for mailing of PF. Fax has wrong publication name on it but the count is correct for magazine distribution. (Exhibit 51 page 2&3)

September 13, 2006:
Scott Davidson sent an e-mail indicating that Ink & Anvil was withdrawing its bid to print the Certification Study Guide, and making unsubstantiated charges against the Acting Executive Director. (Exhibit 27)

Nolan sends Davidson letter establishing review policy on the content of PF. (Exhibit 14)

Nolan informs AFA Attorney McSwain of the correspondence with Davidson and Davidson’s response. (Exhibit 13) & (Exhibit 14)

Jiulianti Faxes funding authorization to AFA Bank. (Exhibit 55 page 9)

AFA Bank funds transferred to mailing house account. (Exhibit 55 page

September 14, 2006:
Ferguson writes letter to Garrison notifying him that he has been replaced as project manager in the I&A contract. (Exhibit 12)

September 15, 2006:
Ferguson sends Garrison letter to Nolan and requests that he mail it ot Garrison and the publications committee members. (Exhibit 11)

September 15th, 2006:
Nolan drafts response to Davidson’s 9/13 email and forwards to EC and Voigt for review. Letter never sent. (Exhibit 10) & (Exhibit 32)

September 17th, 2006:
Voigt responds to his copy of Nolan’s 9/15 email. (Exhibit 10)

September 19, 2006:
Jiulianti receives funding request for mailing membership directory from mailing house. Item count supports that this is a request for the directory. (Exhibit 51 pages 3-5)

September 20, 2006:
Jiulianti faxes funding request to AFA Bank. (Exhibit 55 Page 6)

Continued ....

Continueing ....

September 21, 2006:
Ferguson Writes to Goodrich about I&A and PR Committee statues. (Exhibit 28)

Goodrich replies to Ferguson’s Email. (Exhibit 28)

Nolan expresses concern of PR Committee to Ferguson. (Exhibit 29)

Jiulianti emails mailing house representative Faceson confirming that fund transfer request was sent to AFA bank. (Exhibit 55 page 5)

September 22, 2006:
Ferguson writes letter to Davidson with 3rd request for meeting. (Exhibit 7)

Taylor expresses desire to begin contingency planning and opinion that relationship with I&A is irrecoverable. (Exhibit 9) (Walt Taylor has agreed to its publication.)

September 23, 2006:
Ferguson sends September 22, 2006 letter, (Exhibit 7) to Davidson via email. (Exhibit

September 24, 2006:
Ferguson sends Davidson letter reaffirming a request that I&A attend a meeting in Nov with the EC. Letter also refuses to agree to any preconditions to that meeting or the negotiations that are to occur. (Exhibit 18)

Davidson responds with to Ferguson letter requesting a meeting to resolve differences with demands as condition to engaging in the meeting. (Exhibit 6)

September 25, 2006:
AFA Bank transfers funds to mailing house account. (Exhibit 55 page 4)

Burdett drafts letter sent to BoD, this letter was later sent on October 7, 2006 by Goodrich because Burdette’s computer had failed. (Exhibit 5)

Davidson responds to Ferguson email of September 24th. (Exhibit 18)

September 26th, 2006:
Ferguson letter to Davidson informing him that after reconsidering the appointment of project manager the EC has decided to continue with the Nolan appointment and informing Davidson that if this creates an unworkable situation for I&A that the EC is willing to negotiate a settlement that will allow I&A out of its contract without penalty. (Exhibit 17)

October 3, 2006:
Davidson letter to EC intended to cancel publishing contract. (Exhibit 3) & (Exhibit 4)

October 4, 2006:
Representative of Haywood Printing sends Davidson email with marginal statements that are not supported. (Exhibit 55 page 3)

October 7, 2006:
Goodrich forwards Burdette’s 9/25 letter to BoD. (Exhibit 48) & (Exhibit 5)

Ferguson sends email to EC discussing Burdett letter and forwarding two doc-u-ments from Davidson. (Exhibit 2)

October 8, 2006:
Davidson email to board of Directors terminating his contract with the AFA. (Exhibit 1)

