NEDA OPEN LETTER TO THE 2008 USDF CONVENTION

[Aleen]

posted with permission of Paul Cormier

Aleen who is totally in concurrence . . .


OPEN LETTER TO THE 2008 USDF CONVENTION
New England Dressage Association Board of Directors
Paul Cormier, President ~ _marquisdemud@aol.com_
(mailto:marquisdemud@aol.com)

November 29, 2008

On November 12, 2008 New England Dressage Association held the first meeting
of its 2009 Board of Directors. Nineteen members were present. There was
general consensus as follows.

* USDF Office and Programs need a serious, immediate efficiency study.
Although unfailingly professional, the USDF staff appears saddled with
many archaic, inefficient and sometimes punitive program details that prevent
them from delivering timely and correct information to those in the field
administering USDF shows and educational programs. For example, chasing down
Qualified rides for the Regional Championships is a headache for both USDF
Office and Show Management. As an alternative, how about, for example, having
each Competitor pay a fixed fee ($50 perhaps) to have all of their rides
henceforth in a season considered for qualification? No more chasing down $10
fees, determining whether they were paid or not, whether the Show Management
reported them or not. Simplify the programs to save staff time and
frustrations. Then computer systems to maintain them can be simple also. Think out of
the box!

* Emergency Situation exists: use National Championships pool to
first (1) cover 2009 budget shortfall; next to (2) jump start efficiency studies
and finally to (3) develop and put into place computer systems to run
behind an efficient and effective national organization. NEDA would like to see
cutting back or shelving, in 2009 anyway, economically marginal programs,
such as University Credits program, in order to minimize use of the National
Championships pool. To maximize national participation in USDF and its GMOs,
we would like to see a more sensible USDF membership structure, such as a “
tiered” membership where a person must belong first to a GMO and then upgrade to
Participating Membership to participate in the various awards programs. We
would like competition processes to be efficient, easily implemented by
riders, show management and USDF. For example, develop a nationwide competitor
database, maintained by USDF, with information in ONE place and which
supplies and tracks all Rider / Owner / Horse information for recognized
competitions and the awards programs. Newly designed systems could eliminate
present practices of staff manually re-entering membership, show data and awards
information; this would have a permanent positive financial impact. Perhaps
a sponsorship with a computer focused business, where someone within its
management also has a USDF connection, could enhance this project.

* USDF seems to be focused on competitions and the competitive rider,
rather than on its educational mission. Most visible are the various
Awards programs, like Regional Championships and the various Year End Awards.
Programs like the L program are still supporting competitions. Instructor
Training, Adult Clinics and various seminars are education focused. However,
current complex USDF requirements to run these programs often result in
frustrated managers out in the field.

* Performance Standards, while they are a good idea, should be
carefully designed. NEDA show management is concerned about their impact on
already over-taxed competitors and overwhelmed management teams, with resulting fee
increases by USDF and / or USEF. Riders on non-warmbloods might be at a
distinct disadvantage in advancing through the levels. Continuing education of
judges to issue scores that put more emphasis on training and proper riding
rather on the potential brilliance of the horse, is more effective than
imposing standards.

In summary, NEDA perceives USDF management presently having a short sighted
focus, relieving the budget crisis by increasing membership and show fees
which we feel would impair GMO relationships. NEDA would like USDF to focus,
instead, on the long term. This requires taking time to step back and assess
current procedures, redesigning them to be more efficient and productive
while using the same office staff. We feel this would improve USDF’s ability
to fulfill its mandate as our national organization serving the dressage
community.

NEDA would support this endeavor!

Board of Directors
New England Dressage Association

[Bogey2]

Continuing education of judges to issue scores that put more emphasis on training and proper riding
rather on the potential brilliance of the horse, is more effective than
imposing standards.


excellent

[STF]

Bravo and well written.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Proud to have re-upped my membership! :D

[mjhco]

Excellent letter.

I especially like:

"* USDF Office and Programs need a serious, immediate efficiency study.
Although unfailingly professional, the USDF staff appears saddled with
many archaic, inefficient and sometimes punitive program details that prevent
them from delivering timely and correct information to those in the field
administering USDF shows and educational programs. For example, chasing down
Qualified rides for the Regional Championships is a headache for both USDF
Office and Show Management. As an alternative, how about, for example, having
each Competitor pay a fixed fee ($50 perhaps) to have all of their rides
henceforth in a season considered for qualification? No more chasing down $10
fees, determining whether they were paid or not, whether the Show Management
reported them or not. Simplify the programs to save staff time and
frustrations. Then computer systems to maintain them can be simple also. Think out of
the box!"

Thanks!

[pluvinel]

Most of the programs on the USDF budget are running in the red. The FEI Trainer's Program is running in the red. When I looked into registration, there are limits to who can attend. Instead of opening up the program and using it as a revenue and membership gathering opportunity, the marketing gurus at USDF choose to limit attendance...eg., limit revenue opportunities.

Instead of charging differential admission depending on your membership, eg., member, non-member, PM member, GM member, TPTB limit attendance, therefore, by definition, limiting revenues. Thus, they annoy a member who is excluded access to an educational opportunity and they reduce revenues that could be charged from a member who would be willing to pay to attend the January FEI Trainers Conference.

I used to be chair of a United Way Allocations Panel...eg., we were the volunteers that made decisions about where contributors' funds should go and what agencies should get funded in the local community.

Based on not-for-profit benchmarks, good non-profits devote 80% of their revenues in programs.....and 20% is devoted to "overheads."

It is not unreasonable to ask how the USDF member funds are being spent and what does the membership receive for its moneys.

