-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AERC-Members-Digest]
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 04:25:59 -0700
From: AERCMembersForum-owner@... (List Server)

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:22:34 -0600
From: John Teeter <johnt@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Kim,

It was pointed out to me that the RM of the ride which uses
the project site cast a vote with respect to the project. In
my opinion, a conflict of interest was involved. It seemed
important enough that a discussion occur amongst the members
to establish the proper precedence.

When I asked the original question on the members list, I
didn't specifically say who was in conflict (only
referencing the sw directors) and that anyone in conflict
should have not have voted on the issue. I also think there
has been a long term effort behind the scenes to make that
particular ride site the permanent home of the AERC
championship event and I mentioned that as well.

I didn't specifically say who was in conflict on the vote.
He is a sw director and the manager of the ride. The other
sw director sanctions the rides held at that site and has
used that site in the past for his rides as well. From my
perspective, it is difficult to tell the difference between
these two individuals. They have passed rides back and forth
between them quite frequently over the past years. They tend
to act as one in matters concerning AERC. Nothing
particularly wrong with that except that it becomes a bit
difficult to pin down the details at times. It becomes
difficult to tell one from the other at a distance.

But in this case, only the RM is in conflict. He should not
have voted either for or against this issue. AERC should
encourage clarity in this area and discourage the
establishment of president which justifies conflicted actions.

Finally, I suggested that ride venues which support higher
participation levels might be worthy of AERC trails
infrastructure grants as well. It was mentioned later in the
discussion that the two example rides, Biltmore and Tevis,
have not requested grant funds from AERC. To that issue, I
suggest that AERC should become more proactive in the grants
solicitation process. Identify those venues which it wishes
to fund and work with the interested parties to establish
the projects which are suitable.

It is too bad that the non-RM was called into question, but
reputations have a way of inducing bias.

ride well:)

jt.

note: as to the conflict statements on file with the AERC.
These are to be updated annually I think? In the case of the
one shown on this list, the activity of Ride Management was
mentioned as an area of conflict.

==== original post ====


It was pointed out to me that there is a conflict of
interest within the southwest region directors concerning
the recent vote to allocate additional AERC funds to the
improvements of the Fort Stanton ride site.

At the very least, the ride manager of the Fort Stanton
event should have abstained from this vote to avoid the
conflict. Possibly the ride vet(s) should also have
abstained? Is it a conflict of interest for the Ride Manager
to have voted to allocate these funds?

More broadly, the total allocated funds from AERC for this
one ride site seems very high as compared to the number of
riders (@60 last year) who attend the ride.

This is phase 4 of the project(s), what funds did AERC
provide for phases 1-3??), are future phases anticipated?

Is AERC really building the future permanent home of the
AERC (US+CA) National Championship Event?

MikeJ, do you know the total $s AERC has provided for Fort
Stanton improvement? Do you feel these to be in line with
the level of AERC usage of the venue? (just to contrast,
Biltmore just hosted 200+ AERC members w/o any support from
AERC for trails maintenance). Tevis will host 200+ w/o any
AERC grants support. etc.

johnt



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

From: "Jerry Fruth" <jerryfruth@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:15:46 -0500
John:
The ride management at the Tevis and the Biltmore know my
telephone number and e-mail address. I'm not about to go around
knocking on doors looking for folks that want some of our money.
The grant process is a competitive process. Those who choose to
come to the table with a well done proposal, will get a hard
look
from the Grants committee.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Teeter" <johnt@...>
To: <KimFue@...>
Cc: "aerc List" <AERCMembersForum@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict


> Kim,
>
> It was pointed out to me that the RM of the ride which uses the project
site cast a vote with respect to the project. In my opinion,
a conflict of
interest was involved. It seemed important enough that a
discussion occur
amongst the members to establish the proper precedence.
>
> When I asked the original question on the members list, I didn't
specifically say who was in conflict (only referencing the
sw directors) and
that anyone in conflict should have not have voted on the
issue. I also
think there has been a long term effort behind the scenes to
make that
particular ride site the permanent home of the AERC
championship event and I
mentioned that as well.
>
> I didn't specifically say who was in conflict on the vote. He is a sw
director and the manager of the ride. The other sw director
sanctions the
rides held at that site and has used that site in the past
for his rides as
well. From my perspective, it is difficult to tell the
difference between
these two individuals. They have passed rides back and forth
between them
quite frequently over the past years. They tend to act as
one in matters
concerning AERC. Nothing particularly wrong with that except
that it becomes
a bit difficult to pin down the details at times. It becomes
difficult to
tell one from the other at a distance.
>
> But in this case, only the RM is in conflict. He should not have voted
either for or against this issue. AERC should encourage
clarity in this area
and discourage the establishment of president which
justifies conflicted
actions.
>
> Finally, I suggested that ride venues which support higher participation
levels might be worthy of AERC trails infrastructure grants
as well. It was
mentioned later in the discussion that the two example
rides, Biltmore and
Tevis, have not requested grant funds from AERC. To that
issue, I suggest
that AERC should become more proactive in the grants
solicitation process.
Identify those venues which it wishes to fund and work with
the interested
parties to establish the projects which are suitable.
>
> It is too bad that the non-RM was called into question, but reputations
have a way of inducing bias.
>
> ride well:)
>
> jt.
>
> note: as to the conflict statements on file with the AERC. These are to be
updated annually I think? In the case of the one shown on
this list, the
activity of Ride Management was mentioned as an area of
conflict.
>
> ==== original post ====
>
>
> It was pointed out to me that there is a conflict of interest within the
southwest region directors concerning the recent vote to
allocate additional
AERC funds to the improvements of the Fort Stanton ride site.
>
> At the very least, the ride manager of the Fort Stanton event should have
abstained from this vote to avoid the conflict. Possibly the
ride vet(s)
should also have abstained? Is it a conflict of interest for
the Ride
Manager to have voted to allocate these funds?
>
> More broadly, the total allocated funds from AERC for this one ride site
seems very high as compared to the number of riders (@60
last year) who
attend the ride.
>
> This is phase 4 of the project(s), what funds did AERC provide for phases
1-3??), are future phases anticipated?
>
> Is AERC really building the future permanent home of the AERC (US+CA)
National Championship Event?
>
> MikeJ, do you know the total $s AERC has provided for Fort Stanton
improvement? Do you feel these to be in line with the level
of AERC usage of
the venue? (just to contrast, Biltmore just hosted 200+ AERC
members w/o any
support from AERC for trails maintenance). Tevis will host
200+ w/o any AERC
grants support. etc.
>
> johnt
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-
> =-
> -= 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
> =-
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-
>
>

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:50:17 -0700
From: "List Moderator" <AERCMembersForum-Moderator@...>
Reply-To: <AERCMembersForum-Moderator@...>
Subject: [AERC-Members] The Forum is moving and I need your
help!
Team,

As you know the AERC Members Forum is moving to a new home
at Yahoo Groups. I think you'll like the improved feature
functionality. There are two ways to join our Forum on Yahoo.

If you have not already received an individual email telling
you you've been added to the new list please select your
preferred method below and do one of the following ASAP.
This will help us get everyone moved over more quickly. I
will not turn on email coming from the new list until next
Friday, June 4 when we'll officially move to Yahoo.

Method 1
You can sign up for a Yahoo account and get the benefit of
self-administering your subscription to the Members Forum
and any other Yahoo lists you're on. To do this start out at
groups.yahoo.com and look for "Sign-Up." Afterwards you
should be able to add the AERC Members Forum to your account.

Method 2
You can simply send an email to the Members Forum requesting
you be added. The address is
AERCMembersForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. You will not be
able to change features of your subscription yourself but
will have all of other the benefits of the list.

I've configured the archives to be open to the public.
Anyone can view them. They are at
groups.yahoo.com/groups/AERCMembersForum. If you've been
waiting for a better digest function I think you'll be
pleased with the one Yahoo generates.

I appreciate your support of the AERC Members Forum!

Mike Jaffe
===================================================

From: Oldwaggy@...
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 13:26:31 EDT
Subject: [AERC-Members] Announcement re LD BC

-------------------------------1085678791
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

There has been an active debate on this and other lists
about the merits of
the proposal to require every ride manager who holds a
limited distance ride to
provide a best condition award which follows the AERC form
requiring a top
ten finish to qualify. I have also heard from dozens of AERC
members on this
topic at every ride I've attended in the last few months.
Before the debate
continues further, I would like to inform everyone that the
AERC Limited Distance
Committee has notified the members of the Board of Directors
that it is
withdrawing the proposal.

By way of background, the proposal was first stated in
general terms by the
LD Committee several months ago. A motion to adopt the
proposal was approved
by the Board near the beginning of the regular board meeting
on the day before
the convention in February. To be more exact, the motion
was to change the
word "may" to "will" in Rule L9. The Rules Committee was
also directed to come
up with a revision of Rule L9.2 to remove the language
making the use of the
AERC best condition system optional. I did not participate
int that part of
the meeting because I had to take a late flight after an all
day legal
proceeding.

