-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AERC-Members-Digest]
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 04:26:01 -0700
From: AERCMembersForum-owner@... (List Server)

===================================================

From: "Howard Bramhall" <howard9732@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:58:17 -0400
There are not many humans I trust in this world (horses are
far more
trustworthy) but, one of the few humans I do trust is Jerry
Fruth. If he
says there isn't a conflict of interest here, if he says
it's a win-win
situation (BLM/FS/AERC) for us all, if he says the decisions
that were made
with the Fort Stanton Ride were made honestly and followed
established
protocol, and, that others will be looked at in the east, I,
for one, am so
grateful that he's involved, I hope we never lose him or his
enthusiasm.

A working relationship with agencies like the BLM and the
Forest Service can
do so much good for all of us (even psuedo-endurance riders
like myself),
that the positives far outweigh the negatives. This type of
action gives me
so much hope that I can't even find one negative here.
Grant money should
go to anything that would help us keep our trails; because,
without them,
there is no ride or even a place to train.

cya,
Howard


>From: "Jerry Fruth" <jerryfruth@...>
>To: <Magnumsmom@...>, <aercmembersforum@...>
>CC: <mjaffe@...>
>Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
>Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:09:27 -0500
>
>Kathy,
>You make some very good observations. If you take a look around at the
>grants we have approved,
>you will find that we have be very even handed. We have tried to serve the
>membership the best we
>can with the funds we have available.
>Ft. Stanton is just an extraordinary place. We were at the right place at
>the right time. As it is turning out,
>the investment we have or are making in Ft. Stanton is having an effect for
>riders from all across the
>nation.
>We are taking the concept of what we did at Ft. Stanton and are working on
>a location in the east
>whereby we will develop the same working relationship with the FS as we
>have with the BLM. I suspect
>the work with the FS will take longer to develop, but now is the time to
>begin. The FS has its own
>management style which is a lot different than that of the BLM. We just
>have to be ready to work with
>both for the good of the AERC.
>Jerry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Magnumsmom@...
> To: aercmembersforum@...
> Cc: mjaffe@...
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 4:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
>
>
> In a message dated 5/21/2004 3:13:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>mjaffe@... writes:
> I hear your concern on the question of equity in investing in
>locations
> based on the number of riders that use it during competitions. It's a
> valid question. Generally I think we should go for the biggest bang
>for
> our buck. That would include leveraging our modest contributions to
> significantly larger matching funds, largest human volunteer
> contributions, donations, number of rides/riders benefited and finally
> any publicity opportunities.
>
> However, one of the draw backs of lots of people is much
> less unspoiled and unpopulated land. A place like NM is
> still full of open spaces just waiting for someone to come
> along and "love" them. It's a good place to "prove concept",
> "get the ball rolling", or just find a place where we can do
> something like this.
>
> Protect what we have now and not wait until it's too late.
>
> The number of people and members we have here is lower
> than any other AERC region, but then don't forget we have
> a lot of riders who come from out of region... and some from
> quite a long way.
>
> I don't understand why everyone seems to be so concerned
> about "numbers" lately.
>
> Once again, a democracy is not only about the largest numbers
> of votes, but it's also about doing the right thing for the lessor
> numbers as well. I.E., protecting the little guy too, not just
> running him over.
>
> Kathy Myers
> in Santa Fe, NM
> ps... a new boss just moved here from Boston with his family
> and 4 kids last year. During a conversation with him last week
> I found out he had never even heard of the BLM or BLM land!

_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail
Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

===================================================

Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Reply-To: bratcat91@...
From: "Nancy Mitts" <bratcat91@...>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:51:48 -0400 (EDT)

Bob,
But there IS a conflict of interest, as others have pointed
out. The fact that there were only the best of intentions is
a good thing (the project itself, and laying positive
groundwork with the BLM, is a good thing), but the fact that
several board members aren't recognizing the appearace of a
conflict conflict is what is disturbing. Especially in light
of the fact that one of these same board members has lit
into other board members for other perceived conflicts of
interest in the past.
As far as the "true beneficiaries" are concerned, I hope
they appreciate it and look favorably on endurance riders
due to the funding. That aside, AERC is not so rich it can
solve all of America's trail problems. Therefore I would ask
the grants committee to consider only funding projects that
will benefit an endurance ride. Be it an existing ride, or
in developing a great place for some future ride. In
reality, maintaining the right to use public trails for our
competition is, IMO, our most pressing issue.. There are a
lot of good riding trails which are closed to competitions.
This is where we need to improve the public perception of
out sport, and where we should look to spend our time and $.
Yes, that means someone on the board may always have a
perceived conflict with a project in their area, but if one
vote makes the difference it may not be the most worthy
project after all. Again, the problem is not "that some ride
manager will benefit", I would hope some ride manager would
benefit from all our projects! They just shouldn't
participate in the vote.