October 9, 2006:
Nolan forwards draft of letter drafted at Burdette’s request to Walt Taylor. (Exhibit 45),
(Exhibit 39),
(Exhibit 40),
(Exhibit 41)

October 10, 2006:
Kramedjian requests full doc-u-mentation from headquarters in re the controversy. Nolan responds with full detail as reported in this timeline. Timeline and doc-u-mentation can not be released until Nolan clears doc-u-mentation production with AFA attorney because of potential litigation. Nolan confirms Garrison request to be replaced. (Exhibit 42)

AFA attorney McSwan sends demand letter to I&A outlining obligations under the contract. (Exhibit 37)

October 11, 2006:
Kramedjian received email statement of editorial policy as decided by the EC and copy of September 12, 2006 minutes. (Exhibit 20) & (Exhibit 22)

Kramedjian receives copy of Nolan email to Butch Hockaday in response to Hockaday’s questions. (Exhibit 19)

Kramedjian writes to Nolan and requests immediate permission to release doc-u-mentation already in hand because of Goodrich release of inflammatory email.

Nolan sends Burdette email regarding his resignation and letter of October 7. (Exhibit 44)

October 12, 2006:
Nolan responds to Kramedjian request for permission to use the information previously provided under non-publication agreement. (Exhibit 32)
Nolan responds to doc-u-mentation request on Equine Affair charges in Burdett letter. (Exhibit 30) & (Exhibit 31)

October 13, 2006:
I&A Attorney replies to AFA demand and terminates I&A contract. (Exhibit 38)

October 14, 2006:
Nolan replies verifying August 11, 2006 letter to Davidson and explains reasons for routing Davidson to Office Manager. (Exhibit 34)

October 15, 2006:
Kramedjian talks with Burdette and then sends email to confirm conversation and ask a few questions. (Exhibit 52)

October 16, 2006:
Kramedjian receives copies of attorney letters.

October 17, 2006:
Kramedjian requests and receives permission to publish attorney letters after Noon on October 18, 2006 allowing time for the BoD to be notified. (Exhibit 36)

Blombach sends email to Hockaday in response to questions. (Exhibit 54)

October 18, 2006:
Burdette sends two email to Kramedjian answering October 15th questions and faxes what he presents as the draft letter he received not from Nolan but from Ferguson. (Exhibit 39), (Exhibit 40) & (Exhibit 41)

October 20, 2006:
Kramedjian emails Taylor requesting information on the dates involved in the drafting of the proposed Burdette letter prepared by Nolan. (Exhibit 45)

Kramedjian emails additional questions to Burdette. (Exhibit 53)

Davidson sends BoD email which includes indictments and suggestion for special board meeting. (Exhibit 54)

October 23, 2006:
Taylor response that Burdette letter was in works on 8th or 9th and that Nolan faxed it to Burdette on October 10th. (Exhibit 45)

Kramedjian asks Earle when he first recalled hearing that Garrison wanted to be replaced. Earle responds to request. (Exhibit 43)

Kramedjian asks Taylor when he first recalled hearing that Garrison wanted to be replaced. Taylor responds to request. (Exhibit 46)

Trosin writes to BoD to correct misrepresentation about Garrison. (Exhibit 54)

October 24, 2006:
Burdette responds to Kramedjian Questions. (Exhibit 47)

Davidson writes BoD to reassert his opinion re Garrison. (Exhibit 54)

October 25, 2006:
Kramedjian Receives Do***ents proving up timeline and payments for mailing PF and Membership Directory. (Exhibit 55 & (Exhibit 51)

I read about half of the E-mails between Mr. Nolan and Mr. Davidson. Mr. Davidson has shown curtousy, professionalism and cooperation. Mr. Nolan appears to be confused. Am I missing something here.

I will take the time to read this in it's entirety and reread it to gain a better understanding.

Ronald, you have submitted the facts along with your personal opinion, I am not sure I agree with your opinions.

Well I have read enough. Just my opinion, Dave Ferguson and Mike Nolan need to take courses on how to work with others. Definately hostile and uncooperative. If I were Scott and R.T. I would also be frustrated and probably cease to do buisness with Dave and Mike. Consider that Scott and R.T. have a life, buisness and family there is only so much time to do things like volentary work for the AFA contract or not. The AFA are lucky to have such passionate, experienced and talented folks contributeing to the orginization and it seems these bridges are being burned. What a shame!!!!

