PDA

View Full Version : Webcast of 7/9 USA Equestrian meeting



Hermes
Jul. 8, 2002, 08:25 PM
I tried this evening to download the software necessary to "listen" in tomorrow. It took more than 1/2 hour and you do have to give your credit card (remember to cancel webcast service within 14 days to avoid the monthly charge).

Did any one else have trouble with the download? It crashed my "uncrashable" sytem.

Hermes
Jul. 8, 2002, 08:25 PM
I tried this evening to download the software necessary to "listen" in tomorrow. It took more than 1/2 hour and you do have to give your credit card (remember to cancel webcast service within 14 days to avoid the monthly charge).

Did any one else have trouble with the download? It crashed my "uncrashable" sytem.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 8, 2002, 08:49 PM
Surely there is a simpler system. I have given up once, but will try it again.

Justin_Provost
Jul. 9, 2002, 04:17 AM
I apologize that the download of Real Player has caused problems for your systems. Below are exact instructions on how to download the free software where you don't have to put in a credit card number.
1) From the USA Equestrian website, click the link for the Real Player or go to www.real.com (http://www.real.com).
2) Go down the page until you see a gray box. There is a link in it that says "Free RealOne Player". Click that.
3) This will bring up a page with a gray box on the right. The title of the box is "Or Get Our Basic Player". At the bottom of the box is a link that says "Download the Free RealOne Player Only". Click that.
4) You are now at the download for the free player. Just follow the instructions that pop here.

Again, sorry for the inconvenience.

Justin Provost
Director, IT
USA Equestrian

Hermes
Jul. 9, 2002, 04:38 AM
Justin --

I'm very impressed with the rapid reply. Don't know why it didn't work for me but that company does have my VISA card number now.

I don't think I want to try and download the software again but I would appreciate receiving instructions, perhaps an email address that I could use to cancel the free 14-day trial. I did reach them via your Web site, however, "free" wasn't free.

Good luck with the meeting today. I guess I'll have to wait and read about it when John Strassburger files his report.

Once again, your help advice on how I can now avoid having the Webcast company post a charge to my credit card would be appreciated.

[This message was edited by Hermes on Jul. 09, 2002 at 08:06 AM.]

M. O'Connor
Jul. 9, 2002, 05:01 AM
Do you have a solution for Macs?

After I'd been enjoying RealPlayer for quite some time, they made an update to something called RealOne--but it's no longer Mac compatible--

Do you know if my version of RealPlayer (RealPlayer Plus) will be able to recieve the webcast?

And I agree with Hermes that the RealOne website isn't exactly straightforward; I didn't mind paying them the $9.95 per month while I could enjoy the service (watching news clips and videos on the web at my convenience) but when they updated they didn't inform me that my version would no longer be supported, yet continued to charge me the $9.95--I had to search the website long and hard only to find out why the RealPlayer no longer works for me on 99% of the websites it used to.

MCL

Justin_Provost
Jul. 9, 2002, 05:07 AM
You may visit the Terms and Conditions (https://order.real.com/pt/common/html/realone_term_of_service.html) webpage. In it you will find the following statement:

"You may cancel the services by accessing your RealNetworks account at www.real.com (http://www.real.com). Cancellation instructions are available through the 'Manage My Membership' Options on the My Account Main page. Further, you may contact RealNetworks by phone at 1-888-768-3248 (from the United States or Canada), or 1-206-674-2650 from other locations."

I hope this helps you out.

Justin Provost
Director, IT
USA Equestrian

Hermes
Jul. 9, 2002, 05:22 AM
Thanks again Justin. I think I'm all set. I was able to successfully download and it appears that all I have to do to listen in is to log onto www.equestrian.org (http://www.equestrian.org) around noon and type in the Conference ID # 6432161 and viola I should be "in"...

M. O'Connor
Jul. 9, 2002, 05:29 AM
/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

(waving hand in the air.....)

MCL

Justin_Provost
Jul. 9, 2002, 05:32 AM
Please follow the same instructions as above except on step 4, you will see a link on that page for Macintosh Player. Click that link and you can download the newest version they have for a Macintosh. It does not call it "RealOne". That should work fine. I cannot with 100% accuracy state whether your older version of Real Player will work with the webcast as we don't have your version.

I hope this helps.

Justin Provost
Director, IT
USA Equestrian

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 9, 2002, 06:50 AM
My thanks to Cheryll Frank at USAEq for passing me along to Michael Bunch (hope that is spelled right). Thank you, thank you, thank you Michael!

He was very patient with me and waited until all signals were go and encouraged me to call back if necessary in the event of problems or questions.

Hope the fireworks today don't blow up my computer!

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 9, 2002, 07:23 AM
If you wait until 45 min prior to the beginning of the meeting to start downloading the player, you will most likely be very sad.......

These downloads don't go like clockwork. In addition, after the download itself, they ask you all kinds of "other" questions that only those advanced in computers will know right off.....

All in all, I appreciate the opportunity to listen in, but OMG, please send down an easier way to do it!

dublin
Jul. 9, 2002, 08:19 AM
Thanks for clarifying the download instructions, Justin! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

At times like this, I am SO happy that I have cable modem.... The complete download/registration process took less than 5 minutes. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Looking forward to hearing the meeting at 9 am PT.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:04 AM
It's starting.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

Heather
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:24 AM
I'm listening as best I can on my laptop, but can someone tell me if I can turn the volume up? Usually when I listen to stuff on the web, I have a little volume thing I can move with my mouse pointer, but i don't see one here and I'm getting a back ache hunching over my laptop speakers.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:25 AM
Is it just the crappy sound on my computer here at work, or is anybody else having trouble hearing anyone but Alan Balch? Some of them I can't hear at all, and even AB isn't very loud, with the sound turned up all the way.

Or maybe that the way The Evil Alan Balch planned it ... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:29 AM
Heather, look on the conference call page next to the two green boxes. There's a little grey box on the right of that with a little knob you can push up.

His Greyness
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:32 AM
It's not your PC, it's the way they are running the meeting. I submitted a question a few minutes ago pointing out the lack of audio from other participants. AB reminded other speakers to use the microphones provided.

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:32 AM
You're right, the sound is VERY soft and difficult to hear. I tried to listen by telephone but keep getting disconnected.

dublin
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:33 AM
Luckily, I'm having no problems hearing AB or any of the other speakers on my computer. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
Heather, look on the conference call page next to the two green boxes. There's a little grey box on the right of that with a little knob you can push up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Portia! That helps, but I still have to have my computer volume at MAX and keep my ear close to the speaker.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:36 AM
First big issue. Nominating committee (Warner, Chair) has raised the issue of the USET's failure to pay dues and re-affiliate itself for the last two years. Nom Committee unanimously recommends that the application for re-affiliation by the USET, including a commitment to abide by the rules and constitution of USA Eq, is inconsistet with USET's prior actions and should be denied.

Balch says the Exec Comm understands the issue, but it is important and Exec Comm unanimously recommends that the USET application be accepted and the 5 directly appointed USET directors be seated. Motion made and seconded to approve USET application for re-affiliation.

Strongly approved by voice vote.

Andrew Ellis nominated and elected to serve as at-large director.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:38 AM
I think if I were home with my separate stereo speakers, it would probably be a lot better.

His Greyness, how do we submit comments?

Heather
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:38 AM
Are you talking about the page with the slides?

I don't have a knob--just play and pause, and a readout of my kbps.

If you mean another page, how do I get there without loosing my "stream".

Sorry, I'm a moron, but help?

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:44 AM
So, so frustrating.....I have connected via telephone 9 times only to be "disconnected by the conference moderator" within 20 seconds each time. The computer audio is VERY soft plus it disappears entirely every minute or so, then comes back. Even stranger, for the brief periods I have both running, the words on the audio stream are NOT the same words I hear on the telephone portion....it's like listening to completely different meetings.

