Im sorry but I didn't know what else to call this thread. BTW I would appreciate it if you guys left this to me and Gary. If you want to start your own thread _____ vs. T.N. then go ahead. I can't garuntee that I will respond.
Gary_Miller wrote:
Without a lot of cut and past I'll try to explain it.

I am a farrier I have never been anything else, with the exception of a groom, dishwasher, hod, and a few other part time jobs to make the ends meet. I apprenticed for a guy for 4 years and worked for other farriers part time for another 4 while I was building my business. I joined the AFA in 1992 which I correct my earlier post is 14 years not 16. At that time you needed to be certified to get the vote in the AFA so I waited to join until I was certerfied. Over the last 14 years I have seen the AFA change and then change back to the changes they made. I have been mad enough not to pay my dues and eventually gone back.
In my opinion what Ron doesn't get but I'll admit he's obviously trying to is what a lot of second carreer farriers don't is this. Just becsue one thing works for you doesn't mean it's going to work for me becuse I've tried it or what ever. In a phone conversation I had with Ron he told me about a method of treating founder that he uses that he more or less said was fool proof. It was a method involving a double nail pad which I saw several years ago. I tried to explain that to Ron in a very nice way that nothing is fool proof when it comes to founder, but I got the impression that he didn't want to hear it so I dropped it. Arguring horsehoeing to me is like argueing your religion, there is no point to it. People need to learn from their own mistakes.
Through the rest of the conversation it seemed to me that the more we talked the dummer I got about shoeing a horse. Therefore I have to assume (and I hate to do that any place Rick is) that is the attitude that Ron and takes with a lot of people who have been shoeing for 20 years or less.

As to what he doen't get about AFA farriers without getting back to the Task Force thing, (if you want that I'll PM you). We live to teach, we live to serve. We have been blessed greatly by the people who have helped us and we want to help the people who come in behind us. Thats it. I will concede this point we need leadership that doesn't sabotage the mission every 2 to 4 years. It's not only Ron who doesn't understand the membership it's most everybody who has led us since Lim Couch. They have this attitude that they know what is best for us, Emil Carre did it, Craig Trnka did it and now Dave Fergison is doing it. Ron has persented until lately much the same attitude that 'he's gona clean up this one horse town' and the AFA doesn't need that. The AFA needs people in leadership that is going to re-stableize the certification tests, we need leadership that is going to be willing to work with an existing executive director, etc etc etc. Ron has not established that he can do that with me at least. My big concern is that he wants information out to the membership and the manor in which he wants to do it. I asked him a question about transparicy on his board after the Jim Ziggler post and all I got was a further appologie. What I wanted to know was where he draws the line .Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:
This kind of hurt my feelings. Considering the fact that Rick, Ron and myself are the only ones named in the post who write here, I am under the impression he did that with a specific effect in mind and that was to say that I smiled in Rick Burton's face and stabbed him in the back which is simply not the case. If that wasn't Ron's intent then he needs to clareafy his position on it. My purpose on Andrew's second was to help the nomination processs and not to hamstring anybody. It is not much of a secret that I am good friends with Dick Funguy he has been a mentor to me in the aspect of when I would ask people what was going on, he never failed to tell me or ever sugar coated his opinion, so when he asked me to second Andrew's nomination I gladly did it. I have yet to get behind one candidate or another with the exception of R.T. who has had my support long before Ron put his name in Vice-President.

As to me Gary I'm sick of the EC. I see it and have publicly said that I think that it is an experament that has failed. It has taken advantage of it position and the good nature of the board of directors since it's inception. However, unfortunatly, in the intrest of day to day business it must exist as long as the AFA sits such a large board. I am not the only board member that feels this way. All I want to do is learn and teach and help.

If this makes me an eletist so be it.

T.N. Trosin wrote: Its to bad that you see this as a compition against me. What I see is an AFA member who is part of the "Good Old Boys Club" dismissing and pushing out a new member who is tring to see all sides of the issue.
If anyone else would llike to respond to this tread feel free to do so as I don't see it as me against anyone.



