NorthBayFarriers wrote:
When Davners threw his saddle on this particular horse, he started riding for the brand. Whether rounding up cows or sitting on a bar stool at the Silver Dollar saloon, he is going to be
associated with the brand he rides for. So , regardless of the time or place, once he is perceived as "riding for the AFA" as managing editor of the PFM, his words, his actions, especially on subjects/issues directly pertaining to the AFA, will be perceived as having the 'official weight/position' of the AFA behind them. He doesn't get to pick and choose when he rides for the brand, he always rides for the brand so long as he is in the position he is in.
No different for any of those who hold office in the AFA, nor will it be different for any of us who get elected to office.
Does this mean that you will refrain from speaking in favor of the Guild of Professional Farriers or participating in that organization in any way since it could be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as politically conflictive?
No it does not. It means that when elected, I will not compare the two organizations unfavorably or by action or deed cause harm to either.. I will continue my membership in both organizations and may, following the example of our current President, take a membership in the BWFA too. I intend to continue my role as an Examiner for the Guild of Professional Farriers, and see no way anyone can rightfully misconstrue that activity. Especially since the two organizations are so different in nature and composition.
Does this mean that you would have every officer, committee chair, and board member who currently has affiliations connections or ties with a non-affiliate organization, company, or entity remove him or herself from either the AFA or that other affiliation?
No it does not. The question appears to be leading somewhere or implying something that is not evident. Perhaps you would provide a bit of clarity here.
As sweetbranchforge has pointed out here, there are conflictive relationships and affiliations that run throughout our organization, including the officers, committee chairs, and board members.
Really? None seems to be very apparent or of much concern to the membership. Perhaps you'll enlighten us as to these conflicts and how they have negatively impacted the AFA?
If we’re to use your analogy of “riding for the brand” it would seem that Danvers is riding for one brand (the AFA), yet you and lots of others could be perceived as riding for two or more.
If Danvers is indeed riding for the brand, then he needs to maintain neutrality when it comes to the candidates for office. Unless of course, the AFA is taking an official position on who is deemed to be best for the AFA. In that case, Danvers can/should publicly support that position.
In your case it would be the AFA and the GPF. I think that at least one person on these discussions has talked about you having a double standard, and this certainly appears to be one. One standard for you and another for Danvers.
No sir, not in the least. What's next? If I'm a registered Democrat, will that preclude me from being an officer in the AFA? how about my religious persuasion, or lack thereof? Is that going to cause a conflict too? You're reaching and you are doing so in a rather disgusting manner.
Besides, I'm not the editor of a magizine that is the official magazine of either organization. You perhaps understand the difference?
And, just as a point of information... If you review the postings on these political discussions, I think you'll be hard pressed to find much if any of what Danvers has said that could not be considered as a defense of his brand, the AFA.
I think the question is his public support for his friend and candidate, and in that action, his negative cast towards his friend's opponent.
Tell me R.T., had you stayed in the race and had the editor of PFM come out in favor of someone other than you, how would you have felt? Would you have meekly stood by, or perhaps, cried, "foul"? How about if someone cried "foul" on your behalf?
Rick