Nancy Mitts


--- On Mon 05/24, < bobmorris@... > wrote:
From: [mailto: bobmorris@...]
To: annie@..., AERCMembersForum@...
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:07 -0600
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict

In all
actuality there is no conflict of interest in the FT.
Stanton grant. The grant
was not used by the Ft. Stanton ride nor was it used to
benefit that ride. It
was granted to assist the BLM in the establishment of a
trailhead for multi-use.
For use by the general public. The AERC and thus the SW
region Directors and the
Ft. Stanton Ride Manager and all the AERC Riders who
participate in that ride
are nothing more than incidental beneficiaries. The true
beneficiaries are the
American public who avail themselves of the opportunity to
ride from the FT. Stanton Trailhead
Bob Morris

_______________________________________________

===================================================

From: "Annie George" <annie@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:25:12 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00DB_01C4430B.BABE9550
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That is all anybody has been saying from the start. It is
just a smoke =
screen to twist it around to look like people are
complaining about the =
project, or the individuals personaly, or anybody making
money. I hope =
Roger makes allot of money. The fact that that the BOD is
not concerned =
with the conflict or the perceptions of a conflict bothers
me allot more =
than the actual conflict. Annie G.=20
Anne George Saddlery www.vtc.net/~ageorge =20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Nancy Mitts=20
To: bobmorris@... ; annie@... ;
AERCMembersForum@... =

Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict



Bob,
But there IS a conflict of interest, as others have
pointed out. The =
fact that there were only the best of intentions is a good
thing (the =
project itself, and laying positive groundwork with the BLM,
is a good =
thing), but the fact that several board members aren't
recognizing the =
appearace of a conflict conflict is what is disturbing.
Especially in =
light of the fact that one of these same board members has
lit into =
other board members for other perceived conflicts of
interest in the =
past.
As far as the "true beneficiaries" are concerned, I hope
they =
appreciate it and look favorably on endurance riders due to
the funding. =
That aside, AERC is not so rich it can solve all of
America's trail =
problems. Therefore I would ask the grants committee to
consider only =
funding projects that will benefit an endurance ride. Be it
an existing =
ride, or in developing a great place for some future ride.
In reality, =
maintaining the right to use public trails for our
competition is, IMO, =
our most pressing issue.. There are a lot of good riding
trails which =
are closed to competitions. This is where we need to improve
the public =
perception of out sport, and where we should look to spend
our time and =
$.
Yes, that means someone on the board may always have a
perceived =
conflict with a project in their area, but if one vote makes
the =
difference it may not be the most worthy project after all.
Again, the =
problem is not "that some ride manager will benefit", I
would hope some =
ride manager would benefit from all our projects! They just
shouldn't =
participate in the vote.

Nancy Mitts


--- On Mon 05/24, < bobmorris@... > wrote:
From: [mailto: bobmorris@...]
To: annie@..., AERCMembersForum@...
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:07 -0600
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict

In all=20
actuality there is no conflict of interest in the FT.
Stanton grant. =
The grant=20
was not used by the Ft. Stanton ride nor was it used to
benefit that =
ride. It=20
was granted to assist the BLM in the establishment of a
trailhead for =
multi-use.=20
For use by the general public. The AERC and thus the SW
region =
Directors and the=20
Ft. Stanton Ride Manager and all the AERC Riders who
participate in =
that ride=20
are nothing more than incidental beneficiaries. The true
beneficiaries =
are the=20
American public who avail themselves of the opportunity
to ride from =
the FT. Stanton Trailhead
Bob Morris

_______________________________________________

===================================================

Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:29:00 -0600
Subject: [AERC-Members] Official AERC Conflict of Interest
Statement
From: Randy H Eiland <renegade12@...>
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does
not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

----__JNP_000_3a09.1976.7463
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=--__JNP_000_39a2.4104.6618

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does
not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

----__JNP_000_39a2.4104.6618
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The following is my Conflict of Interest statement provided
by AERC - to
be filled out by the Director (me) and kept on file with
AERC. I think
it is educational for members to know what the official
Director's AERC
Conflict of Interest Documents contain. Personally, I have
no interest
in the Ft Stanton Project except that Ft Stanton is in my
region.
Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, no other persons
or directors
involved with Ft Stanton were in violation of paragraph 3
below. Randy
Eiland