Without a lot of cut and past I'll try to explain it.
T.N. Trosin wrote: What was the reason for the change and who first suggested it?T.N. Trosin wrote: Why all the changes back and forth?T.N. Trosin wrote: Fellow members with attitudes like your towards the new mwmber will be what will make me quit.T.N. Trosin wrote: Good point however second carreer farriers come to the field and the AFA with a whole new prospective. And just because it did not work the first time does not mean it won't work the second time with a little tweeking. Is that not what you are currently doing with the BOD size committee you are currently working with?T.N. Trosin wrote: You are correct there nothing is fool proof and every situation is differant. However is it wrong to listen to another person no matter how experiance and see thier point. Then discuss with way you do or don't think it will work.T.N. Trosin wrote: Why argue it when you can discuss instead and both individuals come out learning something frome each other, with no hard feelings.T.N. Trosin wrote: So do associations, I.E. the AFA..
However, if people can also learn from the mistakes of others things can get done alot quicker.T.N. Trosin wrote: Is that because Ron had some diffrent points of view that you did not agree with and so refused to learn from?T.N. Trosin wrote: Maybe! I don't know Ron personally. I only know that what he states on these boards make allot of sense. All though at time I don't agree with him. But thats ok I'm sure Ron doesn't expect me to because I can think for myself.T.N. Trosin wrote: That's ok I've heard enough and it does not matter how the job got done. What does matter is that it got done. Hind sit is always better than what happening at the time.T.N. Trosin wrote: Then why are you guys so nerrow minded when it comes to working with people who have diffrent ideas and thoughts?T.N. Trosin wrote: What is there that needs to be understood?
OTOH, Maybe it you and the good old boys who don't understand the current membership and thier prespective of what the AFA should be doing.T.N. Trosin wrote: I havent been around long only since last year so I don't know what Lim and Emil was like or what the association was like under thier leadership. Maybe you could take some time and give a short breifing about them and the AFA while they were in charge.
What did Lim Couch do that made his tenor as the AFA president so great? Maybe we need more of that.T.N. Trosin wrote: We also need leadership with some vision and business sense. Someone who knows how to formulate a stratigic plan and how to work with the BOD in implimenting the plan. Ultimutly the BOD will have the responsability of ensuring the plan is followed and tweekec as time goes on. This is why it so important that your committee have a sound solid plan on down sizing the BOD. Because with the BOD like it is nothing is getting done.T.N. Trosin wrote: What wrong with getting information out to the members. I think the members should have access to everything in the AFA office as well as every meeting, and it all can be done right here on the web using the AFA web site. As for using this site to debate issues important to farriers why not. If the AFA wants to be the elite farriers association then all farriers AFA members and non AFA members should be able to discuss the issues. In the end it going to be the AFA members who make the dicission.T.N. Trosin wrote: It was a ****** statement the needed to be resended. And your question was a ****** question for someone of your stature. You know perfictly well what Ron means by transparicy when it comes to the AFA.


Gary

Contiued:
T.N. Trosin wrote: For some reason I don't believe that you get your feeling hurt that easy.T.N. Trosin wrote: I don't think the intent was to cause anyone any strife so let it go.
I for one am glade that he posted the candates as I was courious on who else was running. As for who nominated them it does not matter much.
OTOH you can tell alot about a canidate by the personalities of the nominators.
I only wish that the others would post perferably here on this site where it can be seen by alot of others who are interested in thier positions. But if they don't want to do it here the AFA site is Ok also. What not OK is not talking to the members at all. I don't know any of the guys running or thier position except Ron, Rick and R.T. and even R.T. has very little information on why he should be VP.
T.N. Trosin wrote: You and a whole lot of other folks. However its not the EC that the problem but the people who are on the EC. And the BOD needs to do thier job and tell the EC how things are really going to be. On other reason why a smaller BOD is so important. Keep your committee working.T.N. Trosin wrote: Well make sure your committee listens to all ideas and put togeather a good pakage that the membership will approve of. Because it it looks as if the chapters are being pushed out with no input but being charged to be a chapter the it won't fly by the membership.T.N. Trosin wrote: Then why don't you do that instead of beating up on the new guy like me?T.N. Trosin wrote: I like to think of it as more of a "Good Old Boy" who is very pasinate of the AFA. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you keep and open mind to the ideas of others. No matter how long they have been a farrier or what thier back ground is.

