Phil Armitage wrote: Well Phil, what I am about to post, will more than likely be considered unprofessional in your eyes. Nonetheless, here goes.

The following are some e-mails I received. They are self-explanatory. Make of them what you will.
> From: Rick Burten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: For the good of the AFA]
> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:38:45 -0600
>
> Gentlemen
>
> The attached correspondence is quite self-explanatory. Please
> understand that I am only acting as a conduit here.
>
> Rick
>



> From: Jim Keith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
> To: RickBurten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
> Subject: Re: For the good of the AFA
> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:42:26 -0700
> Rick,
> Here is a proofed copy of my e-mail that I could not get delivered to Mr Ferguson. This is submitted for all the world to see, so, please feel free to forward it to the AFA office, the BOD, and any other interested parties.
>
> Jim Keith, CJF AFA member #1208
>
>
Message from Jim Keith follows:
>
> Mr Dave Ferguson, CJF, TE;
>
> Having known you for two decades I must say that I've always admired your farrier skills but I've always known that your are not the person to represent me or most of the other members of the AFA.
> When you were elected my first thought was that my membership would not be renewed. After a while I decided that you deserved some time to prove that you had matured and that you might be a leader we could be proud of.. YOU DIDN'T PROVE IT!!
> You have earned the respect of many but now you are destroying it. PLEASE RESIGN BEFORE YOU COMPLETELY RUIN WHATEVER SHREDS OF YOUR REPUTATION YOU MAY STILL HAVE. Absolutely no good will come of your continued debauchery of the president's office.
> With all due respect, and for the good of the AFA,
>
> Jim Keith, CJF
>
> PS No reply is necessary, your actions will speak for you,

---

From Walt Taylor in response:

Rick
It is plain that the President has no concern or time for those that disagree; that he has no intention of taking advice he has been given to resign; that his self interests are more important than those of the association and profession. The EC may have a telecon call tomorrow evening. I am not available for one tonight. There is no secret here, as I see it, and nothing to be kept from anybody.
When someone as gracious, forgiving, understanding, and perspicacious as Jim Keith is goaded to the point of this public declaration, things are in a dire fix.

Walt Taylor

Back near the beginning of this thread, Rick pointed out that Mr. Ferguson's resignation could be requested "with" or "without" cause, and I asked if the current calls for his resignation were "with" cause, and if they were, could we get a list of the specific wrong-doings.

So far, Rick has responded with reference to Mike Nolan's politically charged letter of resignation; Gary Miller has indicated that he was not satisfied that the Board of Directors, at the mid-year meeting, chose not to pursue the matter of the infamous recorded phone call; and George Geist has run a list of offenses that were mostly attributed to previous administrations.

It appears, then, that if there is a "cause," it's that some people don't like Mr. Ferguson's "style," that Mr. Ferguson doesn't "play well with others," or that Mr. Ferguson is the designated "fall guy" for the percieved and real lack of performance from the AFA Office, the Executive Committee, and the Board of Directors.

I recall that we created the Executive Committee to take absolute power away from the President. In fact, we finally got the EC established at the first Rochester convention, after President Couch had fired the office staff and locked the doors to the AFA Office. (Yes, there seems to be some stress associated with serving the AFA )

Ultimately, being a volunteer elected official in the AFA is a thankless job. A number of past AFA Presidents and elected officers are embittered to the point that they choose to no longer belong to the association, and another significant number of these folk retain their membership but choose not to participate in the association's affairs. Now we're moving to the point that we would make them pariah before their terms are completed.

In their responses to questions here and elsewhere, the current slate of candidates have said, "I will do audyblah and wickyboo and jabberwocky," but they've followed that by clarifying and qualifying that they really don't have the power to do audyblah, wickyboo, and jabberwocky because the officers only have power collectively and only as servants of the Board of Directors. I wish them well in convincing people of that.

All four of the current candidates have people who like and dislike them--people who are willing to express their opinions strongly and publicly. No matter who among them is elected, I suspect that someone will call for their resignations "with or without cause" and gain support for such a cause, especially if we set a precedent that we have a disposable President who can be removed because he's not making every one of us happy--whether it's in his power to do so or not.

Danvers,
I dont think it unfair to evaluate someones performance after a year in office. As horseshoers, most of us are expected to produce noticeable results on a daily basis.

Why should a man who represent horseshoers not be held to such a standard also?

I will agree with those who will argue that a government governs best who governs least.