DMK
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:47 AM
USAEq & the Lexington Sports Authority made a preliminary presentation to FEI to hold WEG 2006 at KHP. They were originally unsure of timeline for bidding, and it probably would not be held until after November, but the FEI pushed up timeline and they just presented to the FEI recently in Morocco. They are bidding against Aachen, GER and German Federation. The FEI recently asked for a final bid to be presented by the end of June. This was completed, and the final decision should be made in September.

They anticipate that if held at KHP, that in addition to all 7 FEI disciplines an invitation to other breeds/disciplines will be made.

Discussion on piroplasmosis...

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:48 AM
Status of bid for WEG 2006. Made presentation at FEI assembly in Morrocco. Official bidder is Lexington Horse Authority. Germany (Aachen) is also bidding. Lexington submitted official bid at end of June. FEI exec board anticipates making decision sometime around Jerez in Sept. USA Eq wants to involve not just the 7 FEI disciplines but all the breeds and disciplines that wish to participate. Piroplamosis issue. Kent Allen talking about it based on experience from Atlanta. Doing a tick survey of some sort as a necessary precurser to planning. All competitions deal with Piroplamosis issue, Sydney did it very well in contrast to seriously flawed Atlanta model, so they hope to follow the Sydney model to ensure that as many horses as possible can compete.

Armand Leone confirms USET also supports US bid for WEG.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:50 AM
Heather, it is the page with the slides. Does yours have a green box that says "audio presentation" at the top, to the left of the slides? That's where I found it. It gives the kpbs, then just to the right of that is a straight line in a gray box, with a little circle on top of it. It isn't labled as being the volume.

Anne, the phone is live, while the web cast is delayed by several seconds.

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:
Are you talking about the page with the slides?

I don't have a knob--just play and pause, and a readout of my kbps.

If you mean another page, how do I get there without loosing my "stream".

Sorry, I'm a moron, but help?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're not a moron, Heather! Is it working for you now? You shouldn't have to do anything, and the Treasurer's Report should have just popped up on your screen.

Heather
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:02 AM
I definately don't have a volume switch, just an empty box where I think it "should" be. I'm going to try to find some headphones and see if that helps.

His Greyness
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:03 AM
In the top line menu of the audio conference participant page there are four items. The extreme left hand one is for submitting questions which brings up a box in which you can type your question and submit it. I have no idea whether anybody at the other end is reading them but AB made his comment about all directors using a microphone shortly after I submitted my comment.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:05 AM
Treasurer's Report. I missed parts of it, Armand raises some question about reporting revenues to directors on interim basis. Lori Rawls (or is it Kathy) explains the issue, and Pricewaterhouse Coopers auditor present apparently confirms that reporting to Directors is consistent with GAAP. Lori (Kathy?) explains that annual audited statements are not front-loaded with revenues the way the interim director's summaries are.

Can't hear AL's comments, he apparently thinks its misleading. AB says it might be if it weren't explained, but it is explained.

Can't hear the further explanation from Kathy Meyer, something about having to adjust for fact that much of the revenue is received early in the year with membership renewals.

AL asking another questin. Can't hear it well, but it has to do with characterizing expenses as non-recurring -- maybe has to do with reporting legal fees for the NGB defense costs as non-recurring? Kathy explains that it is non-recurring in that it is an extraordinary situation like relocating to Lexington and not a daily expense or part of day to day business. In the year end the costs are shown as expenses of the year.

AB explains that the separate costs of the NGB defense are shown as a separate non-recurring expense because it is a major issue and they don't want to bury it in another line item, since USA Eq has substantial regular legal expenses regardless of NGB.

AL questions USA Eq paying legal fees for New Jersey lawsuit. Kathy explains that many of the costs shown in this report were actually incurred last year but became accounts payable this year. AB explains that many other expenses are included, such as mediation fees from this year.

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:10 AM
At least I can still see the slides....
Oh, MAN...NHJC expenditures 1997-2001:

51% went to Personnel ($531,000)
27% to Administration ($292,000)
19% to Travel/Meetings (205,000)
2% to Zone Finals
1% to Zone Banquets

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:16 AM
well, this hook-up is a wonderful idea, but it's just not working for me.

Feedback: CONSTANTLY disconnected (within 20 seconds)when trying to listen by phone. Audio stream via computer only lasts approx. 30-60 seconds, then goes silent for 1-3 minutes, then returns for approx. another 30-60 seconds.

My computer is in fine working order & is frequently used for just this type of conference. Actually, in my other calls I have to have the volume turned to MINIMUM and even then it's a little loud.

dublin
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:16 AM
for your written synopses of what is happening at the meeting, for those that can't be listening in.

DMK
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:21 AM
Exec Committee reveiewed NHJC budget, budget of approx $467K submitted, task force analysis of NHJC funding, bolded line items are same heading in th epie chart, breakdown intheir packets, HR committee has reviewed employees of NHJC to put them in compliance with IRS rules (will make them eemployees - before was contract labor). $2M spent since 1997.

Q's

LL - what was the income generated by H/J membership - incomplete to just show expense side.

Kathy - Show dues/members dues need to be evaluated agains all membership dues.

AB - his point is worth making that breed/discipline is weighted towards membership size, if your [LL's] point is that $2M has been generated by h/j it is valid, but the idea is that by pooling all minor disciplines so the international disciplines can be supported. Also the conglomerate of disciplines support the D&M program, regulatory activity, defense, etc.

Unknown person - offered that while revenue is not shown, neither is the expenses of h/j supported in Lexington.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

jlm
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:27 AM
As a non- H/J person, it's making my BP go up listening to these adults talk about the H/J council autonomy.

SoEasy
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:30 AM
Did I just hear LL or TS ask for help writing a business plan?????

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:33 AM
Thanks, His Greyness.

Kathy explains task force on NHJC budget review that began with annual meeting appointment of task force. NHJC proposed a budget of something like +$550,000. Task force reviewed proposed budget and recommended approving a budget of +$400,000. Presents various charts on historic NHJC expenditures. Task force has tightened NHJC expense reporting requirements substantially, and has reviewed HR issues and eliminated the contract labor arrangement the NHJC had and replaced them with employees to comply with IRS regs and control expenses.

Larry Langer thinks the board should know how much income to the federation comes from the H/J membership, because it's a little bit unfair to show just the expenses of the NHJC and not the revenues from the H/J members. Kathy says that analysis could be done, but would have to include the analyzing the income from all the disciplines.

AB says that what LL is apparently trying to say is that the NHJC was contemplated as a fee for service organization and that the approx. $2 mm in expenses is essentially equalled by the revenues from H/J declared members, which is a fair point. However, this ties into an issue that will be discussed in detail, which is the financial strength that is gained from all working together as a group and the ability to use pooled resources when necessary to address an issue affecting a particular discipline -- such as defending the vaulting selection process, that cost much more than the income vaulting may bring in but was an important issue, like the horse killing cases, etc.

More discussion of NHJC expenses and technicalities. Missed parts of it. Something about NHJC particular expenses versus H/J general related expenses, then zone expenses and revenues.

Carol Lavell asks whether members of NHJC pay dues to NHJC the way she pays dues to USDF? LL explains they'd like to do that, but they are not a separate entity. It's the direction they were supposed to go but haven't gotten there. Sharon? (an eventer) asks about what dues H/J members pay. H/J members pay higher fees for discipline dues than for other breeds and disciplines, for precisely that reason -- that H/J members do not pay dues to a separate discipline org.