Remember it our AFA also.

Gary

T.N. Trosin wrote: I was going to do just that 'till you brought my name into the fray. Rest easy your head mon ami. I didnt get that impression or implication at all.

Rick

First of all you took the tennor of this to be a compition, in stead of a debate and thats you business I can't do anything about that.
Second, I will answer any question you wish but can't follow the extensive cut and paste.

I am not one of the "good old boys" but they do exisit and you can't deny that, they are the ones that keep the AFA ticking and as far as I knew you had let your membership lapse. I'm not trying to push anybody out, rather have a discussion about AFA politics as you and I see it.

Now as far as who changed the voting rules, I have no idea, but I do know that it hurt certification when it was first implemented and I beleive that it continues to hurt the association. 1/3 of the AFA votes, which 1/3 I don't know or to say I cant tell you if it is more certified farriers than non. The reason there are so many changes to the by-laws i my opinion is because of the high turn over of the board of directors.

All farriers go through growing pains. I did everybody does, but they seem to differ with the age of the farrier when they get in the business as far as how veimently they hold something as an undenyable truth. A person that starts shoeing earier in life seems to be more willing to learn from differnt people. The older they are they seem to stick with the views of the people they learnd from and hold harder to those positions even if they leaned them from somebody who didn't know so much. The older a person is in this business the less willing to alter their thoughts on shoeing a horse, and what is new to them is actually something a peer might have tried several years ago. SO the idea isn't necassarly fresh, but you can't get that across to them so the best thing is to let it go. Argueing horseshoeing involves two people who fold fast to their individual beleifs despite what the other person says. Discussing horseshoeing involves questions and opinions exchanged between two people. I love to discuss horseshoeing with people I find that I do it with fewer people every year, but I won't argue points any more.

As Far as the AFA stuff I compleatly agree that leadership needs to develop and impliment a stratigic plan, further I will agree that they need a business sense. Let's look at the Ink and Anvil thing. On one side we have Dave Furgeson a good farrier and a decent guy for all intensive purposes on the other side we have Scott Davidson a good farrier and a decent guy for all intensive purposes. Something somewhere happened between the two of them, I have have no earthly idea what, but it was something that obviously couldn't be resolved for the good of the AFA. Scott pushed Dave or Dave pushed Scott who knows, probably one of the 'good old boys' or as Tom Bloomer dubed an insider, but I certainly don't. At any rate there was a breakdown somewhere and the membership suffers because two strong personalities don't get along. Did Scott give the AFA a good bid on the project? I'm sure he did, but unless you ask the AFA office for the litney of do***ents that suround the transaction we may never know. The next question is who else was given the opertunity to bid on the project, I may never know that either.
(At this point I realize that Rick could come back in here and crack my skull because I probably should know, but you know what, AFA politics are my hobby, I don't get a check from it so I have to concentrate on shoeing horses and I'm not going to track down every piece of paperwork unless it is pertinent to something that I'm working on.)

Point being that eventually emotions enterend into the equation, a member benifit got compromised. If the AFA is going to do business it has to do business and it has to be willing to get along with each other to get business done.
Another good example is the "Recorded phone call". Here we are 9 months down the road and there are still people who can't let that go. But we have to. What people don't understand is that as long as they tie the President up with something that he has handled you hurt the association. If the leader of the club isn't allowed to move forward then the association is stuck as well. The personalities need to get out of the way and let business take place.