Conflict of Interest Statement by AERC Director

1. My name is: ____Randy
Eiland___________________________. I
sit on the AERC Board of Directors.

2. I have identified in the space below any business or
professional interest of mine which may be impacted by
decisions of the
AERC Board of Directors. This includes business or professional
interests of me personally, of members of my immediate
family, of my
employer, or of any person or organization to which I
regularly provide
goods or services. I realize that examples of business or
professional
interests requiring disclosure include ride management,
veterinary
services for endurance rides, breeding or sale of endurance
horses, sale
or manufacture of supplies for endurance riding, or paid
consultation
relating to endurance riding.
1) I manage a number of endurance rides each year
2) I sell one to three horses per year
I own and operate EICO which is a commercial real estate
and development
company. My primary source of income comes from commercial
real estate
sales, leases and development with no connection to AERC or
endurance
related interests. occasionally I have business
transactions and/or
consultations with clients who may also be AERC members, but
these
transactions and/or consultations are not related to AERC or
endurance
riding.
3. I understand that if I have a material
financial interest in
a direct transaction between the AERC and me or a member of
my family
which is under consideration by the AERC Board of Directors,
I will
specifically disclose my interest to the Board and will not
participate
in any vote by the Board on the transaction.

Date: _January 31, 2003 Signature: __Randy
Eiland_______________


Randy Eiland

===================================================

From: "Annie George" <annie@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Official AERC Conflict of
Interest Statement
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:32:27 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0157_01C44315.1F53DB20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thank You Randy, I and I am sure others will appreciate
this. Annie G.=20
Anne George Saddlery www.vtc.net/~ageorge =20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Randy H Eiland=20
To: AERCMembersForum@...=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:29 AM
Subject: [AERC-Members] Official AERC Conflict of
Interest Statement


The following is my Conflict of Interest statement
provided by AERC - =
to be filled out by the Director (me) and kept on file with
AERC. I =
think it is educational for members to know what the
official Director's =
AERC Conflict of Interest Documents contain. Personally, I
have no =
interest in the Ft Stanton Project except that Ft Stanton is
in my =
region. Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, no other
persons or =
directors involved with Ft Stanton were in violation of
paragraph 3 =
below. Randy Eiland
=20
Conflict of Interest Statement by AERC Director=20

=20

1. My name is: ____Randy
Eiland___________________________. I =
sit on the AERC Board of Directors. =20

=20

2. I have identified in the space below any
business or =
professional interest of mine which may be impacted by
decisions of the =
AERC Board of Directors. This includes business or
professional =
interests of me personally, of members of my immediate
family, of my =
employer, or of any person or organization to which I
regularly provide =
goods or services. I realize that examples of business or
professional =
interests requiring disclosure include ride management,
veterinary =
services for endurance rides, breeding or sale of endurance
horses, sale =
or manufacture of supplies for endurance riding, or paid
consultation =
relating to endurance riding.=20

1) I manage a number of endurance rides each year

2) I sell one to three horses per year

I own and operate EICO which is a commercial real estate
and =
development company. My primary source of income comes from
commercial =
real estate sales, leases and development with no connection
to AERC or =
endurance related interests. occasionally I have business
transactions =
and/or consultations with clients who may also be AERC
members, but =
these transactions and/or consultations are not related to
AERC or =
endurance riding.

3. I understand that if I have a material
financial interest =
in a direct transaction between the AERC and me or a member
of my family =
which is under consideration by the AERC Board of Directors,
I will =
specifically disclose my interest to the Board and will not
participate =
in any vote by the Board on the transaction.

=20

Date: _January 31, 2003 Signature:
__Randy =
Eiland_______________


=
Randy Eiland


===================================================

From: <bobmorris@...>
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:40:03 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C44316.2F8E1A40
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000C_01C44316.2F8E1A40"


------=_NextPart_001_000C_01C44316.2F8E1A40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What is "Conflict of Interest"?=20

The Members=92 Conflict of Interest Act stipulates that a
Member of the (Legislative) Assembly must not be involved in
a decision during the course of public duties with the
knowledge that there is an opportunity to further the
Member=92s private interests.

The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On
* Conflict Of Interest *
<http://www.lectlaw.com/art/line7blu.gif>=20

CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Refers to a situation when someone,
such as a lawyer or public official, has competing
professional or personal obligations or personal or
financial interests that would make it difficult to fulfill
his duties fairly.=20


Conflict of interest


>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.=20


A conflict of interests is a situation in which someone,
most commonly a lawyer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer>
, a politician <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician> ,
or a director of a corporation
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation> , has competing
professional or personal interests that would make it
difficult to fulfill their duties
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty> fairly.=20


More generally, it can be defined as any situation in which
an individual is able to exploit their professional or
official capacity in some way.=20


In cases of a conflict of interest, the conflicted
individual is expected to recuse himself from the matter and
not take part in, or influence in any way, the process. For
example, judges are seen to recuse themselves from cases
from time to time due to personal conflicts of interest.=20




Types of conflicts of interests


The following are the most common forms of conflicts of
interests:=20


* Self-dealing, in which public and private interests
collide, for example issues involving family, or privately
held business interests,=20