Natasha Grigg asks why NHJC is not a separate org. LL says they've been wanting that for a long time. Declines AB's request to explain why it is not separate, saying he thinks AB should do so. AB explains the history of how the NHJC came to be and the plan to make it autonomous. However, despite that goal and the existence of a business plan committee on which the presidents of all the various affiliates served on, NHJC never submitted a satisfactory business plan. Said, I think, that the proposed business plans that were submitted it never got past the business plan committee to the general planning committee.

Kathy Meyer explains some of the problems with the business plans, in that they basically proposed converting all the programs and revenues to the NHJC without much more while USA Eq continued to fund it, and that isn't a proper business plan for an autonomous, self-funding org. AB says all of the other breed and discipline affiliates that have their own orgs and own capital did not grow out of the Federation, they grew up independently and many in reaction to a lack of representation from the AHSA. AB would like them to propose an appropriate independent org for h/j or hunters or jumpers or whatever, but as long as AHSA is funding it, the board has the fiduciary duty to maintain oversight of how the funds are used.

Denny Emerson commented but I couldn't hear it. Tom Struzzieri agrees with what Kathy said that for whatever reason the NHJC did not write a good business plan, but they would like to do so and would like help from whoever can give it to come up with a good business plan. AB says that's an important request and he believes it should be discussed in detail under Agenda Item 13, but he personally still strongly feels that the H/J should have an independent org. like the other disciplines.

Sam Barish says several versions of NHJC business plans were submitted and went back and forth on with the business plan committee, but about a year ago the NHJC seemed to lose incentive to continue to participate in the process because it became absorbed with the much greater NGB issue.

DMK
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:34 AM
Natasha - Why is NHJC not a separate body?

LL deferred to AB for response

AB said it was proposed and approved. A business plan should be developed and implemented as soon as possible, and autonomy should be reached as soon as possible. A suitable business plan has never been presented to overall planning committee. We can argue why or who has delayed it but the point remains there has been no plan.

AB further said that LL has said in private meetings, albeit not publicly, that until this year the h/j council itself could not agree on which business plan to be put forward .

Kathy - plans have been submitted, but majority of plan was to convert over existing awards programs,etc. dues money to council dues. To date no formal plan, including how to implement education, mandatory membership, etc.

Denny Emerson - appreciates that it is harder to create a council now, and since they are such a large part of the total organization, but because of that it is necessary for the USAEq to bend over backwards to help.

TS - yes, we failed at writing a business plan, but perhaps the people here can help create that good business plan.

AB - great idea and under item 13, future planning we can raise that item again and address it.

LL - searched onhis PC for business plans/h-j - he is up to business plan 6A, and we did try hard to develop a business plan, but was not met fairly by the other side.

Dr. Barish - Was much back and forth discussion on plan and feedback, but NHJC lost desire to participate in the process about a year ago due to NGB issue.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

dublin
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:34 AM
Yes, I think it was TS. How embarassing to get up there and have to admit that you couldn't develop one, for whatever reason! JMHO.

khobstetter
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:38 AM
I called Lexington and I called the Radison to complain and they all said they were having trouble with the volume....

EARPHONES...... I WENT TO MY SONY CD PLAYER AND TOOH THE EARPHONES..

Plug them into your speakers and you can hear...

IT WORKS>>>>>>>

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:38 AM
One last gasp before I give up. Is this conference open to ANYONE or only to USAEq and USET members?

The reason I ask is I didn't enter a membership # anywhere and I keep getting disconnected with the msg. "you have been disconnected by the conference moderator."

I got the operator on the line to help me & she said the conf. mod. has the ability to disconnect people and he must be the one doing the disconnecting. She reconnected me & I lasted almost 90 seconds but then got the same msg.

Heather
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:45 AM
MUCH BETTER!

I found some earphones, and after my computer kicked me offline and I registered I saw the volume switch--just didn't load up the first time for some reason.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:48 AM
Discussion of fee for service sructure and how they work, and possible adjustments. AB confirms with Kathy that no consideration is being given to increasing member dues.

Lori Rawls gives Exec Director's Report. Missed part of it when I had to step down the hall, as they say around here. Various slides on operating expenses and revenues. Demonstrates substantial financial growth over the last 11 years. Sounds like AL asking questions about chart showing a deficit of expenses over revenues for the last couple of years. Most of the deficits were related first to costs of relocating and then to NGB defense and expenses. Has been addressed by the budget and finance committee, which serves as the audit committee. AL makes point of whether there should be a separate audit committee. Kathy explains that staff prepares the budget and it is reviewed by the budget and finance committee. Someone makes the point of the external audit every year as well. Lori (I think) asks whether we should consider having a separate audit committee. PWC audit guy explains that the budget & finance committee set up is not unusual or questionable. AB says that creation of a separate audit committee has not been in the plans, but can well be considered.

Lori discusses status of program for electronic reporting of competition results and Horse ID program and info processing.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 10:53 AM
Anne, the conference webcast is open to anyone, anywhere. I don't know about the phone connections, since that is much more expensive for the Fed to maintain. That may be limited to specific people like board members who aren't present, but that's just a guess.

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 11:03 AM
Thanks, Portia. Yet when you click on the "click here to listen" button on the USAEq website it asks you to choose computer audio stream or telephone participation, with no mention of any restrictions. I was just wondering....I would've entered a membership number at log-in but it didn't ask for one.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 11:03 AM
Missed some of the exec director stuff and reports from asst. exec directors while searching the office for headphones. They do help some, though I'm only hearing it in one ear.

Can't hear Dr. Lengel at all. Katriona McElligott discusses status of the hearing committee and LOC activities, clinics. Sherry Frank reports on NCAA recognition status.

Supposed to be starting on the NGB fireworks shortly.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 11:11 AM
Starting on Counsel's Report, i.e. NGB stuff. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

AB introduces Jim Host of Host Communications to discuss marketing of equestrian sport. Direct bearing on NGB matter because he has long experience with Sports Act and NCAA. Host gives a bit of his very extensive background in sports marketing and promoting horse sports in Lexington, WEG bid in 2006 is culmination of the dream of developing the Kentucky Horse Park into the center of horse activity. Host has represented NCAA for 27 years.

He witnessed the USOC hearing in Austin. Has attempted to sell the sport of horses on a nationwide nation over the last 6 months. No other sport has the potential of touching 33% of US households. Used to be only 3 networks, now there are 250-300 choices. Networks only have 39% of market. Top corps are looking for the affinity market they can reach. We have that marketplace. Does not know of any other market with that potential, but we are never going to get there unless we're unified. Someway you have to get to unification, because otherwise you will destroy what we have tried to build. Have to throw away the political disputes of the past. Guarantees that if we get unified, they can sell the sport. If we don't get unified, they cannot sell it.

jlm
Jul. 9, 2002, 11:11 AM
You can still get on - anyone, member or not. NGB fireworks are going to start.

www.equestrian.org/webcasts/7-9-2002/index.asp (http://www.equestrian.org/webcasts/7-9-2002/index.asp)

-- note that the Conference ID is : 6432161 and you need Real Player 8 Basic (no you don't have to pay for it)
http://forms.real.com/real/player/player.html?dc=7107978&lang=en&loc=zz&src=011204realhome_mac

(if you are a Mac user - you can't use it on OS X - need to have Classic running.)

Heather
Jul. 9, 2002, 11:17 AM
To quote Jurassic Park . . .

"Everybody hold on to your butts . . .here we go"

M. O'Connor
Jul. 9, 2002, 11:18 AM
get the audio stream going, so am sitting here w/brilyntrip and we are listening in...

MCL

Charis
Jul. 9, 2002, 11:25 AM
I can't hear squat but can see the slides!!

One Nation under GOD>

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 11:34 AM
Bill Roos reports on 2 new sports act grievances arising in June. One is from a driving athlete complaining about a selection, one is from a licensed official.