Now as far as getting information out to the membership I reiterate my "******" statement in that fact that I'm all for it as long as it is not done in a malicious manor. I have received assurance from Rick that he didn't take Ron's post the way I did and that is fine. But you still have to be carful what you say and where you say it. Desiminate the information but do it in a maner were you leave no room for improprity.

As far as the EC goes. It's more the comcept to me than the people a point that I made to the association secratary tonight in an email. I don't think that it matters who is on the EC because I think that there is this unspoken tension that comes with being on the EC. Your under this emense amount of presure to get stuff done in the best intrest of the the Association and sometimes the boundries get crossed becuase the people in that position feel that they are doing the right thing.

I'll cut and paste this partGary_Miller wrote:
I'll make a deal with you Gary. If you have patiance and keep your AFA membership regardless of the cost I will always have an open mind. When I go crazy its usually with someone who complains about the AFA and doesn't pay their dues.
Remember 3 things:
One man doesn't make an association
You give me a majority of the disenfanchised and things will change, and
There is room for all of us.

I had let it lasp at one time and almost did not renew. How ever after some coverstation with others I renewed in April. Figured I woud try and be part of the solution instead of the problem. With all the BS that has been going on with the AFA leadership I'm not sure it was a wise idea. May have been a good waste of my money.
How come when you found out my membership was not lasped you changed your attitude towards me? Should not all farriers and what they feel about the industry be important to the leadership of the AFA?

Do you think the new change to have to be a member of the AFA is going to hurt the certification program or help it?

Could all the changes to the by laws be more than a change in the EC than the size of the board?
From what I have seen it is the EC recommending the changes in order to get more power, not the BOD.
Would a stratigic plan would fix this?
T.N. Trosin wrote: I think it more that a younger person does not have enough life experiances to know when to call BS. Thier more willing to take ones word as gospel.

Where a older person has had enough experiances in life to know that even if someones says it has been tried and didn't work to know that it may work this time because the situation maybe diffent now. I learned this in the Air Force working on quality improvement teams. The old timer would say it was tried and did not work so it won't work now. However when it was tried it did work due to diffrent situations and diffrent players.

So it not that the older guys entering the field are not willing to listen and learn they just have a tendency to questioin when someone says it was tried and did not work.

Do you think that is bad way of thinking when it comes to farrier science and the AFA?

I think it been proven that the I&A thing was Scott Davidson letting his personal feeling take over and not following the contract he agreed to and signed with the AFA. So it dead to me.

As for Dave Furgeson situation with the phone call recording. I think it was improperly handled by the BOD. The BOD basiclly let the EC and ED handle the situation by using a moderator and letting Dave appologize with a letter to the membership. Once again the BOD did not step up to the plate and do thier job. What Dave done illegal or not was unethical and showed poor judgement. He can no longer be trusted and should be man enough to step down. If people don't trust the leader then they won't let him move his agenda forward. This is not a dead issue to me as nothing was done. It was just pushed under the table like the Licensing issue by the BOD. Bad on the BOD.

As a member of the BOD everything pertaining to the AFA needs to be more than a hobbie. I don't think you need to track down every peice of paper but you better know whats going on and make sure it offical and accurate. If you not willing to do this then you need to step down and let someone else take over. You represent you chapter and they deserve more than a hobbiest on the BOD.

Its just you way of thinking thats going to make selling the down sizing of the BOD a hard sell. If they don't get good representation with someone they know who is local will they get it with someone they don't know who is not local. Something to think about?

If you don't like the way the EC is organized and fuctioning then as a BOD member you have the resposibility to fix it. Or at least try. Take the new recent change. That the most rediculess thing I have ever saw. I can't figure out why the BOD saw it as a good change and approved it. I think the EC has to much flexability to do things without the BOD approval, I.E. the Ad Hoc and task force committees should be appointed and approved by the BOD before any action is started.
T.N. Trosin wrote: I make you a deal Tom. As long as the BOD step up to the plate and does thier job at running the AFA, gets programs started that will market the AFA membership and certification program, exstablish an true training program, and contiue to improve and provide benifits that are benifical to my business for the cost. Then I will alway keep my membership.