Running off 2 EDs and Lord only knows how many other people is not governing least. It is leaving a path of destruction. Just how in the world is the AFA ever going to hire a high quality ED when they keep proving that their not good people to work for?

Is like the clients we've all had that change horseshoers faster than we change our underwear so you know everytime you go there might be your last so you're happy when they become someone else's problem.

For John Blombach to have made a mistake by hitching to the Dave Ferguson wagon is ok, and I think forgivable. Why he continues posting in his defense on here I dont really understand. Obviously he must still stand with him then.

So Danvers, as I said before has this bunch done anything positive? Do they have any notable achievements to point to with pride? If not, are they presently working on anything?

Instead of attacking the messengers lets hear something positive that these guys are up to that is benefitting the association and it's members

George

Danvers,
Your thoughts are very well articulated, and you have obviously seen plenty in your long tenure within the AFA. What do you see as a positive remedy to the situation? Not just with regard to DF, but to the political process of the role of president? Do we need a monarch or a legislature?

danverschild]Gary Miller has indicated that he was not satisfied that the Board of Directors, at the mid-year meeting, chose not to pursue the matter of the infamous recorded phone call wrote:

I want to put another rumor to rest before it takes on a life of it's own. I have received several phone calls lately asking if I am the one attempting to invalidate the upcoming election. I assure you that I am not. I have been critical of the lack of information coming from the office to the membership, and I still think the system seems to have clogged when Mike Nolan stepped in. My opinion.....I own it. I did hear from several sources that there are only about 30-35% of our membership that actively use the internet (about 700-1000 members). Ron K. informed me today that the number is closer to 1800. I have no reason to doubt him so for that I stand corrected.

The AFA political arena is a very ugly place. I hope the winners of this election have the stomach to continue after what they have ALL been through.

VOTE! Please do your homework. Read what the candidates have to say and HOW they say it. Make some phone calls if you have too, but make an informed decision. The future of OUR association is at stake.

RT Goodrich, CJF

RT, I think you would be suprised by the number of farriers who have access to the internet and even use it. However they never post on the boards.

I know in my area there are only two farriers who post on this board. On the other hand I know at least four more who come here often to read whats being said.

This election is just like any other election. In that those people who want to be informed will do there home work and make a wise dicission. Then you have those who will only read the canidates statements sent out with the ballet and vote using only that information. Then you have those who will vote by name reconition only. And then you will have those who don't vote at all because they don't care.

Thats just the way it is.

George Geist wrote:
The “standard” for the association would be the Bylaws, and there’s nothing there about a performance review for the President or any other elected officer. We could pull plenty of arbitrary standards from the hot air around us, but we’d just be pulling things out of the air and making things up as we go.
George Geist wrote: Under the previous administration, an ED (McCutheon) was dismissed. We went through a brief period with a highly effective interim ED before hiring a permanent ED. During his tenure, I lost count, but I believe we went through 17 office staffers, with some threatening legal action. The EC put the Executive Director on “sit/stay” several times for a number of reasons, but the problems continued.

Under this administration, that ED was dismissed, one office staffer left for a higher paying job, and a consultant quit. Although the President conducted himself poorly and made errors in judgment concerning the ED’s dismissal, the dismissal came from the EC.

Our immediate past President has a winning personality. He managed to win over people like Rick Burten, who wanted to hang him for numerous errors in judgment, including a substantial and unauthorized auction purchase in Canada. He couldn't say two sentences that didn't include three cuss words, but none of his cohorts on the EC complained about his "profane language." In short, Craig could win over his detractors, Dave can't. Craig was a blast, Dave's not. Craig had a good concept of public relations, Dave doesn't. I like them both, which probably puts me in a helluva minority... but it's really not about whether we like them or not.
George Geist wrote: It could be that John is looking at this and asking the same question I forwarded earlier: What are the specific wrong-doings and—if they’re there—are they solely the responsibility of the President? It could be that the only agenda John is trying to forward here is the welfare of the AFA. As I look at all the horses in this race, I can’t get a good enough angle to determine if they’re all wearing an AFA brand or not….
George Geist wrote: Well, somewhere in all this, the chapters have a new insurance coverage program, members have benefits—which are increasing all the time, we’ve got a magazine that’s been re-started from scratch in short order, we’ve got an officer who has stepped up and produced our newsletter, we had more demand for and more certifications last year than we’ve ever had, we’ve got dedicated volunteers who are working hard in every committee, we’ve got a good convention just around the corner, we’ve got a new distance learning program through the Education Committee, we’ve got a Certification Committee that’s working to improve their testing and increase their offerings, and so on.