Armand Leone expands on the USET v. USA Eq items, recent developments. USAEq motion to reopen hearing was unanimously denied, and USOC is balloting the board on the panel recommendation, and some other stuff I missed along those lines.

Conflict of Interest skipped over in detail for now. Moving on to NGB litigation. AB says officers and exec comm are interested in the issue and want to participate in the debate. AB relinquishes his chair, and skips over all officers and the entire board so that they can all participate. Appoints a senior member, Stephen Basheer (sp?), former lieutenant gov. of Kentucky to chair this part of the meeting.

Basheer says a great many will want to say something or a lot of things. First call upon people who have reports, then open up the floor for comments. First is reports of NGB advisory, Legal Review, and a couple of other committees. AB making some of those reports. Passes out summaries of reports.

Slide shows bullet points on status of NGB as of today. AB emphasizes that the hearing panel report is only a recommendation and is being voted on by USOC board, but until it is voted on and adopted by the USOC board and until the period for either side to demand arbitration expires without having done so, then USA Eq is the only NGB and has all the powers of NGB.

AB explains some history of how we got to this point. Various plans discussed in mediation. First is the "Cowboy Model" (based on NPRC plan), discussed last year in mediation with Rich Young as mediator, and AB and AL only participating. AB believed they had reached an agreement on that plan. However, AL canceled a follow-up meeting without explanation. At the mid-year board meeting last year, USA Eq adopted various Constitutional changes that mirrored the plan in the Cowboy model.

Then came up with another version of the Cowboy Model.

Then after the USOC hearing and mediation resumed, came up with the Cincinnatti model reached in early December. Linda Allen reports. Started from a point of no preconditions. Agreement to go forward with number of people directly participating in negotiations being limited, and for format for getting additional info though a task force. Reached a joint consensus on what would be presented to the full boards on the full topic. Agreed on the 3 operating divisions concept. Agreed that must have financial due diligence as an important part of process. Continued frequent contacts with negotiating teams and task force. Presentations made at annual meeting was based on the Cincinatti model, but financial due diligence had not yet been conducted.

Kathy Meyer (I think) takes up from there. She became part of mediation process at that point after Jim Wofford had to step out. Mediation continued. Became clear that a larger administrative core division had to be established with a larger role than the Cinci model had anticipated. While this went on, due diligence continued. Financial condition of USET revealed by due diligence made merger a much less viable option. Both groups agreed merger was not possible since USET did not have assets to contribute and agreed on a consolidation.

Cinci plan for new board was for USET to appoint 5, USAEq to appoint 5, and those 5 to chose another 5 among them with open election of athletes. Given change in circumstances and no merger, the USAEq team became concerned with that structure. Mediator Rich Young wrote a letter to the USOC saying they were further along than USA Eq people believed they were, as they had not resolved serious core issues including populating the board.

Did not deviate from 5+5+5 plan, but USA Eq wanted the administrative 5 put on an equal footing with the other two divisions. (Missed some of this). The USET wasn't willing to accept that at final face to face mediation in Denver.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 11:49 AM
Back to AB, pointng out issues in Officer's Report. USA Eq wants to move forward with the planning for consolidatin on the basis of the mediation plan, BUT they want all further meetings to be open to all directors and equestrian media. They want the mediation process to go forward in public, so no one has to chose who to believe. Both sides have tended to characterize what went on in mediation under the guise of confidentiality. Both sides believe their characterizations are closer to objective, but if you make it all public it does away with all that.

Skipping to last few pages, what happens if arbitration is filed and what happens if arbitration is not filed. Demand for arb would have to be submitted within 30 days of final USOC action by board. All of USOC hearing panel decisions, including all interim procedural rulings, will be subject to review in arb. Mediation and negotiations should, in their opinion, continue even if arb is filed, and before arb is filed.

The mere prospect of arb is an incentive to settlement for all sides, including the USOC. Seen a lot of e-mail traffic re terrible prospect of uncertainty in the sport. What will raise uncertainty in the sport is if we do not exercise right of arb. All of the plans, D&M, hearings, LOC, will be in doubt. Costs to sport are potentially enormous if things are in limbo. All of us are affected by the consequences of failing to protect the central governance of the sport. Essential functions of governance would be subject to expensive and destabilizing litigation from within the sport, from people who want to exploit the potential weaknesses. Have 50 dispute matters currently pending, any of which can exploit the instability of having dual NGB's or even 3 entities including the USOC. Lawyers asked to record the meeting today with Raises the issues of different sets of rulings on penalties and rules interpretations, overlapping and competing sanctioning of competitions, any org can start sanctioning competitions.

Finally, but most importantly, is the effect of instability on the welfare of the horse. Horses are innocent of all this and must be protected. Can you imagine what would have happened in the insurance fraud, horse killing cases if there had been an existing dispute over who is the NGB and has authority to act as NGB? This litigation has gone on a long time, but the horse killing cases went on for 5 years. The D&M disputes have gone on for 30 years.

What happens if a vacancy is declared? USOC has a timeline for 180 days, but reminds that USET said the process would be completed by June 2001 based on the USOC timelines, and the USOC hearing didn't even take place until Oct. 2001. USOC timelines cannot be relied upon. Instead, we want to control the timeline.

Do you think the USOC wants to declare a vacancy? Of course not. The USOC wants us to settle this thing, which is one thing both sides can agree upon. Also, do not want to rely on the USOC Membership & Credentials committee to run this sport.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 11:58 AM
Comments from David O'Connor. He was not part of the negotiating, mediation team. After negotiations broke down, David started a project on his own to try to get the two sides back together and talking again. He and AL talked at a USET fund raiser and came up with some ideas he thought AL was excited about. Concept was to have 50/50, with 10 on the international side 5 appointed by USET and 5 elected athletes, then with 5 national to come from USA EQ and 5 admin to come from USA Eq.

David talked to USOC people about it. Tried to push it, but was not accepted strongly because of leadership issues.

AB moving on to where we are in 2002. Did not put forward any proposed constitutional changes at this meeting until after this discussion. Current USA Eq Const. complies fully with federal law and NGB requirements. It was based on the Cowboy Model. Might be able to compress the 19 member Executive Committee model and have the best of both worlds. Take our existing 64 person board and divide it into electorates, and each would decide what of the 3 groups to be in. Then have those electorates directly elect the 19 members of the Executive Committee. That's the proposal.

How do we get there? As far as they're concerned, anybody who wants to be on the negotiating team can be on it. Let's have the discussion in open. If the NHJC wants to have people involved, great. If the USET wants to take part, we want them to take part but we cannot require them to do so. We can make the process go as fast as we want it to go.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:04 PM
Floor opened for discussion.

Armand Leone: All the reasons you said are reasons to settle. If you want to settle it, the USOC has shown the way. Digress because of implication that the welfare of the horse was not as important to other orgs; it is paramount to the USET as well. The mediator issued a 7 page report to the USOC summarizing the process and how it ended and that's a good objective source.

On discussion with David, discussed several formulas, one thing he made clear was that there needed to be a leadership change. With a leadership change things could go forward with much more confidence. One major problem prevented this matter from getting resolved, In Feb. or March 2002 USA Eq stated it was not a situation in which it could go forward on an equal basis. Told it was a merger of unequals. Difficult to accept even if it were true. Unrealistic to think of any possible discussions without recognizing the two orgs as equals. USET came up with a plan by which the USET liabilities would not be transferred to the new org. As we stand here today, both orgs have roughly equal net worths of about $2-3 million each. USA Eq got its money through dues, while USET is a charitable org. USET is not broke, and is still able to fund the Olympic disciplines. Paid for Festival of Champions with cash. Not broke. The USOC has given a road map. Settling as equals is the only way this can be done. Change the leadership and a lot of possibilities open up.