I think the BOD better get going. My renewal date is April.T.N. Trosin wrote: What drives me crazy is all those leaders in the AFA who won't listen, to those nonmembers who are trying to tell the AFA what needs done so they will join and pay thier dues.
T.N. Trosin wrote: Remember 3 things:
1. An association must provide value in order to gain and keep membership.
2. Fix the things that the disenfranchised do not like and they will return.
3. If one does not feel welcome, or they precive that the goods sold them are not of value, their space will soon be vacant.


Gary

T.N. Trosin wrote: Tom,

I would be glad to leave you to your discussion with Gary, but for me to do so you have to figure out how to leave me out of that discussion. Since you have made some sweeping charges here, I'm going to repsond here.
T.N. Trosin wrote: What you do not want to hear is that I believe strongly in working to make the BoD stand up and take charge of our association, to establish the policies of our association and to behave like they are actually responsible for the way our association is running. There is no room for excuses in my mind. Now if that kind of accountability doesn't work for you why are you on the BoD?
T.N. Trosin wrote: This kind of thinking just doesn't work. Most of us, farriers that is, while having big egos are very invested in not hurting the horses we work on. In fact to date I haven't met one that wasn't invested in helping them be better. This means I listen when experienced farriers talk, I integrate that which makes sense and I store that which I do not understand until it becomes understandable. When someone like you just stops talking you hurt those of us that are trying to learn.
T.N. Trosin wrote: Tom every day I shoe horses I get ******er about shoeing horses. From what I have heard from guys like Rick who have been doing in 30 plus years is that this getting ******er syndrome continues.
T.N. Trosin wrote: I'm glad you do. How are you going to help solve this problem?
T.N. Trosin wrote: Tom I have never said this. I am going to work to get the BoD to do its job and do the house cleaning that is necessary. I know it must come as a novel concept, but it is the BoD's job to manage the affairs of the association and to set the policies of the association, it is the duty of the officers and executive director to administrate those policies. So how are you as a BoD rep doing your job and why is it that there are few if any policies governing the activities of the association?
T.N. Trosin wrote: You asked me a loaded question that was worded to cast as bad a possible light on me as possible, and I answered it directly. You did not ask me where I draw the line. But to answer this question if it concerns the business of the AFA it should be public, with the previously noted exceptions, and if it doesn't it should be off limits. Private behavior that has no impact on the business of the AFA should remain private.
T.N. Trosin wrote: I posted the list of candidates and nominators for exactly the reason I stated. Period!

If you feel guilty I would suggest that this is your problem. The simple reality is that who and how people are nominated for office in the AFA tells a lot about the support they have. Mr. Fanguy and Mr. Elsbree have been closely aligned with Mr. Ferguson for a very long time. Given their prior open support for Mr. Ferguson and his policies in Mr. Ferguson’s campaign for the presidency I for one any looking forward to seeing how their candidacies play with the membership given the ongoing failure of Mr. Ferguson’s administration to actually accomplish anything on his agenda, much less anything at all. At this point they are both going to have to repudiate their relationships with Mr. Ferguson in a meaningful way to avoid being tarred with the brush that Mr. Ferguson is tarring himself.
T.N. Trosin wrote: I’m sorry, the BoD has failed to exercise its proper role in governing the activities of the EC and the association since the EC’s inception. Why are you trying to blame the EC for the BoD’s failure to act in the very manner that the Bylaws of the association require?

T.N. Trosin wrote: Tom,

This is one of what I see as the major problems with the board. The reps either can't or don't spend enough time on AFA business. When one is a BoD member, it is inc-u-mbent on them to devote as much time as is necessary to insure the proper governance and running of the AFA. Those individuals have been entrusted with the "keys to the mint" and when somewone doesn't do their due dilligence, then the chaos we now see within the AFA, results.