I realize that your question is referring specifically to the EC, and despite their bickering, they've been involved in making a lot of this happen. Additionally, at least some of the individual members of the EC are working hard on other things as well. As I mentioned above, John is volunteering to produce the association's newsletter. Likewise, Tom is putting in a major effort, working on the restructuring, and Dave has been actively involved in several projects, including the distance learning program. I haven't kept up with what Walt and Bob have been doing, but they're probably busy.

As for the average member... they seem to be waiting patiently for things to straighten up and for all of us to re-focus. I’m coordinating the Certification for the IFA on April 27 & 28, and I had 18 people signed up before it was even listed on the official calendar. I’ve had people ringing me up daily, wanting to know what they could do to help out with getting the magazine back on track. Basically, I think the average member out there believes in the AFA and its five basic tenets, and they’re looking for a way to do their part.

While the EC is fighting in a non-productive manner, and while we’re on here vicariously solving problems for the AFA and the whole freakin’ world in an equally non-productive manner, there are dedicated, hard-working members out there trying to increase member benefits, conducting certifications, coordinating clinics, and quietly working to make things better. It's not as easy as being a vigilante, but they're willing to work hard.

People like Eric Nygaard and Greg Johnson are putting in countless hours to see that we have a good convention; John Voigt and Bob Smith are working to coordinate efforts between the Certification and Education committees; Nancy Zwicker is working to beef up member benefits; Jeremy Miller and Rick Talbert are driving from Georgia to Indiana to bust their butts to get ready for their next level of certification, and the list could go on for pages.

Ultimately and thankfully, there are more people working through proper channels, attempting to make things better, than there are on discussion boards kvetching about things not being better. If people really want to see a change in the way certification works, their best bet is to present their ideas and plans to the Certification Committee, or--better yet--work through the certification process, work to become a Tester or Examiner and change things from within the program. Likewise, if people really want to know what's going on with all this mess, they could contact the members of the EC and ask them some pointed and focused questions rather than standing at the internet gossip fence conjecturing, posturing, and pontificating, which is the trap I keep falling into.

Good God, the longer I write, the crankier I get. I'm without sin! I'm without sin! Gimme the rock. C'mon gimme the freakin' rock.

Danvers;

I have learned more about what the heck has been going on and transpiring in a positive manner in your post than I have from the candidates or the other multitude of folks posting or the AFA office or the AFA web-site or any other G D place.

Why the he-l couldn't this have been layed out for the membership to have read before ?

If this information was layed out prior to election votes being sent out it , in my mind, might have leveled the playing field on voting, and definitely changes the visual image of the situatuation of the workings of the AFA to date.

You have presented a positive picture of the present and the future.
Most of what we have heard to date is negative for the most part.

Information like yours is a spurt of fresh air and "I" for one and awful glad to read and hear it.
I just don't understand why you or anyone else had to get mad enough to "get me the rock" before laying it out for others to read.
I don't understand why this wasn't in print in form of a news letter sent to members.
It took you a few minutes to type this on the internet. Mini newsletters could have been written and sent out via mail to the members (or a single news letter sent to the chapters to be read to the members) and it would have kept the light of hope things were improving or just plain OK alive.

The expense of mini news letters would have been a fraction of the cost of what will progress with all the negative that has reached the members. On the internet or not.
By not getting this "GOOD NEWS" out more damage has been done than ever needed to happen.

Damn it Danvers get mad more often, for the good of the AFA

Damn it Bruce, You took the words right of my mouth. I had started to reply, but stopped for coffee,,, aaahhhhhhhhh.......... Thank you Danvers too. I have been in the dark on how to send my vote to the BOD. I too do not like having to ask a president to resign/. Who's to say that the next bunch arn't bickering too, and that next year we are at the same juncture. Lets hope more positive keeps coming along.
Ken

