Matt Gillis wrote:
My original post was put up because I had learned of Ron’s alleged, attempts to press the mute button on Danvers
Matt,
That you and others believe that I am so powerful and influential that the members of the EC and the ED of the AFA tremble and quiver to satisfy my every whim is delightful. Somewhat inaccurate, but delightful.
If anyone is pressing the mute button here it is the EC who are doing so and as you of all people should know 3 of the 5 have little or no use for me and the other 2 I’m not so sure are not in the same boat as them. But, if in fact I am influential enough to have those MEN that do not like me all agree with a point of view that I have espoused, then I suspect that it must be a fairly well thought out and well balanced point of view. If they have taken action on something, they have done so on their authority and for the good of the AFA as they have seen it. If you or anyone else has a complaint you should take it to them.
That I&A was not able to agree with allowing your employer to direct you in the proper course of your employment is exactly why you folks say you canceled your contract. In that I would say you folks are not much more than disgruntled former employees that have an ax to grind and because I was able, with a little effort, to do***ent the facts so that anyone with an IQ over 10 could understand that the facts and your claims did not equal each other is what this is all about. You folks claim to love the AFA but you do things deliberately to damage it and its members. You claim to be dedicated to the AFA’s welfare but you don’t care enough to keep your dues current.
Matt Gillis wrote:
Ron had called, then, Executive director, Bryan Quinsey and asked him to intervene on Ron’s behalf to quiet R.T. Goodrich.
I do not recall this. If Bryan acted it was on his own dime. As I recall I did have several conflicts with Bryan over his trying to change the composition of the task forces membership. Bryan seemed to feel that RT could request the changes without consulting me. RT and I got a little crosswise with each other over it as well but have gotten past it like adults. In the end everyone that was there and contributed was recognized and that was what was important.
Matt Gillis wrote:
The second is during the period of time in which you, Ronny, were screaming to see the head of Mr. fergason on a platter, you called me, more than a few times, to tell me that, “it was my duty as a journalist to investigate and print the whole story”. You would call and lecture me for hours about my responsibility to the AFA as a journalist to find the truth and report it.
Yes I did spend hours reviewing the facts at hand and encouraging you to do exactly what you were asking Rick and I to do. I felt that if you and Scott wanted to report on the matter that was appropriate, but apparently regardless of how many facts you had in hand, including everything posted on this site, you folks didn’t have the stones to write a report on your dime where when the manure hit that fan it might blow back on you.
Matt Gillis wrote:
The premise of the editor of the PFM maintaining Journalistic neutrality while he is not wearing his editor hat is, in my view, opportunistic and hypocritical. It’s pretty convenient to find a principle that elicits strong emotion, such as Journalistic neutrality, that one can hide behind and not have to engage in substantive debate.
Frankly I do wish you would get your facts right. I have never used the phrase “Journalistic Neutrality” in anything that I have written. What I have pointed out and that others apparently feel is an important issue is the staff of the AFA in general and the editorial staff of PFM in particular should not be trying to shape the very events that they are either reporting on or involved in. A reporter of fact can not be seen as unbiased if they are involved in the efforts trying to shape those facts.
Matt Gillis wrote:
Where do we draw the line on what is a conflict of interest?
The line is drawn when a person who has a fiduciary responsibility to the AFA for something affecting the AFA is put in a position that their loyalty to the AFA could be questioned. In Mr. Child’s case as the managing editor of PFM he is expected to be perceived as a neutral reporter of fact. He must in effect be like a judge, once he puts on the robes he is expected to avoid commentary upon the cases that may be pending before him.
Matt Gillis wrote:
Should Myron Mclain have to choose between his long standing role as rules committee chairman or Mustad?
If Mr. McLain were working in his role as chairman and he was put in a position that he would have to make a decision between doing something that would benefit Mustad or that would benefit the AFA I would hope that he would of his own choice disqualify himself and let someone else make the decision. If he didn’t and someone were to challenge his decision it would be just another scandal that would need to be handled. It really doesn’t matter that no one really believes that he would sacrifice his duty to the AFA, it matters that anyone could have the perception that he did. And that very much is at the central core of this issue, perception.
The membership does not trust the AFA’s leadership. The BoD, aka chapter presidents and representatives, do not trust the EC, the EC doesn’t trust them or the membership. No one trusts anyone and no one is appears to be working to create a set of cir***stances that will establish a solid foundation that can be built upon to earn and keep the membership trust and participation. I believe that PFM can be the cornerstone of this re-wining the trust and support of the membership. I believe that Danvers maybe the only man that has the chance of standing in the role of Managing Editor and establishing the image of PFM as a completely neutral and accurate reporter of the happenings of the AFA and the world of farriery. But to do that Danvers is going to have to do something that no one else in that position has ever managed to do. He is going to have to build and maintain an aura of absolute neutrality, honesty, and integrity. Danvers is going to have to be the quintessential journalist, always gathering information while staying completely out of the fray, regardless of his feelings or personal opinions.
What you and other are so roundly trying to pillory me for is for speaking up and suggesting that we start moving the AFA in a new and better direction from the beginning of the business relationship with the new publisher, instead of allowing the same opinions about the unfair and bias coverage that plagued I&A’s term to get established and started in the Sebastian Publishing term as Publisher. It is called leadership, it is called seeing a problem and having the stones to stand up and say that I believe it is a problem even though I know that it is something that might **** people off.