The AFA continues to bleed, all because of poor management and people skills. In my opinion. No way would I treat my clients like this or tolerate this kind of working relationship.

To be honest I do not see where Scott or R.T. are being unreasonable if that was the intention of this thread. From everything I have read on this thread it appears they are being unreasonably treated by Dave and Mike. Will be interesting to see the history with Scott with both sides of the story.

Phil Armitage wrote: I'm sure that Ron will be crushed to know that after your half a s s e d look at the information you do not agree with his opinions. :cool:

tbloomer wrote:
I eventually read all the e-mails, very repetative afterawhile. It is easy to see the trend after the first couple of exchanges of E-mailsl As I said this is just my opinion. Yours on the other hand has no value, except to be sarcastic. Maybe Ron will be interested in hearing from others as to how they see it.

If Ron wanted to post just the facts and remain open minded, maybe leaveing out his opinion would have been a better approach, instead of attempting to interject how he sees the situation. Would have been a good political move on his part. However he did not remain neutral and it appears is attempting to steer the readers into how he views the problem.

OK, I'm going to start stepping in here to try to stop this sort of junk. Tom, was there really any need for that post? Did it add anything substanitive to the discussion, or directly address the issue? I didn't think so. So everyone listen up: Feel free to write all the posts like that that you want to, because I know it feels good to vent. Then hit the delete key and move on.

Baron

Phil Armitage wrote:
Honestly (and dear leader this is no crack back on) Phil, did you read the stuff or just a few of the of then. I read a few and they were pretty hostile on Scotts part. Of course then again hostility is a matter of opinion these days.

T.N. Trosin wrote:
I read a few as you did. It get pretty boreing! I saw a lot of firm demands from Mike Nolan to Scott, maybe with good reason. Scotts replys and explanations started pretty decent. Scott did not appear to get upset until Mike tone seems to become rude and more demanding. I saw Scott trying to be proactive in resolveing whatever issues there were by meeting face to face, and then Mike and Dave take the idea of meeting as there own and start controlling when and where with repeated E-mails.

I do not know any of these folks at all. I probably have a pretty good unbiased opinion. Just telling it how I see it. Instead of giveing an opinion about me T.N. why not give your opinion on the issue?
What part did you think Scott was hostile?

In one E-mail it appears Mike Nolan did not realise he recieved the file he was demanding from Scott. I thought Scott's explanation that he was not willing to give the AFA his program, frame work and files to creat the study guide pamphlet was pretty reasonable. He stated to Mike the AFA had a hard copy of the text and had sent the text electronicly. Sounded like Mike had what he needed all along and kept on being very demanding to Scott. What was up with that. I would also become suspect of Mike and Dave's intentions.

It also appears Scott had needs and greivences and from AFA leadership in order to get things out in a timely manner and he was not recieveing any cooperation.

It is clear whatever problems the AFA has with I&A has two sides of the story and it appears to me most of the communications and cooperation is lacking on the part of the AFA not I&A.

The AFA is going to continue to have problems if leadership does not learn how to work things out in a better way.

I have talked to Dave F. on the phone and frankly he does not shut up long enough to allow one to get a word in. He also did this at a SNEFA meeting, ran away with the meeting until John finaly told him to move on. Bless Dave's heart he has strong opinions, passion and is very intellegent, however please learn how to shut up and listen. I have also talked to Mike Nolan, nice guy very professional, however I could tell his role is to act as a buffer between members and leaders. Basicly put fires out, putting fires out is a band aid not a fix. It takes hard work and proper communications from all partys with respect to solve problems. Hope all works out.

When Scott received the "Duckett letter" for publication last year he contacted Dave Ferguson and told him that PF was going to publish a derogatory letter about him in the next issue. Duckett was not a member of the AFA.

Ferguson requested a copy of the letter so that he could respond to it in the same issue as it was published. Davidson refused to reveal the contents of the letter to Ferguson untill AFTER the magazine went to print. Thus forcing Ferguson to wait untill he received his copy of PF in the mail before he could respond to "something derogatory." Then the membership would have to wait until the next issue to read the response.