At the next meeting of Board the day after the convention, I
made a motion to
defer final adoption of the proposal until the 2004 midyear
meeting. We
realized that the edition of EN discussing the proposal had
not yet reached all of
our members. We wanted to give our membership the ability
to discuss and
comment on the proposal at length before we made our final
decision. The Board
approved the motion to defer the final decision and the
discussion on this and
other lists ensued.

I have no reason to reiterate the pro's and con's of the
proposal here
because they have been so thoroughly discussed by others.
The Board has received
(and is still receiving) over a hundred emails on the
subject. It is fair to
say the membership is evenly divided on the topic. Many
ride managers in the
West and Pacific Southwest Regions oppose the proposal,
however. There has been
surprisingly little comment by LD riders in those regions
who might want the
award.

In any event, the LD Committee is withdrawing the proposal.
It will be making
a new proposal at the midyear meeting for the AERC to
provide a national LD
best condition award to supplement the regional LD best
condition awards we
currently provide. The chairperson of the LD Committee,
Terry Wooley Howe, has
prepared an article discussing all of this in more detail
which will appear
both on the AERC website and in Endurance News.

I, for one, learned a lot from the input of the membership
and very much
appreciate the effort people have made to communicate with
me and other members of
the Board of Directors. Regardless of what your position
might have been in
this discussion, I hope everyone joins me in applauding the
members of the LD
Committee for their willingness to listen, for their
creativity and for their
ability to stay positive in the face of controversy.

John Parke



From: EquesB@...
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:09:28 EDT
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict

-------------------------------1085688568
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 5-27-2004 10:23 A Eastern Daylight Time,
johnt@... writes:
To that issue, I suggest that AERC should become more
proactive in the grants
solicitation process. Identify those venues which it wishes
to fund and work
with the interested parties to establish the projects which
are suitable.
John;

What do you suggest AERC do? The process is on the website
and in EN.
Anyone who has in the past addressed a trails advocate for
help, at least in my
neighborhood, is informed of the trails grant and encouraged
to apply.

Jackie Baker
Florida

PS: The trails grant are for developing equestrian trails
and amenities. The
Biltmore is privately owned and therefore is not accessible
to the general
public.


Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:23:58 -0600
From: John Teeter <johnt@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
hmmmm....how about each of the state trails advocates be
asked to specifiy their top 10 list of project in their
state (or 5 or 1) and then have that list presented to the
trails committee and then a priority for be assigned for
each identified project as it is reviewed and then the
projects funded by that priority (as it is adjusted over
time) so that predictability, budgeting, and sound planning
can be applied to the long term support of the trails
systems where AERC riders ride.

but that's just an off the top suggestion. Proactive means
that the AERC work at the planning process rather than being
reactive (as in whenever someones thinks to address a trails
advaocate for help and the projects being presented to the
trails committee ad hoc and reviewed in a relative vacuum.

jt.

At 02:09 PM 5/27/2004, you wrote:
>In a message dated 5-27-2004 10:23 A Eastern Daylight Time, johnt@...
writes:
>To that issue, I suggest that AERC should become more proactive in the grants
solicitation process. Identify those venues which it wishes to fund and work
with the interested parties to establish the projects which are suitable.
>
>John;
>
>What do you suggest AERC do? The process is on the website and in EN. Anyone
who has in the past addressed a trails advocate for help, at least in my
neighborhood, is informed of the trails grant and encouraged to apply.
>
>Jackie Baker
>Florida
>
>PS: The trails grant are for developing equestrian trails and amenities. The
Biltmore is privately owned and therefore is not accessible to the general
public.
>

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 19:27:05 -0700
From: MARY VISCO <mfvisco@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Announcement re LD BC
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_6/vRBbJwT2jlRTPsHParrQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

I am just checking to see if this is working. Could someone
tell me if I got through to the group? Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: Oldwaggy@...
To: ridecamp@... ; aercmembersforum@...
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:26 AM
Subject: [AERC-Members] Announcement re LD BC


There has been an active debate on this and other lists
about the merits of the proposal to require every ride
manager who holds a limited distance ride to provide a best
condition award which follows the AERC form requiring a top
ten finish to qualify. I have also heard from dozens of AERC
members on this topic at every ride I've attended in the
last few months. Before the debate continues further, I
would like to inform everyone that the AERC Limited Distance
Committee has notified the members of the Board of Directors
that it is withdrawing the proposal.