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:12 PM
Uh, Armand Leone can't give out the information on how USET is funded because "it's a work in progress" and he "can't let that information out of the office"?????

HOW MANY YEARS have people been asking him to do this? And when he's asked for it by a woman he says you should've asked me before not here at this meeting & she says I asked you months & months ago and you (Armand)said 'give me 2 weeks' and I still haven't seen it...Armand says "that's the way you recall the conversation".

Aarrgghh. When he's called on something and directly confronted with a lie he simply denies the conversation ever took place. I can't believe what I'm hearing.

dublin
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:16 PM
He certainly sounded VERY defensive in responding to the questions posed by Karen O'Connor.

And his comment that the USET and USAEq are roughly equal financially is pretty amazing, given the USET's debt and current financial state.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Things are certainly getting very interesting in the meeting right now!

~~~~~~~~
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller
Proud member of the Thoroughbred Clique

poltroon
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:22 PM
Point made that creation of a USET Foundation in no way binds USET creditors to go after the Foundation - they will go where there is money, and if the new NGB has equal representation of USA Eq and USET, creditors will be able to argue successfully that the new NGB is liable for past USET debt.

Heather
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:24 PM
wow, I'm extremely impressed with Sam barish. I'd heard him described as a "quiet go-getter" and boy is that true. Great comments, right to the heart, but not aggressive or nasty.

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:27 PM
Thanks, Dublin. According to Portia, the request for the financial info was from Mrs. Johnson. So AL just in effect called Mrs. Johnson a liar. Great. Every time I think he can't top himself, he does. Glad to see these open meetings are giving him more and more rope each time.....

I can see why AB requested that, because each side keeps giving out it's own version of what happens at meetings and in conversations, that therefore EVERY meeting should be open to the equine media and to the public, is an excellent suggestion. Please GOD I hope they do it. I really, really believe that if more people listen to what these "leaders" actually are saying, they won't be able to lie about it when they publish their little press releases.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:28 PM
Sheila Johnson: Asked for a USET financial statement last October and hasn't received one yet. Also, tell us where the financial support comes from.

AL: It primarily comes from individuals. As a USET trustee, she can get the data if she comes to the USET offices to examine the books.

SJ: So you can send me a financial statement, you have that?

AL: No, you have to come look at it.

Disagreement between AL and Mrs. Johnson about her request for financial data. She says she has a fax machine and he could provide the financial statement, but AL says its confidential and trustees can look at it but they can't just send them out of the office. Mrs. Johnson says she wish she had known that last week when she was there.

Karen O'C: Would love to believe the USET was as stable as he says it is, but now 8 weeks from the WEG, how much will her owners have to pay to get there?

AL: Her owners won't have to pay anything. The eventing budget they passed last year is funded. Up through June it was 80% funding, and there is additional funding available for eventing, showjumping, and dressage, but the door is not closed yet. Eventing, dressage, and

KOC: Eventing budget was cut substantially earlier this year, and developing rider programs were cut completely. Other funding issues. Experience this year is that the USET is not nearly as financially stable as AL now claims.

AL: Eventing is funded. As an athlete, you should be grateful for that.

Denny Emerson: Usually Denny humour, though cleaned up. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Re leadership, both Armand and Alan are necessary. Its so complex, can't throw out the people who know what they are doing. Need to meld the orgs but not change the leadership to do it. (applause)

Louise Otten: Read everything and has been on the internet and so on. One thing stood out, we all left the convention in January so excited that this new NGB was on its way to be formed and we all felt positive. Couldn't figure out what happened and how we got in a bigger mess than ever. One thing she read that stood out is from Rich Young's letter summarizing how mediation broke down, talks about USA Eq is that after due diligence was done they were worried about assuming liabilities of USET. Solution was to modify the Cinci structure so it would be a consolidation rather than a merger and USET would restructure itself so all liabilities would flow to new USET Foundation. What happened next, if that stumbling block was resolved?

AB: Louise has put her finger on the key issue. In the mediation, Rich Young felt that if USA Eq was protected on the downside, it would be OK. However, what he didn't mention was how USA Eq would be protected on the upside. Not just the liabilities, but what assets USET could bring forward into the org. Solution the negotiators came up with without AB involvement was for secret ballot elections of the administrative people with self-nominations, and neither AL nor AB would stand for election. USET rejected that.

Peter (?): on successor liability, creation of USET Foundation and shuffling assets to that entity did not protect the new org from USET creditors. Creditors could still come after the newly created org, 50% of which would be the original debtor the USET, and seek the money from that new org.

Sam Barish: Thinks USAEq has tried very hard to settle this over the last year. When you speak of leadership change, what you mean is that Alan Balch needs to go (AL: that's certainly part of it). What SB does not understand is how one person can be so important that it would prevent settlement of such an important matter and his resignation would open up many possibilities. How can his resignation be that important.

AL: It is more important than any one person. Would like to tell you that trust is something you can take out of your pocket and put on the table. The events of the last year has created such a lack of trust that the USET officers do not believe that any solution agreed with AB involved would go forward as agreed. No one person is so important that they are indispensible. Many qualified people can lead the sport and no one person should stand in the way of the resolution.

Joe Dotolli: AB said a few times that we'll have plenty of time to hear from the other side, and hopes that no one who disagrees is considered the other side. The cost in money and lost opportunity has been staggering. We are in a downward spiral of personality clashes and he said/she said. The only possibility we have to resolve this is a fresh look at the situation. Whether that means a change at the top or a change in the negotiating team or both, that is up to the board. (applause)

???: We're all tired and we want to get this settled. It's not about whether AL and AB like each other or not. Five independent people have made a recommendation, and we should follow it. We're at war with the USET, and now its been suggested that we go to war with the USOC too. It's time for a new look and new leadership. Why should they change -- because they've failed.

jlm
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:32 PM
Kent Allen - great speech.

We elected the leaders of USAE and we will stand behind them.

Arbitration is the only way to resolve this. USET has walked away several times. Arbitration will force both to resolution and won't let anyone walk away.

Heather
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:32 PM
Yeah Kent Allen--basically saying that arbitration is the way to go because then USET can't get up and walk away from the table as they've done time and time again. That a group of mediators can't get it done, but in arbitration everyone will have to get together and work it out--the legal version of the "locking the door and not letting anyone out until it's settled."

M. O'Connor
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:35 PM
Not a BOD, so no mike?

MCL

dublin
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:39 PM
I think at this time they are taking questions from the Board of Directors, and will let other people who are not on the Board pose questions later on?

poltroon
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:42 PM
Can I just say how great this is. It is a pleasure to hear so many articulate, intelligent points made by so many thoughtful individuals. My confidence in USA Eq just went up a few notches.

Heather
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:43 PM
Financial liabilities are not an issue?

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:43 PM
Kent Allen: He was on the SPI and recalls one of the first things AL said in that process was that the SPI was going to cost a lot of money and he'd rather see it spent on the team. Which was strange to say entering into a strategic planning process. The future of resolving this lies in an arbitration. The reason is that the USET has walked away from the process numerous times, and there is nothing to make them stay in a new process. They can't walk away from arb. These sides must be forced to come to a solution, and its not any single personality and saying that opportunities open up if you get rid of one person isn't the point. He was at the USOC hearing and that didn't give him a lot of faith in the USOC. Telling us we have to get rid of our leadership -- we elected them, and they're our leaders.

Jim Brown: Sounds to him like we are within a gnats breath of reaching an agreement. If we all vote our hearts, he does not see how the proposal put forth by the [USOC ?] [USA Eq?]is so difficult to reach, and we can all agree.

Sue Ashe: Tired of the personality conflicts, whether you like Alan or not. Held over our heads that the USOC had an envelope and when it was opened, that would be it. They've decided. So she thinks we should go with what the USOC recommended and that's it. (applause)

King Penneman (sp??): Re what Kent said, rather than somebody else forcing a resolution, it's the fiduciary responsibility of everyone here at the table to force a resolution. Question is why can't the board vote today to force the implementation of the Cinci model that we agreed to in Charlotte?

AB: We could, but the Cinci model has lots of holes [missed part of it]. Critical problem with the Cinci model is how it represents the various factors of the sport. Wants it out in the open so everyone can understand the issues and concerns involved.

AL: What was set out in the mediation of the Cinci model implemented everything. The reason
mediation stopped was because the other party came to the table and kept changing its position, and told the USET that it wasn't equal, and that's why things fell apart in Denver.

Kathy Meyer: Why the Cinci model can't be implemented in more detail. Successor liability is a major issue. Cinci model is a merger, and it was after the USET liability came out that even the mediator agreed the Cinci model would not work.

King Penneman: If you create a structure where you could not pierce the corporate veil, then you could do that.

KM: But that's not the Cinci model. We could come up with ways to do that. We are so close, and we need an expanded audience to help use work it out. But it is not so simple as to think we can just go back to the Cinci model. Nor can we just say agree on a broad structure and leave the details to later, because it is when the details are discussed that things break down.

AL: Doesn't agree with Peter Alkalay's analysis re successor liability. Says the USA Eq has about $1 million in accounts payable and the USET has about $500,000, so both sides have liabilities. Financial liabilities are not an issue in the model put forward by the mediator.

DMK
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:48 PM
OK, for those of us listening, can someone tell me why these organizations cannot do the following:

Create the USET Foundation to protect the successor in interest to the degree it does (it doesn't, but by the proposal put forward by the USAEq, they have indicated a willingness to accept some of that potential liability). Compromise: USAEq assets may end up paying some of the creditors, should they come knocking