Ferguson provided a response to Davidson for publication in the next issue of PF. Davidson refused to publish Fergies response because he thought it was "unprofessional." So in effect, Scott Davidson censored Dave Fergusons response to the Duckett letter. Ferguson's response was not reviewed by the publications committee. Perhaps if this had happened and the AFA publications committee had asked Fergie to soften the tone of his response letter . . . but that never happened.

So the real reason that this whole thing started was in order to give the AFA publications committee the ability to review material for publication. 'nuther words, it was an act of unilateral censorship on the part of I&A without input from the AFA.

I know about this because I have all of the emails that went back and forth between Davidson and Ferguson. It is my considered opinion that Davidson should have given Ducketts letter to the publications committee and then let THEM decide whether or not to allow Ferguson to respond to it in the same issue - thus giving the members an accusation and a response on the same page in the same issue. Running the letter without giving a chance to respond until the next issue has the result of allowing the questions asked to fester in the member's minds for two months. IS THIS ETHICAL JOURNALISM?

Phil, add this information to your timeline and then consider WHO was censoring WHO and under what authority.

Phil Armitage wrote: Phil,

A small point but one that must be made. The United States Supreme Court decided the matter of who owns the work product from contractual employment agreements lets see, 10-15 years ago. I know this because as a CTO/CIO you retain a few independent contractors. Unfortunately for Scott, I suspect that he is very mislead in his belief that he owns the work product. His contract is for project based work and he is compensated not just for the final product, but under the contract, for everything that goes into producing the final product.

Now this is my opinion and only my opinion, but it looks a to me a lot like he didn't want to give over the file because he could later charge the AFA for taking their markup and putting it back into the electronic version. His recalcitrance force the AFA to expend staff time, MONEY, to retype the do***ent into electronic form so that the Certification Committee could do their job. If anything Scott hampered the work of the committee, not Mike Nolan as he alleges.
Phil Armitage wrote:
The problem that you have with this is that you seem to have the management/employee model up side down in your head. As an employer if I ask an employee to perform a function that is inside the scope of his duties that request has the same weight as an order. If the employee refuses that request, they are in fact being insubordinate. I as the employer then have to decide if I am going to work out the problem or I am going to fire the employee.

In this case the employer, the AFA, has made repeated requests that are within the scope of their employment of the employee, I&A. I&A has been defiant, resistant, and insubordinate. If it had been me, I would have terminated their contract after the breach on the study guide. However, the AFA, as evidenced by the numerous letters and emails have been trying to move I&A from insubordination, into their proper subordinate role as an employee of the AFA and in cooperation with AFA policy. However harshly worded the letters or email have been they have not contained the words, "YOUR FIRED." Unfortunately the employee in this case is not taking the hint.
Phil Armitage wrote: The AFA is going to continue to have problems as long as the membership keeps looking at the AFA's business relationships in an unprofessional and un-business like manner. Regardless of how much the individuals involved in this matter have contributed to the AFA or how long they have been members of the AFA, that is not of import in the management of this contract for employment. What is of import is that the AFA has contracted with a vendor for a service under a set of terms governing performance and compensation and the vendor has chosen to violate one or more of those terms. It is not personal, it is simply business and the AFA's interests are more important that those of the individuals involved.

So far the response from AFA management appears fairly reasoned and conciliatory.

What Ron is talking about is explained here:

Works Made for Hire under the 1976 Copyright Act

Read the Statutory Definition paragraph 2. Pay attention to the part about illustrations, maps, charts, tables . . . 'nuther words the layout which I&A was attempting to claim as their own intillectual property. A copyright lawyer would have a field day with this stuff. Then there's that think about ignorance of the law . . . and excuses.

I wonder if it wouldn't be less problematic if the next publisher the AFA does business with is not;
1. a member of the AFA
2. not a farrier
3. not in the horse industry ,per se

Most of us learn it is a lot less hectic if you don't do business with family. Could this apply here ? (family being anyone in The AFA or horse industry)

Phil;
In my own opinion, and it is my own opinion, as I read all the e-mails etc. I got the impression that Mr. Davidson was letting his dis-like/objections for Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Nolan over shadow his business sense and actions.
I know little to nothing about the workings of or the proceedures of management. I can only form an opinion on what is presented, and this is how the material presented slants for my mind.