* Outside employment, in which the interests of one
job contradicts another,=20

* Accepting of benefits, including bribes and other
gifts accepted to cury favor,=20

* Influence peddling, using one's position to
influence other realms,=20

* Use of government / corporate / legal property for
personal use,=20

* Unauthorized distribution of confidential
information=20

A conflict of interest can become a legal matter if the
individual does not recuse from the matter, but instead
tries to influence the outcome for personal benefit.=20


There are two kinds of conflicts of interests, a "real"
conflict, which is the type mentioned above, in which the
competing interests are exploited for personal gain, and an
"apparent" conflict, in which the conflict of interests is
acknowledged and is dealt with by the parties involved
accordingly.=20

=20

With those definations in mind please describe where the
persons you are concerned about have a conflict of interest.
Realize that the general concensus within the endurance
community is that ride managers are hard put to even break
even on managing rides.=20

=20

Bob

=20

Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID=20

-----Original Message-----
From: AERCMembersForum-owner@...
[mailto:AERCMembersForum-owner@...] On Behalf Of
Annie George
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:25 AM
To: AERC LIST
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict


That is all anybody has been saying from the start. It is
just a smoke screen to twist it around to look like people
are complaining about the project, or the individuals
personaly, or anybody making money. I hope Roger makes allot
of money. The fact that that the BOD is not concerned with
the conflict or the perceptions of a conflict bothers me
allot more than the actual conflict. Annie G.=20
Anne George Saddlery www.vtc.net/~ageorge =20

----- Original Message -----=20
From: Nancy Mitts <mailto:bratcat91@...> =20
To: bobmorris@... ; annie@... ;
AERCMembersForum@...=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict


Bob,
But there IS a conflict of interest, as others have pointed
out. The fact that there were only the best of intentions is
a good thing (the project itself, and laying positive
groundwork with the BLM, is a good thing), but the fact that
several board members aren't recognizing the appearace of a
conflict conflict is what is disturbing. Especially in light
of the fact that one of these same board members has lit
into other board members for other perceived conflicts of
interest in the past.
As far as the "true beneficiaries" are concerned, I hope
they appreciate it and look favorably on endurance riders
due to the funding. That aside, AERC is not so rich it can
solve all of America's trail problems. Therefore I would ask
the grants committee to consider only funding projects that
will benefit an endurance ride. Be it an existing ride, or
in developing a great place for some future ride. In
reality, maintaining the right to use public trails for our
competition is, IMO, our most pressing issue.. There are a
lot of good riding trails which are closed to competitions.
This is where we need to improve the public perception of
out sport, and where we should look to spend our time and $.
Yes, that means someone on the board may always have a
perceived conflict with a project in their area, but if one
vote makes the difference it may not be the most worthy
project after all. Again, the problem is not "that some ride
manager will benefit", I would hope some ride manager would
benefit from all our projects! They just shouldn't
participate in the vote.

Nancy Mitts


--- On Mon 05/24, < bobmorris@... > wrote:
From: [mailto: bobmorris@...]
To: annie@..., AERCMembersForum@...
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:07 -0600
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict

In all=20
actuality there is no conflict of interest in the FT.
Stanton grant. The grant=20
was not used by the Ft. Stanton ride nor was it used to
benefit that ride. It=20
was granted to assist the BLM in the establishment of a
trailhead for multi-use.=20
For use by the general public. The AERC and thus the SW
region Directors and the=20
Ft. Stanton Ride Manager and all the AERC Riders who
participate in that ride=20
are nothing more than incidental beneficiaries. The true
beneficiaries are the=20
American public who avail themselves of the opportunity to
ride from the FT. Stanton Trailhead
Bob Morris

_______________________________________________



===================================================

Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 13:39:59 -0400
From: Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Nancy is right on the money. No one has said it is not a
good thing.
That is not the point and in fact it is actually irrelevant.
The definition of "conflict of interest" is very simple: "A
conflict
between the private interests and the public obligations of
a person in
an official position."

What makes this situtation appear even worse is this would
have passed -
without the vote of the one or two directors in question.

IMO the first order of business of the AERC BOD is to
operate at an
ethical standard that is beyond reproach. Part of that is to
maintain a
strict policy of directors with a conflict of interest is
recluse
themselves from voting on issues associated with any particular
conflict. It is not that a director has a conflict of
interest - it is
how that fact is dealt with by that director and the BOD as
a whole.
After all when it comes to the operating ethical standards
of any BOD,
perception is often time as important - sometimes more - as the
standards itself.

If the directors in question had chosen to recluse
themselves from the
vote, it would have passed with the benefits stated - but this
conversation would not have come up or been necessary since
there would
have been no conflict of interest real or perceived intering
into
operation of the AERC.