Adopt the 5/5/5/5 Board of Directors, with the 5 athletes and the 5 administrative members elected in secret elections, with officers breaking a tie. Compromise: each side has 5 appointed directors and 5 elected representatives.

Agree that AL and AB will step down in 18 months and will agree to never run/accept appointment/be hired by the successor organization. Either can be free to create their own empires. Compromise: Both Evil Doers will ultimately be gone, but they will be able to create a proper transition environment.

Is it just me, or is this not rocket science?

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:55 PM
YAY! for the saddle horse lady who (to a round of applause) said that like earlier speakers she supports USAEq leadership and admires all they've accomplished this year in spite of everything going on. She made it clear that USAEq leadership is liked and supported and uh, USET, don't you get that yet? (She didn't say that last part in those words but it was great to hear her telling USET that USAEq leadership had a lot of support).

jr
Jul. 9, 2002, 12:58 PM
DMK -- much too sensible an approach. I think the personalities involved have already demonstrated their innate lack of common sense.

So many personal agendas, so little time. The only ones to suffer are the thousands of members, the elite equestrian athletes, and the horses. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

DMK
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:01 PM
I actually tried to submit the above question on the conference site, but it was too long. Even after I shortened it to the point of incomprehension. But I though incomprehension was the sporting way to go... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

jr
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:02 PM
I should also say that I don't personally know all of the ins and outs of the legal maneuverings, or people involved....

But as a long time member of USA EQ (AHSA), it seems like that organization has been making progress, opening up the organization to the membership. I would hope that any change in leadership necessitated by this equine version of the WWF doesn't derail the trend.

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:21 PM
Ray Texel was great. He said that as an athlete he's judged on results. He sees no results here. He has to go back and athletes ask him what's going on and he has to say 'Nothing's going on. Nothing is happening.'

He said it's embarrassing. We hear talk of finances and personalities but no talk about the athletes and isn't this supposed to be about the athletes? He pretty much told both sides that they've become embarrassing laughingstocks.

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:23 PM
OK, Portia, who was that guy who pointed out all USAEq's accomplishments in the past 5 years and said that in no way could you say nothing had been done and the admin. was a failure.

Good point.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:23 PM
Tom Struzzierri: How much will the arbitration cost?

Bill Roos: Can't be said. The USOC rules have timelines, but those timelines are routinely extended, so you can't rely on them. Arbitration is a quicker process than litigation. Much of the work that was done for Austin can be reused.

Peter Alkalay: Timelines are defined by the AAA rules. Only timeline in the USOC rules are the 30 days after a final decision to file for arbitration. About the challenge process, [missed part of it] legistlative history was that the USOC was a highly politicized place and the only way the challenger or the incumbent could get to a fair and impartial body would be through arbitration.

TS: Sounds to him like its headed to arb anyway. Is there a way to avoid arb? With the plan on the wall (the USA Eq officers proposal), he disagrees that the negotiating team can be made as large as suggested.

AB: Agrees with that, but they are trying to find a way that those who are interested can be involved and at the least observe the process and make up their own minds.

TS: To avoid arbitration, how do we bring the USET back to the party to resolve this? As a problem solving situation we need to bring the USET to the party to get this resolved. Personally, he believes they should have a new negotiating team. Would the USET agree to meet with a new negotiating team if the officers haven't stepped down.

Mary Anne Cronan: As a director of USET I have sat through meetings and that we have accomplished all of this despite what has gone on this year is impressive. She supports the current USA Eq leadership. If the USET will not come to the table unless USA Eq changes its leadership, then we're wasting our time talking about this plan or that plan, and arbitration is the only course. (applause)

Ray Cernigan: Don't need any more division between the national and international divisions. Makes a motion that we adopt the USA Eq July 2002 Model for the merger of the two orgs.

Sam Barish: doesn't think this is the proper way to go now [the July 2002 model]. Had a lot of discussion but not making any progress. If USET isn't going to participate, and if AB isn't going to resign, then we're headed toward arb, at a tremendous cost. Does anybody have any ideas how we can get out of this?

Michelle Gibson: If AB were to resign, would AL resign [AL: Yes, would follow the USOC recommendation]. Who would take your place if you both resigned? [AL: That would be a board desicion, both boards.] Thinks its important that both AL and AB are the people who have the history and the knowledge, so does not think resignation of these people is the way to go. Would the USET agree to come back and negotiate if the negotiating teams were expanded and the process made more public, to reduce the personalities and the he said/she said. As an athlete does not believe the USET understands the sport. So, would the USET agree to come back and negotiate with expanded negotiating teams?

AL: Maybe both AL and AB are too close to the issue. May not be a personality issue. If we as leaders haven't accomplished our goal, then we've failed and we should go, just like a CEO. On the adding to the negotiating team, can't agree to that. The USET board voted to support the USOC recommendation and he can't agree to deviate from that.

Natasha Grigg: As a USA Eq board member, as the org that is the NGB, we must proceed to act as the NGB. We are not allowed to delegate, but it is clear we have delegated to USET. So, from now on the NGB must act as NGB and not delegate. We must act as NGB starting now. Does not believe this is the time to create a power vaccuum. Need to go forward now and act as the NGB and hopefully continue negotiating.

NG: Reiterates that she does not support the officers resigning. [Missed some things].

Jerry Gillespie: Strongly agree that we must go forward to act as a first rate NGB, and we must give all due diligence to support the breeds and disciplines that are our primary responsibility. We have made substantial progress in that regard over the last decade. Question for AL, in my experience with non-profit orgs and public orgs, you can provide a certain amount of shield for donors. As part of the NGB, the USET would be accountable for your finances to another org, and I think that is a good thing. With the rather vague financial report AL gave today, would the USET be willing to be more open, as would be required by becoming part of the NGB.

Elizabeth ________: Likes to focus on the similarities rather than the differences. Does not understand why changing personalities would change the devotion to the central concerns. If there is an issue regarding the financial liabilities of either org, why didn't the mediator discuss it, or did they? Confused by the conflicting statements about the USET finances. Money seems to be an issue.

Peter Alkalay: Matters of financing should be and ought to be independently verifiable, and that's what financial statements do. So it doesn't matter what the leaders say, since it can be independently verified.

Elizabeth: But as directors of this org and not on the negotiating team, we don't have access to that info.

PA: At the hearing in Oct. much of the USET's true financial status was disclosed, as it needed to be. What also came out in the hearing was a deep concern about USET's methods of funding and accounting. Panel recognized that the USET as challenger had not met its burden to show that it had the financial capacity to meet its own needs much less those of the

AL: Never any expression at the hearing or in the report that the USOC was concerned about the USET raised money. Did find that neither org met the requirements to be NGB. We had legal bills mounting, and it was impossible to raise money during that time. However, our financial situation has changed and has improved.
So now you can do due diligence again and independently verify the USET financials. He failed to resolve the dispute, so he's going to step down as part of a combined solution.

Ray Texel: As an athlete he lives day by day according to the results. Horse owners want results, if I were a horse owner and this was the situation, I'd pull you off the horse and take the ride away because there haven't been any results. Might be willing to take a year. Doesn't know about big business, but does know how to run an operation. He came out of nowhere and nearly made the Olympic team. He wants to do what Anne K and David O'Connor have done, specifically what David has done. Embarassing to go back to West Coast and report that nothing is going on. We have no team, we are not going to win any medals at the WEG this year. Embarassed to hear what is being said in Europe about our country and what is happening. Doesn't see any hope for what is happening to be resolved, but we need to come up with something. [applause]

Jeanine Malone: The summaries she's heard are so polarized and there's so much from an individual perspective that the past should all be thrown out. We know we are not going to agree on what has happened, on what is right or what is wrong. Many athletes will support what USET has done, many people here will agree USA Eq has done a lot to clean up its act in the last years. Doesn't want to talk about the past anymore. Doesn't think the USA Eq July 2002 plan will work because it looks to be too focused on USA Eq. Arb may be a necessary evil, both orgs could end up worse than they are now. Challenge everyone here not to talk about the past anymore but find some people who will move forward and get this done before it goes to arb. Doesn't see anything that can't be overcome. Get some different people to work with the existing people and work something out.

Keith Bartz: Does not see our leadership as being a failure. Discussed things for the last 2 hours and not resolved the issue. But if you listen to the reports from the first 2 hours about how the org has improved and what has been done for the grass roots, refuses to think of our president or the other officers, or staff as failures. Things are a hell of a lot better than they used to be. [applause]

[Edited to correct the name of the Mary Ann who spoke about supporting USA Eq's leadership to Mary Ann Cronan]

[This message was edited by Portia on Jul. 11, 2002 at 01:13 PM.]

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:36 PM
Kent Allen: Proposed amendment to Cerniga's motion to endorse the July 2002 model, that we accept the outline and have leeway to negotiate and resolve it, but when the deadline for arb arrives, then we must proceed with arb.

Cerniga: Agrees with amendment to motion.

Really really had to take a break here and missed a few minutes. Discussion of the USA Eq 2002 proposal. Something about who the negotiators should be. Debate on what the contents of the motion should be.

TS: Amendment that the new negotiating team would not include Alan or Armand.

RCerniga: accepted the amendment

Basheer: Motion is that this board take this model July 2002 and direct its negotiating team to try to come to a solution with the USET, and that neither AB nor AL be part of the negotiating team, and if the matter has not been resolved by the time the deadline for arb has been reached, then steps be taken to initiate arb.

VOTE ON MOTION: 39 yes. 2 No 2 Abstention

Sonesta
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:36 PM
Finally a vote to force it to arbitration if they don't resolve it by the arb deadline!

"Find something you love & call it work."

DMK
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:37 PM
Proposed motion to present attached plan (or some variation) to the USET with a negotiation team that does not include AL and AB, and if this does not suceed to move to arbitration.

39 yes 2 no votes 2 abstain

Motion is carried

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