It is my firm belief that anyone who cannot devote however much time is necessary to fulfill their fudiciary repsonsibity to the AFA as a board rep, should resign from the board of directors.I agree. That said, the emotions eminated from one direction and one direction only. And that was from a vendor(I&A) towards the AFA.And rightfully so. Why should they? Afterall, the situation speaks to the honesty, integrity and eithics of the leadership. The trust has been broken, and repairing it is going to be a hurculean task.The President is in a quagmire of his own making. The BoD shares the blame and is complicit in allowing this situation to continue. They(the board) had a golden opportunity to resolve the situation but they chose not to. So why should anyone have any faith in their ability to govern? And if you think that sending a letter begging forgiveness is "handling" the matter, then you have completely misjudged the membership.Hard to get the personalities out of the way when one doesn't trust the other.AMEN!Seems to me that if one sticks to the truth and has better morals than your average alley cat, that shouldn't ever be a problem, right?If one's ethical and moral compass point true north, and if one has even a modic-u-m of common sense, then I don't see why boundaries get crossed.
Right is still right and wrong is still wrong. Its when we start to shade those dimensions that we run into trouble.

T.N. Trosin wrote: Gee TN,

Why don't you call Fergie and ask him about what happened starting back . . . oh sometime after January of 2005 when Dave made a trip to California to for a consultation on a foundered pony. Start there, tie that into the way I&A handled the Duckett letter. Frankly I'm surprised that there wasn't a blood bath.

First of all Gary my attitude change had nothing to do with your memberhsip it had to do with me being and as***le. I'm all for debate and I let my temper get to me.

As to your questions concerning the membership requirement for certification, I believe that it helps. At least the people get in to the system and the association builds a base.
As to the reduction of the board, I beleive part of it being imparitive is so that if the EC if left in existance isn't tempeted to over step it's bounds. Being smaller the board will be easier to conveign and would meet 4 to 6 times a year, therefore it would be better placed to vote on contracts, table items, etc. and I think make better decisions. As far as your sentiments that I should be better read, your right the whole board should be, but you have to understand one thing, the local associations are hurting right now with a few exceptions. We're hurting in the aspect of getting sponsorship, and people willing to step up and lead. If you look at several of the associations mine included there has been either little turn over in their respective boards or major turn over, there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. The WSFA has been rought with turn over because people have lives.My first duty as president was to appoitnt a new treasurer, in the first year and a month of office I lost one board member becuse he wanted to concentrate on his family life and another to health issues, my association secratary retired after 4 years of service and my vice president after 6. So that left me and one board member that had any kind of board experiance. It is so easy for someone to throw up their hands and quit, but it's tough to find a replacement for those people. Rick made a comment further down the thread about the fudiciary responsibilty that we have as board members and he is right, but my primary responsiablity is to my local membership and I have to divide my time accordingly, plus keep my book in check as well.
As far as my views on the EC and my responsibility to change it, I'm doing my best. What we (the AFA leadership) forgot is that it wasn't my committees place to write the by-laws concerning this, ploicy maybe but not by-laws. In hindsight reading and remembering what the committee was charged to do was investigate the following:
1. If it was in the best intrest of the AFA to reduce the Board
2. If reducing the AFA board was feesiable.
What we should have done and will inevtibily do I think is submit our report to the board on our findings, but that is going to have to wait until the I can conveigh the committee in a couple of weeks.Gary_Miller wrote:
I can't make that deal Gary because the board isn't just me, I can do as much as can which is lending my voice to the fray when I think it is necassary or when someone else hasn't brought a thought that concour with. What your asking is a long haul and the AFA needs people like you to fight for the disenfranchised as well. Becasue if you don't the message will be lost.
Gary_Miller wrote:
Imagine if you will Gary that a perspective client tells you the same thing. That if you change this about yourself or what you do shoing wise you'll get my business. Me personally I'd tell them to pound sand. I need to pay attention to the people who are paying the bills and try to work in a way to get the new clients. At somepoint you will aleinate someone and the unfortunate part is frankly, the AFA hasn't found that point yet.