Truman





Nancy Mitts wrote:

>Bob,
>But there IS a conflict of interest, as others have pointed out. The fact that
there were only the best of intentions is a good thing (the project itself, and
laying positive groundwork with the BLM, is a good thing), but the fact that
several board members aren't recognizing the appearace of a conflict conflict is
what is disturbing. Especially in light of the fact that one of these same board
members has lit into other board members for other perceived conflicts of
interest in the past.
>As far as the "true beneficiaries" are concerned, I hope they appreciate it and
look favorably on endurance riders due to the funding. That aside, AERC is not
so rich it can solve all of America's trail problems. Therefore I would ask the
grants committee to consider only funding projects that will benefit an
endurance ride. Be it an existing ride, or in developing a great place for some
future ride. In reality, maintaining the right to use public trails for our
competition is, IMO, our most pressing issue.. There are a lot of good riding
trails which are closed to competitions. This is where we need to improve the
public perception of out sport, and where we should look to spend our time and
$.
>Yes, that means someone on the board may always have a perceived conflict with
a project in their area, but if one vote makes the difference it may not be the
most worthy project after all. Again, the problem is not "that some ride manager
will benefit", I would hope some ride manager would benefit from all our
projects! They just shouldn't participate in the vote.
>
>Nancy Mitts
>
>
> --- On Mon 05/24, < bobmorris@... > wrote:
>From: [mailto: bobmorris@...]
>To: annie@..., AERCMembersForum@...
>Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:07 -0600
>Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
>
>In all
>actuality there is no conflict of interest in the FT. Stanton grant. The grant
>was not used by the Ft. Stanton ride nor was it used to benefit that ride. It
>was granted to assist the BLM in the establishment of a trailhead for
multi-use.
>For use by the general public. The AERC and thus the SW region Directors and
the
>Ft. Stanton Ride Manager and all the AERC Riders who participate in that ride
>are nothing more than incidental beneficiaries. The true beneficiaries are the
>American public who avail themselves of the opportunity to ride from the FT.
Stanton Trailhead
>Bob Morris
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>=-
>-= Discussion List Archives: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
>=-
>-= Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto: AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
>=-
>-= Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
>=-
>-= Terms of Usage & Liability: http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
>=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
>
>
>


===================================================

From: <bobmorris@...>
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:47:32 -0600
Truman:

You state<<<no conflict of interest real or perceived
intering into operation of the AERC.>>

Upon whose perception are we to govern the actions of the
AERC Board of Directors? You are skirting the actual
conditions and rationalizing upon the hypothetical. No one
has shown actual conflict in the matter, in fact the
opposite has been proven. That leaves us with the
"perceived" to consider. Perception is a nebulous and
fleeting, personal opinion.

Bob =20


Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...]=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:40 AM
To: bratcat91@...
Cc: bobmorris@...; annie@...;
AERCMembersForum@...
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict


Nancy is right on the money. No one has said it is not a
good thing.=20
That is not the point and in fact it is actually irrelevant.
The definition of "conflict of interest" is very simple: "A
conflict=20
between the private interests and the public obligations of
a person in=20
an official position."
=20
What makes this situtation appear even worse is this would
have passed -=20
without the vote of the one or two directors in question.

IMO the first order of business of the AERC BOD is to
operate at an=20
ethical standard that is beyond reproach. Part of that is to
maintain a=20
strict policy of directors with a conflict of interest is
recluse=20
themselves from voting on issues associated with any
particular=20
conflict. It is not that a director has a conflict of
interest - it is=20
how that fact is dealt with by that director and the BOD as
a whole.=20
After all when it comes to the operating ethical standards
of any BOD,=20
perception is often time as important - sometimes more - as
the=20
standards itself.

If the directors in question had chosen to recluse
themselves from the=20
vote, it would have passed with the benefits stated - but
this=20
conversation would not have come up or been necessary since
there would=20
have been no conflict of interest real or perceived intering
into=20
operation of the AERC.

Truman





Nancy Mitts wrote:

>Bob,
>But there IS a conflict of interest, as others have pointed
out. The=20
>fact that there were only the best of intentions is a good
thing (the=20
>project itself, and laying positive groundwork with the
BLM, is a good=20
>thing), but the fact that several board members aren't
recognizing the=20
>appearace of a conflict conflict is what is disturbing.
Especially in=20
>light of the fact that one of these same board members has
lit into=20
>other board members for other perceived conflicts of
interest in the=20
>past. As far as the "true beneficiaries" are concerned, I
hope they=20
>appreciate it and look favorably on endurance riders due to
the=20
>funding. That aside, AERC is not so rich it can solve all
of America's=20
>trail problems. Therefore I would ask the grants committee
to consider=20
>only funding projects that will benefit an endurance ride.
Be it an=20
>existing ride, or in developing a great place for some
future ride. In=20
>reality, maintaining the right to use public trails for our
competition=20
>is, IMO, our most pressing issue.. There are a lot of good
riding=20
>trails which are closed to competitions. This is where we
need to=20
>improve the public perception of out sport, and where we
should look to=20
>spend our time and $. Yes, that means someone on the board
may always=20
>have a perceived conflict with a project in their area, but
if one vote=20
>makes the difference it may not be the most worthy project
after all.=20
>Again, the problem is not "that some ride manager will
benefit", I=20
>would hope some ride manager would benefit from all our
projects! They=20
>just shouldn't participate in the vote.
>
>Nancy Mitts
>
>
> --- On Mon 05/24, < bobmorris@... > wrote:
>From: [mailto: bobmorris@...]
>To: annie@..., AERCMembersForum@...
>Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:07 -0600
>Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
>
>In all
>actuality there is no conflict of interest in the FT.
Stanton grant. The grant=20
>was not used by the Ft. Stanton ride nor was it used to
benefit that ride. It=20
>was granted to assist the BLM in the establishment of a
trailhead for multi-use.=20
>For use by the general public. The AERC and thus the SW
region Directors and the=20
>Ft. Stanton Ride Manager and all the AERC Riders who
participate in that ride=20
>are nothing more than incidental beneficiaries. The true
beneficiaries are the=20
>American public who avail themselves of the opportunity to
ride from the FT. Stanton Trailhead
>Bob Morris
>
>_______________________________________________



===================================================

From: KimFue@...
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:00:50 EDT
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict

-------------------------------1085594450
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 5/26/2004 10:40:54 AM Pacific Standard Time,
tprevatt@... writes:
Nancy is right on the money. No one has said it is not a
good thing.
That is not the point and in fact it is actually irrelevant.
The definition of "conflict of interest" is very simple: "A
conflict
between the private interests and the public obligations of
a person in
an official position."
OK, I must be REALLY stupid here but I do not understand
what is going on on
this list. For those of you (John Teeter and Truman) that I
can think of off
hand that started this conflict of interest thread, please
explain to me
either in private or on the list why the focus of the
conflict of interest is on
Randy Eiland when he is NOT listed as the ride manager for
Ft Stanton. All
this time I was under the impression that both of the SW
directors were
managers of this ride and therefore there was a conflict of
interest because of
possible financial gain from this ride. Where is the
conflict of
interest.....because the project was in their region???
Does this mean that directors should
abstain from voting on grants that are proposed in their
region? Does this
mean that directors should not propose projects in their own
region? If Randy
is not the manager of the ride where is the "appearance" of
a conflict of
interest? What is really going on here that I am missing?

Kim Fuess
AERC # 6648
PS Region
No possible ulterior motive because this isn't even in my
region and I
haven't ridden in New Mexico for almost 10 years....and I
have no plans to do so in
the 2004-2005 ride season :)



From: "Jerry Fruth" <jerryfruth@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 14:23:03 -0500
Nancy,
We have funded some trail projects that have not had a
direct benefit to
a specific endurance ride. And I would expect that in the
future there
may be some more projects that will be funded in the same
manner.
Please look at the word I used (direct) to describe some
funding.
As an example, we funded a trail head development at the Big
South
Fork in Tennessee that has no direct connection to an
endurance ride.
However, we have one of the largest rides in the southeast
put on at the BSF
each year. As you know, securing permission from a land
manager may be
difficult at times. At the BSF there has been an ongoing
environmental
issue
that has prevented us from using part of the BSF for the
ride. By creating
a strong working relationship with the managers at BSF it is
our hope that
someday we can overcome the environmental concerns and
expand the trail
system we ride on. Supporting the trail head project was a
matter of
creating
good will with the Forest Service.
Do we want to devote some of our funding to create good will
with those we
must work with? I believe its a good investment. And make
no mistake,
we should look at the funding we do through the Trails
Grants Committee
as an investment.
Jerry Fruth
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Mitts" <bratcat91@...>
To: <bobmorris@...>; <annie@...>;
<AERCMembersForum@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict


>
> Bob,
> But there IS a conflict of interest, as others have pointed out. The fact
that there were only the best of intentions is a good thing
(the project
itself, and laying positive groundwork with the BLM, is a
good thing), but
the fact that several board members aren't recognizing the
appearace of a
conflict conflict is what is disturbing. Especially in light
of the fact
that one of these same board members has lit into other
board members for
other perceived conflicts of interest in the past.
> As far as the "true beneficiaries" are concerned, I hope they appreciate
it and look favorably on endurance riders due to the
funding. That aside,
AERC is not so rich it can solve all of America's trail
problems. Therefore
I would ask the grants committee to consider only funding
projects that will
benefit an endurance ride. Be it an existing ride, or in
developing a great
place for some future ride. In reality, maintaining the
right to use public
trails for our competition is, IMO, our most pressing
issue.. There are a
lot of good riding trails which are closed to competitions.
This is where we
need to improve the public perception of out sport, and
where we should look
to spend our time and $.
> Yes, that means someone on the board may always have a perceived conflict
with a project in their area, but if one vote makes the
difference it may
not be the most worthy project after all. Again, the problem
is not "that
some ride manager will benefit", I would hope some ride
manager would
benefit from all our projects! They just shouldn't
participate in the vote.
>
> Nancy Mitts
>
>
> --- On Mon 05/24, < bobmorris@... > wrote:
> From: [mailto: bobmorris@...]
> To: annie@..., AERCMembersForum@...
> Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:07 -0600
> Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
>
> In all
> actuality there is no conflict of interest in the FT. Stanton grant. The
grant
> was not used by the Ft. Stanton ride nor was it used to benefit that ride.
It
> was granted to assist the BLM in the establishment of a trailhead for
multi-use.
> For use by the general public. The AERC and thus the SW region Directors
and the
> Ft. Stanton Ride Manager and all the AERC Riders who participate in that
ride
> are nothing more than incidental beneficiaries. The true beneficiaries are
the
> American public who avail themselves of the opportunity to ride from the
FT. Stanton Trailhead
> Bob Morris
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-
> =-
> -= Discussion List Archives: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
> =-
> -= Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto: AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
> =-
> -= Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
> =-
> -= Terms of Usage & Liability:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
> =-
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-
>

===================================================

From: "Jerry Fruth" <jerryfruth@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 14:28:37 -0500
Howard,
Thanks you for your kind remarks. I just keep things glued
together.
Its our trail advocates out there in every state that are
making the
difference. Without them, I would have no support and we would
not be making any difference in trail preservation.
I thoroughly enjoy working for every endurance rider across
the country,
trying to make access or the lack thereof a non issue.
Sometimes we win,
and sometimes its a draw. Rarely do we loose anymore. Its
an ongoing
fight, something that will go on forever.
Thanks for all of the support and encouragement you all give
me. It makes
a difference.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Bramhall" <howard9732@...>
To: <jerryfruth@...>; <AERCMembersForum@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)


> There are not many humans I trust in this world (horses are far more
> trustworthy) but, one of the few humans I do trust is Jerry Fruth. If he
> says there isn't a conflict of interest here, if he says it's a win-win
> situation (BLM/FS/AERC) for us all, if he says the decisions that were
made
> with the Fort Stanton Ride were made honestly and followed established
> protocol, and, that others will be looked at in the east, I, for one, am
so
> grateful that he's involved, I hope we never lose him or his enthusiasm.
>
> A working relationship with agencies like the BLM and the Forest Service
can
> do so much good for all of us (even psuedo-endurance riders like myself),
> that the positives far outweigh the negatives. This type of action gives
me
> so much hope that I can't even find one negative here. Grant money should
> go to anything that would help us keep our trails; because, without them,
> there is no ride or even a place to train.
>
> cya,
> Howard
>
>
> >From: "Jerry Fruth" <jerryfruth@...>
> >To: <Magnumsmom@...>, <aercmembersforum@...>
> >CC: <mjaffe@...>
> >Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
> >Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:09:27 -0500
> >
> >Kathy,
> >You make some very good observations. If you take a look around at the
> >grants we have approved,
> >you will find that we have be very even handed. We have tried to serve
the
> >membership the best we
> >can with the funds we have available.
> >Ft. Stanton is just an extraordinary place. We were at the right place
at
> >the right time. As it is turning out,
> >the investment we have or are making in Ft. Stanton is having an effect
for
> >riders from all across the
> >nation.
> >We are taking the concept of what we did at Ft. Stanton and are working
on
> >a location in the east
> >whereby we will develop the same working relationship with the FS as we
> >have with the BLM. I suspect
> >the work with the FS will take longer to develop, but now is the time to
> >begin. The FS has its own
> >management style which is a lot different than that of the BLM. We just
> >have to be ready to work with
> >both for the good of the AERC.
> >Jerry
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Magnumsmom@...
> > To: aercmembersforum@...
> > Cc: mjaffe@...
> > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 4:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 5/21/2004 3:13:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> >mjaffe@... writes:
> > I hear your concern on the question of equity in investing in
> >locations
> > based on the number of riders that use it during competitions. It's
a
> > valid question. Generally I think we should go for the biggest bang
> >for
> > our buck. That would include leveraging our modest contributions to
> > significantly larger matching funds, largest human volunteer
> > contributions, donations, number of rides/riders benefited and
finally
> > any publicity opportunities.
> >
> > However, one of the draw backs of lots of people is much
> > less unspoiled and unpopulated land. A place like NM is
> > still full of open spaces just waiting for someone to come
> > along and "love" them. It's a good place to "prove concept",
> > "get the ball rolling", or just find a place where we can do
> > something like this.
> >
> > Protect what we have now and not wait until it's too late.
> >
> > The number of people and members we have here is lower
> > than any other AERC region, but then don't forget we have
> > a lot of riders who come from out of region... and some from
> > quite a long way.
> >
> > I don't understand why everyone seems to be so concerned
> > about "numbers" lately.
> >
> > Once again, a democracy is not only about the largest numbers
> > of votes, but it's also about doing the right thing for the lessor
> > numbers as well. I.E., protecting the little guy too, not just
> > running him over.
> >
> > Kathy Myers
> > in Santa Fe, NM
> > ps... a new boss just moved here from Boston with his family
> > and 4 kids last year. During a conversation with him last week
> > I found out he had never even heard of the BLM or BLM land!
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra
Storage!
> http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