I also wonder if the transitions being made to run the AFA because of its growth has been some of the cause of disention.
I can see in yrs past the AFA was an Assoc with agenda's.
Today it is much bigger with much more inticate things that need to be handled in a business manner.
From Assoc. to Business means a different approach .
It may still be called the AFA but in reality this is a corporate business now.
At least as I see it.

Phil Armitage wrote: Phil,
You seem to be laboring under the misconception that Mr. Davidson is publishing the PF magazine on a voluntary basis. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Davidson is an entrepreneur. As such, he founded a company, Ink & Anvil Publications, in order to fill what he perceived as a void with potential for enhanced income generation.

While it is true that the only monetary costs to the AFA for Mr. Davidson to publish PF are strictly related to postage fees, it is also true that Mr. Davidson, is free to earn as much money from selling advertising space in PF, as he is humanly able to do. Some of us refer to this as a "Profit Incentive".

Mr.Davidson entered into a contractual relationship with the AFA knowing full well and agreeing to all terms of the contract. The success of his enterprise depended solely on his and his employee's ability to sell advertising space and by so doing generate enough revenue to both publish the magazine, pay any other business related expenses, and hopefully, turn a profit for the owner(Mr. Davidson). This is totally different from volunteering to work/provide services to the AFA.

The AFA is an organization that is indeed run by volunteers(Office staff excepted) and like any organization so structured, the volunteers often and regularly burn out and either are or are not replaced. I'd wager its no different(except on a smaller scale) in your state farrier's association, the local car club, stamp club, or horse club. The few do the work for the many and no one steps up so long as those few are willing to shoulder the burden. When those few call it quits, either new blood is infused or the group/association/organization ceases to exist. Those that 'fall by the wayside' are often remembered with an award or a plaque or a gold watch but generally, quickly fade from the collective memory. Fade that is, unless that person has does something so heinous that their deeds become the staple of lore.I don't know that I am in total disagreement here, but coroprate business tends to be rough and tumble. And in this instance we are talking about corporate business. The AFA deals with many vendors and requiring said vendors to live up to and fully accept the terms of their contract is not always an easy thing to do. Hence, the term "hard ball" attached to the process. And we see 'hard ball' played every day.Phil,
this is not an analagous situation.

Suppose you, as 'Phil the horseshoer' enter into an agreement with 'Joe the printer' to publish a quarterly newsletter for you. Subject to the terms of your contract with Joe, would you expect him to honor and live up to all of the terms of the contract, whatever they might be? If Joe failed to fully honor the contract what would you do? If, as a part of your newsletter, you had a 'Letters to the Editor" section and your contract stipulated that all editorial content had to first be seen by you, and Joe went ahead a published that content without prior approval, what would you do?

You said : No way would I treat my clients like this". Well, in this instance, the AFA is the client. Remember, Mr. Davidson solicited the AFA's business.

I would also like to draw your attention to Exhibit #14, Paragraph 1 , second sentence which states: " While members have every right to send their views to the magazine, you as Publisher have a responsibility to determine that the facts are complete and accurate and that the officers, directors, or staff have an opportunity to respond in the same issue to any letter which contains information critical of the Association and/or its leadership. "

This is the crux of the matter. There is not even a whif of censorship here, only the concept and request for equal, even handed, treatment of all parties involved.

The AFA does not "want to control the the free exchange of ideas among" the readers of the PF, rather, the AFA wants to insure a level playing field for all. Surely you see the merit and benefit in that?

Phil

When it comes to a contract both parties are required to live by the contract. If I&A thinks that the AFA is out of bounds with the contract then he has the right and reponsability to bring it to the attention of the leadership and discuss the issue. The same go for the AFA.

In this case it appears that the AFA had a problem and felt that there was some contract issues that needed discussed. IMO I&A refusal to met with the AFA is a breach of his contract.

The AFA should have sent I&A an notice of violation (NOV) and started looking for a new publisher if I&A did not come back into compliance with the contract.


Gary