danverschild wrote: This is incorrect. The ED resigned he was not dismissed.In point of fact, I did take Craig to task for this and other misadventures, and in the case under discussion, he rectified the problem. He also admitted when he made mistakes and acted like a leader. Its was those things that caused me to change my opinion of him.Regardless of whose responsibility they are, the president, because of his position, bears the load. Ulyimately, the responsibility for the image and actions of the AFA resides, at least in people's minds, with him or her.So you are accusing the candidates of not having the best interests of the AFA at heart?Yes, this is has indeed occurred on Dave's watch, but arranged for by Mike Nolan.We had benefits before Mr. Ferguson so that's no feather in his cap. What benefits are new?Speaking of which, has the magazine gone to print yet(as of what date?)? If so, when will it be mailed? If not, why not?At last, someone in a leadership position who acted appropriately!And this is because of Dave , because?? This is somehow a change from years past because?This was a great idea and I told Dave so. However, we have had but two sessions and I've not heard one word as to when we can expect the next one , have you?So in other words, they are doing what they have always been tasked to do, right? Is this a change from prior times?That is absolutely not the message I am getting in the numerous e-mails I have received and continue to receive.As has ever been the case and will continue to be the case. And they are now having to do it in the face of all the problems created by the leadership of the AFA.

Its easy to talk about the good stuff that was, is and will be happening when you totally ignore the reality of all the bad things that have and continue to occur in this administration. I wonder where we might be right now had we not be saddled with the deletorioius effects of the actions of our current leaders.Not true. Until and unless you are an examiner who is on the committee, you will have no real voice in the process. Of course you can make suggestions, but that isn't going to be sufficient.Well, Danvers, on this point we are in basic agreement. Everyone should contact every member of the EC, especially Mr. Ferguson, and ask those pointed and direct questions and not stop asking them until they get satisfactory answers, not obfusication. And, the membership should be getting regular updates. Gee, that sounds a lot like the Transparency Proposal Ron and I proposed.

And, what's wrong with the internet? Demonstrably, it works.

Rick

Danvers,
That was a good post. I'm glad whatever gag order was on you has been lifted. As usual Rick has some good questions for you also though.

I think it very noteworthy that Rick and Ron were the only 2 guys to immediately jump in here proclaiming themselves to have no conflicts of interest and would work in an ethical manner.

If the other candidates haven't seen that yet ok, but if they have and choose not to respond to that question shame on them.
George

Rick Burten wrote: Rick,

The last word I had from Mike Nolan was that because of poor attendance that he had been informed by Mr. Butler that no more sessions had been scheduled. I attended the first one but couldn't make the second one.

Based upon my experience with the program, while there are some technical glitches that I think need to be worked out, it could be a very useful method of delivering a consistent education message. Scheduling needs to be rock solid and something everyone can calendar well in advance and rely upon. It needs to be like the first X of each month or something similar. For me it needs to be stable so it can become habit. Another thing that would help immensely is the ability to order the course material in booklet form from the office for reference purposes.

George Geist in gray, deletia

I think it very noteworthy that Rick and Ron were the only 2 guys to immediately jump in here proclaiming themselves to have no conflicts of interest and would work in an ethical manner.

As an interested observer and prospective AFA member, I'm still a bit confused about the AFA's electoral process.

Since Mr. K is not a CJF, but a CJF credential is a requirement to hold the office of president, what happens if both Mr. K and Mr. Burten are elected and, for whatever reason, Mr. Burten does not serve out his term? According to the bylaws, Mr. K is clearly ineligible to serve as president. Since the office of vice-president exists primarily to insure an unbroken line of executive leadership, it follows that this conundrum should be resolved before its resolution becomes an immediate necessity, lest the AFA dissolve into a cluster (that's half a word) if both are elected, Mr. Burten becomes the sitting president, but leaves office before his term expires.

All this talk of transparency and ethics moved me to do a little research.

There's considerable precedent involved in requiring a vice-president to meet the same qualifications for office as a president, namely the United States Constitution. Article II, Section 2 delineates the qualifications for election to the office; the XII Amendment states, "...But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Food for thought.

Ron and Rick;

My previous post was not to take away from all you have done or all you have brought forward to the attention of others or the need to inform.

All I said was it was a breath of fresh air.

Whether Danvers remarks are to the point-exact-or can be taken apart.
All I said was it was a breath of fresh air

I have heard so much bad that I have had the feeling that Titanic was sinking again.
Danvers post lets me believe that holes have been plugged in some fashion and work is moving on in one fashion or another.

Politics aside, Danvers post could have been written by anyone of you. It simply is a post positive instead of post negative.

A battery has a negative post and a positive post to work.
One doesn't work without the other.
I think a positive post can only enhance all that has been brought out to date.
The wheels are turning and folks have been brought to task and this is good.
But every now and then good news keeps the forces moving on.
No good news tends to lead folks to throw their hands up and just say what the heck is the use.