Gary_Miller wrote:
Noted


T

T.N. Trosin wrote: Tom or anyone else.
Has there been an increase in AFA membership due to the requirement to do so for certification?
OTOH, Has the number of people takeing the certification test decreased, increased or stayed the same since the requirement has been implemented?

I know that since it just been a short time we may not know yet but it would be interesting to know.

T.N. Trosin wrote: Besides the reduction in the BOD size is your committee looking at other options such as using on line confrencing, web boards for discusioins and electronic voting on items so the board can condust buisness without having to travel.
T.N. Trosin wrote: I don't believe you need any experiance to be a board member. You just need to be willing. If you need to staff your board cornor and talk to individuals in you association and convince them that they can do the job. Lots of people won't volunteer however when asked the will step up to the plate.T.N. Trosin wrote: If you don't have the time to wear both hats then make the AFA BOD Represenative a seaprate postion in your association. That way the work load is split up.T.N. Trosin wrote: I think that if it needs a by-law change that your committee should also write the change and then send it to the by-law committee to insure it is written properly. Then when you go to the BOD you have your research, findings and the way it will be written for the by-law change all at the sametime. That way the BOD is informed of the who, what, why, and how of the change. And your committee is in a better postion to answer questions.T.N. Trosin wrote: I agree that you can't do it all yourself. However you can make it as part of your agenda so when there is board meetings and new buisness is brought up what the membership wants is always on the plate. As a BOD member you can also make sure that these thing are always a priority of the association to be working on. Its the BODs job to do these things not just to attend meetings and say yea or nea when and issue is brought up.

T.N. Trosin wrote: As long as the change has nothing to due with lowering my price or in the case of shoeing wise hurting the horse. I can make the change. For example, I don't shoe NB on a regulare bases, but if a customer wanted me to put them on I can do that with no problem.
OTHO if a prospective client says if you drop this person from your cliental you can have all my buisness I would tell them to drop dead.
I did not pickup an 18 horse account this last summer because I would not give a multi horse discount and someone else would. Oh well I get my price everyday and I'm not changing them for anyone. Its a matter of principle.
In order to gain new clients or in the case of the AFA new members we have to be willing to provide those the service that is wanted or needed.
T.N. Trosin wrote: I don't think this is what you ment to say. Because the AFA has become experts in aleinating members and potential members. The past two years are perfect examples.


Gary





Noted


T [/QUOTE]

I would like to respond to quite bit in your post but I have time constraints.

First of all I agree that you don't need experiance to serve on a board but it helps. Good Lord knows I didn't know anything when I got my first board appointment, but I studdied what was available on 501 (c) (6) corperations (and beleive me there isn't much) so I would have half an idea what we could and couldn't do. I still find myself behind on the 501 (c) (3) stuff and Roberts rules of order. While we all agree that the board members should know whats going on they should also know the rules first.

Next, I think it would be helpful if there were ways for the board to meet electronicly, but that can be a sugjestion out of my committee. The problem here is that even in this day and age of electronic wonderment, not all of the AFA board has so much as an email account. In my personal aspect, even though I live in this mass metropilis, my internet sucks right now to the point where I don't think I could accuratly communicate on an IM much less in an elctronic meeting As technology gets better I think that anything is posible but the electronic meeting for the AFA is still a few year away.

As far as what the membership wants, I guess my membership wants for very little. If they do want something they sure haven't called. It's hard for me to place things on the agenda when I have no backing from my membership. This is why it is important for you to belong to your local chapter, becuse at the moment thats who the board represents.