===================================================

Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 17:48:23 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Official AERC Conflict of
Interest Statement
From: <heidi@...>
> The following is my Conflict of Interest statement provided by AERC -
> to be filled out by the Director (me) and kept on file with AERC. I
> think it is educational for members to know what the official Director's
> AERC Conflict of Interest Documents contain. Personally, I have no
> interest in the Ft Stanton Project except that Ft Stanton is in my
> region. Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, no other persons or
> directors involved with Ft Stanton were in violation of paragraph 3
> below. Randy Eiland

Randy, if we were mistaken and it is Roger rather than you
that manages
the Fort Stanton ride, then apologies. However, if Roger is
indeed the
manager then he DOES have a conflict of interest. And he
SHOULD have
recused himself.

Again, this is not meant to reflect on the project
itself--just a matter
of continued disgust at the fact that directors who cannot
see that a
conflict of interest exists reflect poorly on our
organization when they
do NOT recuse themselves.

Do we really have to go to the extent of having somebody
advise directors
when they have a conflict of interest?

I submit that it would have also been just plain good taste
for you to
recuse yourself as well, as the other regional director.
And I would feel
the same way if Bob Morris worked his fanny off to get a
similar grant for
the NW and it involved a trailhead at one of Gail Williams'
rides. Or any
other region where directors are also ride managers (which
without
checking, I suspect involves more than just a few regions).

Heidi


===================================================

Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:04:54 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
From: <heidi@...>
> CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Refers to a situation when someone,
> such as a lawyer or public official, has competing
> professional or personal obligations or personal or
> financial interests that would make it difficult to fulfill
> his duties fairly.


Seems pretty clear-cut to me. A director is a "public
official" and as a
ride manager, he has a "personal or financial interest" in a
project that
involves a trailhead at or near his ride site. Whether he
makes money off
of the ride is irrelevant--he puts on the ride (personal
interest) and
puts money into the ride (financial interest).

While we may be picking unduly on Randy here (and Randy, if
we erred,
realize it is easy to jump to conclusions given what appears
to be a
history of "close calls" with this same concept), it seems
irrefutable
that Roger had a conflict of interest here, and that for the
good of both
the project and the organization, SHOULD have recused himself!

Clearly, the issue did not NEED his vote to pass, so why
cast the light of
impropriety on it by voting????

Heidi


===================================================

Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:10:37 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
From: <heidi@...>
> All this time I was under the
> impression that both of the SW directors were managers of this ride
> and therefore there was a conflict of interest because of possible
> financial gain from this ride.

I was, too--and apparently only one of them is.

>Where is the conflict of
> interest.....because the project was in their region???

While that one is a stretch, since both ARE ride managers,
it would be in
good taste to abstain. As it is, ONE director DOES manage
the ride. So
he most definitely had a conflict of interest.

>Does this mean
> that directors should abstain from voting on grants that are proposed
> in their region? Does this mean that directors should not propose
> projects in their own region? If Randy is not the manager of the ride
> where is the "appearance" of a conflict of interest? What is really
> going on here that I am missing?

I think your first sentence certainly suggests something
worth thinking
about, but there should be no question when the grant
involves an area
where you personally manage a ride...

Heidi


===================================================

Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Reply-To: bratcat91@...
From: "Nancy Mitts" <bratcat91@...>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 00:41:12 -0400 (EDT)

A trails grant that improves the trail system, camp area, or
mood/attitude of the governing agency is beneficial to a
ride manager putting on a ride in that area (whether they
make money at it or not.) AERC has limited funds to use for
such projects. While there may have been no other worthy
projects under consideration at this time, who is to
determine the "most worthy" project? A ride manager whose
ride will benefit from a particular trails grant should not
be voting on it.

Nancy Mitts




_______________________________________________

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-
-= Discussion List Archives:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=-
-= Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:
AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
=-
-= Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/rules.html
=-
-= Disclaimer of liability:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-