By way of background, the proposal was first stated in
general terms by the LD Committee several months ago. A
motion to adopt the proposal was approved by the Board near
the beginning of the regular board meeting on the day before
the convention in February. To be more exact, the motion
was to change the word "may" to "will" in Rule L9. The
Rules Committee was also directed to come up with a revision
of Rule L9.2 to remove the language making the use of the
AERC best condition system optional. I did not participate
int that part of the meeting because I had to take a late
flight after an all day legal proceeding.

At the next meeting of Board the day after the
convention, I made a motion to defer final adoption of the
proposal until the 2004 midyear meeting. We realized that
the edition of EN discussing the proposal had not yet
reached all of our members. We wanted to give our
membership the ability to discuss and comment on the
proposal at length before we made our final decision. The
Board approved the motion to defer the final decision and
the discussion on this and other lists ensued.

I have no reason to reiterate the pro's and con's of the
proposal here because they have been so thoroughly discussed
by others. The Board has received (and is still receiving)
over a hundred emails on the subject. It is fair to say the
membership is evenly divided on the topic. Many ride
managers in the West and Pacific Southwest Regions oppose
the proposal, however. There has been surprisingly little
comment by LD riders in those regions who might want the
award.

In any event, the LD Committee is withdrawing the
proposal. It will be making a new proposal at the midyear
meeting for the AERC to provide a national LD best condition
award to supplement the regional LD best condition awards we
currently provide. The chairperson of the LD Committee,
Terry Wooley Howe, has prepared an article discussing all of
this in more detail which will appear both on the AERC
website and in Endurance News.

I, for one, learned a lot from the input of the
membership and very much appreciate the effort people have
made to communicate with me and other members of the Board
of Directors. Regardless of what your position might have
been in this discussion, I hope everyone joins me in
applauding the members of the LD Committee for their
willingness to listen, for their creativity and for their
ability to stay positive in the face of controversy.

John Parke


Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 19:30:32 -0700
From: MARY VISCO <mfvisco@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Announcement re LD BC
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_t4ryHBBh/3VnY4P1zihu7A)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT


----- Original Message -----
From: MARY VISCO
To: Oldwaggy@... ; ridecamp@... ;
aercmembersforum@...
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Announcement re LD BC


I am just checking to see if this is working. Could
someone tell me if I got through to the group? Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: Oldwaggy@...
To: ridecamp@... ; aercmembersforum@...
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:26 AM
Subject: [AERC-Members] Announcement re LD BC


There has been an active debate on this and other lists
about the merits of the proposal to require every ride
manager who holds a limited distance ride to provide a best
condition award which follows the AERC form requiring a top
ten finish to qualify. I have also heard from dozens of AERC
members on this topic at every ride I've attended in the
last few months. Before the debate continues further, I
would like to inform everyone that the AERC Limited Distance
Committee has notified the members of the Board of Directors
that it is withdrawing the proposal.

By way of background, the proposal was first stated in
general terms by the LD Committee several months ago. A
motion to adopt the proposal was approved by the Board near
the beginning of the regular board meeting on the day before
the convention in February. To be more exact, the motion
was to change the word "may" to "will" in Rule L9. The
Rules Committee was also directed to come up with a revision
of Rule L9.2 to remove the language making the use of the
AERC best condition system optional. I did not participate
int that part of the meeting because I had to take a late
flight after an all day legal proceeding.

At the next meeting of Board the day after the
convention, I made a motion to defer final adoption of the
proposal until the 2004 midyear meeting. We realized that
the edition of EN discussing the proposal had not yet
reached all of our members. We wanted to give our
membership the ability to discuss and comment on the
proposal at length before we made our final decision. The
Board approved the motion to defer the final decision and
the discussion on this and other lists ensued.

I have no reason to reiterate the pro's and con's of
the proposal here because they have been so thoroughly
discussed by others. The Board has received (and is still
receiving) over a hundred emails on the subject. It is fair
to say the membership is evenly divided on the topic. Many
ride managers in the West and Pacific Southwest Regions
oppose the proposal, however. There has been surprisingly
little comment by LD riders in those regions who might want
the award.

In any event, the LD Committee is withdrawing the
proposal. It will be making a new proposal at the midyear
meeting for the AERC to provide a national LD best condition
award to supplement the regional LD best condition awards we
currently provide. The chairperson of the LD Committee,
Terry Wooley Howe, has prepared an article discussing all of
this in more detail which will appear both on the AERC
website and in Endurance News.

I, for one, learned a lot from the input of the
membership and very much appreciate the effort people have
made to communicate with me and other members of the Board
of Directors. Regardless of what your position might have
been in this discussion, I hope everyone joins me in
applauding the members of the LD Committee for their
willingness to listen, for their creativity and for their
ability to stay positive in the face of controversy.

John Parke


=-
-= 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
=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-