DMK
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:38 PM
Damnit portia, you type too fast! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AL feels as long as the negotiation is not "hemmed in" by the 4 corners of the plan, he can recommend negotiation to the board.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sonesta:
Finally a vote to force it to arbitration if they don't resolve it by the arb deadline!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that's only USAEq. This in no way means USET agrees to arbitration, right? USAEq has always tried to talk and USET has always walked.

Heather
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:41 PM
Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but the USET is bound to arbitration by right of the involvement with the USOC. The point of going to arbitration is that the USET can't walk away.

DMK
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:43 PM
Denny has bought up the excellent suggestion that there needs to be a highly paid executive running the organization.

AB points out that as long as there is a chairman above that is elected/appointed the suggestion is good.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:47 PM
David O'C: To AL, do you feel you have to go back to your board and ask them to negotiate?

AL: I feel I have to go back to my board and tell them what happened here and what you adopted. Responding to question about what he will say, AL says that as long as the negotiations aren't confined to the exact four corners of the July 2002 Model, then there might be some hope [I think that's what he said -- I missed part of it].

Denny: Being USA Eq president is a full time job, and Alan essentially acts as an unpaid exec director. Everybody in this room thinks there's going to be an amalgamated org a year from now. We're not going to achieve this on the backs of a volunteer on the phone 3 nights a week, it's going to be done by a highly paid Exec Director or a paid President. Both AL and AB need to go back and get with their people and figure out how to get this done. Rabin and Sadat didn't like each other but they both got together and got it done -- 'cept they both got ended up getting shot.

AB: Endorses what Denny said except for the part about getting shot. Paying the Exec Director or the President is something that has been discussed and is probably not an issue.

AL: Has to run to catch a plane and does not want his leaving to be misconstrued as disrespectful.

Someone reads statement from Laura Kraut, who's plane from Calgary was cancelled: As an athlete has had experience of USA Eq and been very pleased with its efforts and with the direction it has taken. The best result would be a consolidation that joins the strenght of the two orgs together. Wants to make clear that she vehemently supports David O'Connor and the current leadership of USA Eq. Firmly supports the direction USA Eq has taken. Very upset not to be able to be there to express her feelings in person.

DMK
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:48 PM
Someone read a statement from Laura Kraut, expressing her vehement [that's a quote, folks] support for David O'Connor and the USAEq leadership, and her wish that we could develop an organization that combined the best of USET and USAEq.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

brilyntrip
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:54 PM
who was nominated to board??

DMK
Jul. 9, 2002, 01:56 PM
Very early in the meeting, Andrew Ellis was elected as a Director.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

Erin
Jul. 9, 2002, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
Denny: Rabin and Sadat didn't like each other but they both got together and got it done -- 'cept they both got ended up getting shot.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DMK
Jul. 9, 2002, 02:02 PM
Constitutional amendments on the table were deferred to next meeting. Basically the amendments were to clarify the NGB-ness of it all (not my words /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), but AB and others felt in light of the previous amendment, the passage of the amendments would be considered uneccessarily provocative [by the USET], and the amendments were deferred.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

Anne FS
Jul. 9, 2002, 02:12 PM
And now that the USET has re-applied and been approved for re-affiliation with USAEq, USET is bound to uphold the new USAEq constitution.

Does this automatically mean that they must participate in arbitration?

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 02:18 PM
Some discussion that couldn't be heard, apparently about whether non-voting members would be allowed to speak. Brasheer applogizes for having forgotten about that in the midst of the voting. Apparently someone is talking from the floor but isn't anywhere near a mike so we can't hear a thing. Herb? Something about how he would comment if the vote hadn't already occurred and his comments might not fall on deaf ears, but that has already happened and he was going to do something else. I don't know.

It was Sheila Johnson who read Laura Kraut's letter.

NGB issue over and the chair is returned to AB. No objection to attaching Laura's letter and the other documents to the report of the meeting.

All further Exec Comm meetings will be open to all directors and to equestrian meetings. Up to now, any director who wants to attend an Exec Comm meeting by telephone could do so, but unforturnately there was an old form heldover from the New York days saying they would have to come to Lexington [formerly NYC] to participate, and that was a mistake and they apologize.

AB: Still have a quorum. Consideration of proposed Constitutional changes, as previously published. Because 4 officers vote to put forward a proposed amendment does not mean they endorse them, only that they are fit to come forward at this time. But are any of these critical for right now?

Bill Roos: Thinks we have an NGB Constitution right now, but thinks these proposals improve the NGBness of our Constitution.

Linda Allen: Move to hold discussion to the next duly noticed meeting of the board.

Natasha Grigg: When are we going to do this? She and a few others are also on USET board and are part of leadership(?? not clear on that part), so why do we have to wait for all the USET people to be here. We need to move forward and get this done.

Kathy Meyer: Agrees with NG that we need to move forward and these will help get a resolustion.

AB: Not sure if moving forward with adopting these proposals will be effective if they are not necessary and if there adoption may give an unintended negative appearance that might be misconstrued and counter-productive.

Going to be expanding the planning and NGB advisory committees. NHJC offered 4 new names, who will be added. Those meetings will be held largely in the open where they can be observed by media and everyone else.

LA explains what happened in the mediation with respect to the proposed constitution of the hunters and jumpers and their representation in the restructured org, and how to reconcile that one is a national discipline and the other is an international discipline. Jill Chalmers, one of the mediators made a proposal including a recommendation for the elimination of the NHJC, and Linda re-wrote that as a suggestion to try to soften what the mediator proposed. Those documents will be made public.

Various housekeeping matters on the end of the agenda, national and international date approvals, deferring things to the next duly noticed meeting of the Exec Comm, open to the public. Except for approving the teams and chef for the Blainville CDI, which has to be voted on because the deadline is coming up. That's approved.

Approval of no foreign substances group and therapeutic substance groups issue, with endurance being the only no foreign substance group. Oversight that it wasn't adopted at Charlotte. Approved now.

Gillespie: Endurance has always chosen to have a no foreign substance charter. That is now in conflict with a new FEI rule that requires use of anti-ulcer drug. FEI rule has caused a great deal of consternation in Endurance as a whole and in the US. It became one of the issues behind Endurance withdrawing from the national federation, thinks the federation should consider this issue and support the discipline in this regard.

AB: Explains that the Endurance community in US wants an even stricter no foreign substance rule than the FEI. Complicated issue that the directors should pay attention to.

Introduces other people from Host Communications (Sam ____ and Ward ______) who have presentation to make, but not sure if they're time or energy to do it. One of them says they're prepared to present it but the're worn out too. Summarizes it that they've been working on our behalf and have started the process of getting the sport recognized by corporate America, have the concept of an equestrian tour, and it's moving.

Adjourned!

wtywmn4
Jul. 9, 2002, 02:29 PM
Bless you Portia

As always you are phenomenal!!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 9, 2002, 02:34 PM
and only heard two out-and-out morons speak.

Two out-and-out morons and one petulant man.

Amazing, huh?

Erin
Jul. 9, 2002, 02:37 PM
Thanks Portia! Always nice to have the quick synopsis for those of us who can't listen in real-time. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So, those of you who listened (or attended... I'm sure we'll hear from Weatherford and SGray shortly /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), what were your impressions?

[This message was edited by Erin on Jul. 09, 2002 at 05:46 PM.]

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 02:41 PM
I really promised myself I wasn't going to sit here and try and type insta-summaries of a 5 hour meeting. But I couldn't help myself. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's become habit. Too many hours spent taking notes on joint defense group calls with 40 lawyers talking. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Therese
Jul. 9, 2002, 02:52 PM
Thanks Portia!

For those of us unable to listen in due to work (it always gets in the way! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) your synopsizes (that spelling is from MS Word) were great!

--Therese
****************************
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

-Douglas Adams The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Sonesta
Jul. 9, 2002, 02:56 PM
Portia, you were phenomenol! We won't tell your partners how you spent your day!

"Find something you love & call it work."

Hermes
Jul. 9, 2002, 02:57 PM
5 hours and 20 minutes. the web cast thing worked well for me after an initial crisis causing me to miss the first 20 minutes which I think was the rollcall.

Denny Emerson is the best... what a great way to rollout an important point in a nice way with humor.

For those of you actually in attendance, please report on how many people were in attendance.

Also, please clarify was it Armand that had an arrogant condescending tone in his reply to Karen O'Connor? I was taping the Webcast but had to turn down the volumn to take a business call. I tuned back in to what sounded like a harsh exchange of words...something like, "don't worry, YOU are paid for." If you can fill in the blanks, please do.

Alan Balch was very diplomatic and orchestrated the meeting with impressive skill...juggling all those personalities.

I'll be interested in reading John Strassburger's report which I guess will be available tomorrow?

dublin
Jul. 9, 2002, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, those of you who listened (or attended... what were your impressions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I listened to the vast majority of it, and was very impressed with the tough questions that were asked, and how well the active athletes expressed themselves and their views. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I must admit that Armand Leone's speaking voice unfortunately just set my teeth on edge. He seemed terribly defensive, evasive, and dismissive in his responses - I wonder how he appeared to those who were actually present at the meeting?

Alan Balch came off much better in terms of what he said, and how he expressed it.

I wonder if the USET will in fact agree to negotiation with USAEq (minus AL and AB), in accordance with the USAEq motion that was approved?

All in all, it was an interesting and thought-provoking meeting, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to listen to it through the Webcast.

Thanks again to Portia and DMK for all those thorough and quick summaries of what was transpiring!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