Your right that's not what I ment to say. What I ment to say is that the AFA has yet to figure out what is offensive to the membership. Yes, recorded phone calls, suprise endorsement contracts, and dues increased are in there, but (and I know you will find this hard to beleive) those aren't the big kickers. The big one is people getting offended at certification tests and that irronicly is a two way street. The certification committee has made big strides in improving how testers and examiners communicate with candidates but by the same token they are still struguling with how to properly prepare people for the test. OTOH the test candidates don't know how good they have it. You can ask George and Tom Stovall how the IJHU worked or still does or whatever. They give you the pramiters of the test and thats it, if you failed then that was to bad so sad, they didn't go over points with you, they would tell you try again next time. The AFA gives people the all the keys to pass the test but preparation is enevitablity up to the people who take it. But for what ever reason that never seems to be enough. But by the same token there are points in the test where the certification committe won't cave and I believe that they need to, becuse if they did you would see way more certified farriers. But thats up to that committee to figure out.

T.N. Trosin wrote: I understand we all have time constraints, do what you can post what you can I'm enjoying the learning experiance.

What ever you do don't neglect that new wife or yours.T.N. Trosin wrote: I tired of hearing this excuse for not using technology. I todays world most everyone has computer access some where. Everyone can go to the public libary. As for e-mail accounts it would be a small task for the AFA to implement and account for all BOD members right off the AFA server.T.N. Trosin wrote: The technology is already here all thats needed is the willingness to implement it and use it.
T.N. Trosin wrote: More communication with in your local association about what is happening in the AFA is all that needed. By letting your membership know what going on, what to be decided upon, and what needed will bring more imput and ideas. I belong to my local chaper however I learn more on this site about the AFA happening than I do from out president/BOD member.
T.N. Trosin wrote: If they don't know they aren't listening to what people are saying. I think the bigggest problem is keeping the mambership in the dark, and the BOD not doing their job. This allows for the EC to do what ever they want and by the time the membership get wind of whats happening the damage is already done.T.N. Trosin wrote: To bad people need to stop the winning about the test and just follow the standard. As long as the standard is followed there is no room for arguement.T.N. Trosin wrote: Its not the AFA job to prepare people for the test its the canidents job to prepare themselves. The standard is there all you do is have to read it, learn it, practice it, and do it.T.N. Trosin wrote: That is exactly how it should be. Here is the standard, there is the horse, now shoe it to the standard.T.N. Trosin wrote: AgreedT.N. Trosin wrote: To bad so sad.T.N. Trosin wrote: The standard is there the cert committee has done a lot in trying to eliminate the human factor the best they can. I don't think they should cave on anything. You don't lower a standard if its a good standard just because some people can't reach it. Instead you expect people to come upto the standard.
What in the test do you think needs changed in order for more people to pass it?


Gary

Tom,
Just a little FYI about the Unions test. There are limits to what I'll say about it on the internet but I can tell you some tales about how things were in the past.

Speaking of the present I'll not say anybody's test is harder than anybody elses cause I really think hard is in the eye of the beholder. In my local and most of the others I've had contact with, we prep the candidate. We show exactly what is expected and get him or her ready. Sometimes the skill level is already there sometimes they need some improvement. Nonetheless we work very hard to get everyone up to standard. As a result passing rates are very high.

This was not always that way as you know back when politics was polluting the process. I see the AFA now going down that same road. The thing I find ironic is that the Union still carries that reputation so nobody wants to try their test, whereas the AFA which has a disgracefully low passing rate never has any shortage of people wanting to take their tests. Perception vs Reality I guess.

What Gary says sounds good on paper. reality is it is not shoeing to any preset standard. It is supposed to be but it is not. Politics has corrupted it. Best way to remedy the situation is through boycotting it until they make it right.

I really dont want in any testing arguments just wanted to interject that point about the Union. Now you guys can continue your argument

George

George Geist wrote:
Making sweeping and unsubstantiated accusations and recommendations such as the above doesn't seem to match well with what you say below.