In non-profit governance, some good question to ask are:

(1) whether there is a disproportionate benefit going to a specific group;
(2) whether ther are conflicts of interest between the decision makers and the persons/groups receiving the benefit;
(3) whether the members' funds are being spent for the benefit of the majority.

In corporate governance (for-profit as well as not-for-profit) there is a concept known as "agency conflict"...eg., as to whether the management decisions are done in the best interest of the shareholder (or members for non-profits) or for management's benefit.

[sm]

It is not unreasonable to ask how the USDF member funds are being spent and what does the membership receive for its moneys.

Annual report dated 03/08 is here http://www.usdf.org/docs/about/about-usdf/financials/audit.pdf

Membership revenue and expenses are on page 3... with the lionshare of expenses going to marketing?? Almost twice as much is spent on marketing alone as on combined Membership Services and Programs/Education.

[Mary in Area 1]

A classic example of archaic programming: I am a member of both CVDA and NEDA, plus a Participating Member of the USDF. However, I had to pay (or rather, each GMO had to pay FOR me) $17 to be a stupid GMO member of USDF. WTF?????

I don't mind paying the CVDA and NEDA memberships, but why be a USDF member 3x over with no refund? It should be automatically refunded--but I think I'd have to write a letter and beg. And they want performance standards...

[canyonoak]

Before the internet, a few friends would sit around, discuss these same problems, maybe contact someone at a GMO and wait for the reply.

And USDF and the rest of the equestrian organization structure all thrived, basked and otherwise had a fine time as there was no concerted group effort to find out anything, ask to change anything, get any real results.

Now there is the internet--a powerful tool.

Now there are BBs, where information is exchanged freely and instantly, to large groups oif people.

It is not so much that the amount spent on marketing is huge as that there seems to be no positive result from the amounts spent.

Doesn't anyone at USDF or USEF have to answer to any authority as to why they are doing such a lackluster job???

[luckles]

Absolutely wonderful, insightful and necessary letter. I just hope it does not fall on deaf ears. It really isn't brain surgery..."thinking outside the box" is just it...don't do things the same old way just because that is the way it has always been done. Some logic is needed.

Pluvinal, the comment you made about the Trainer's Conference is spot on! When you limit attendance you limit revenues. Is the conference some kind of secret information that the "rest" of us aren't allowed to know??!! Sorry, bad joke, but the reality is that if they did open it up to everyone to "learn" the could probably turn a profit.

It will be very interesting to see what kind of response you get from this letter.

Bravo! Thank you for speaking for the rest of us.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Most of the programs on the USDF budget are running in the red. The FEI Trainer's Program is running in the red. When I looked into registration, there are limits to who can attend. Instead of opening up the program and using it as a revenue and membership gathering opportunity, the marketing gurus at USDF choose to limit attendance...eg., limit revenue opportunities.

Instead of charging differential admission depending on your membership, eg., member, non-member, PM member, GM member, TPTB limit attendance, therefore, by definition, limiting revenues. Thus, they annoy a member who is excluded access to an educational opportunity and they reduce revenues that could be charged from a member who would be willing to pay to attend the January FEI Trainers Conference.



Just one more example of, to paraphrase the Colonel,: "One group of ladies telling another group of ladies, 'you aren't good enough to ride here.' :no:

[Janet]

A classic example of archaic programming: I am a member of both CVDA and NEDA, plus a Participating Member of the USDF. However, I had to pay (or rather, each GMO had to pay FOR me) $17 to be a stupid GMO member of USDF. WTF????

Soon to go up to $23 IIRC.

[MyCatRules]

Pluvinal, the comment you made about the Trainer's Conference is spot on! When you limit attendance you limit revenues. Is the conference some kind of secret information that the "rest" of us aren't allowed to know??!! Sorry, bad joke, but the reality is that if they did open it up to everyone to "learn" the could probably turn a profit.



I attended the FEI Trainer's Conference once - and don't understand WHY it was limited in attendance. There weren't any secrets, in fact much of the information was just good basic training info, that would be useful to MANY different level riders. And some of the "big name" FEI trainers were actually bored:eek: Doesn't make much sense, open it up to all, make a bit more money on it, and hold it in more than one location so it benefits more than just the East Coast trainers and those with too much money to spend.

If they are bringing in an FEI trainer from overseas, there would actually be some cost efficiency in doing it in more than one location, they've already paid to fly him/her from Europe - so why not spread that cost out, and hold the training event in Florida, Chicago, Texas, and California, and open it to everyone? Then fly him/her back to Europe.

[pluvinel]

I attended the FEI Trainer's Conference once - and don't understand WHY it was limited in attendance. There weren't any secrets, in fact much of the information was just good basic training info, that would be useful to MANY different level riders. And some of the "big name" FEI trainers were actually bored Doesn't make much sense, open it up to all, make a bit more money on it, and hold it in more than one location so it benefits more than just the East Coast trainers and those with too much money to spend.

If they are bringing in an FEI trainer from overseas, there would actually be some cost efficiency in doing it in more than one location, they've already paid to fly him/her from Europe - so why not spread that cost out, and hold the training event in Florida, Chicago, Texas, and California, and open it to everyone? Then fly him/her back to Europe.

Ahh...common sense here. The fact that so many people never get out of training level is that they have very few opportunities to see how to get a young horse developed. This program could offer insights at all levels.

As far as multiple venues when the original investment to bring a clinician over has been spent is common sense.

If someone were to figure out the base expense, then the question becomes how to get the activity profitable. Having the conference held at various locations in the US is a logical and excellent suggestion.