~~~~~~~~
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller
Proud member of the Thoroughbred Clique

phanilah
Jul. 9, 2002, 03:24 PM
Also, please clarify was it Armand that had an arrogant condescending tone in his reply to Karen O'Connor? [/QUOTE]
******************************************

I thought he was a bit pissy to her. I also thought his response to the request for financial info was also a bit abrupt and snotty....not to mention ridiculous. Sure, he has no problem sharing USET financial info.....BUT.....you have to be able to come to the USET offices in person.

All in all, I was impressed with the overall discussion on the topic. Some very eloquent points were made and just about every view possible was presented.

Beth

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 9, 2002, 03:36 PM
was very pissy to Karen O'Connor. His answer was not only pissy, it was incredibly condescending.

He spoke down to her as if she had no right to ask questions, as "her" funds are and have been in place.

That spoke volumes about him, and all of the listening world got to hear it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

vineyridge
Jul. 9, 2002, 03:40 PM
I'm catching up.

How come USET doesn't just pay off its debts with the generosity of its board and an appeal to the masses so it CAN come to the table as an equal.

Have an professional fund raiser do the raising and have the money put in escrow.

If everything for this year is already funded, why can't they do that?

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 9, 2002, 03:40 PM
I think Mr. Langer, Mr./Dr./Atty. Leone, and Mr. HITS really thought they would walk into that meeting and force some sort of ouster!

Instead, AL sounded rude, LL sounded sullen and petulant, and TS sounded dumb when he admitted they can't write a business plan.

All in all, an interesting day.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 9, 2002, 03:42 PM
when they can't even write a business plan?

Students in business college are taught to write business plans ....... so why can't these hot shots get it together?

I am reminded of the old saying concerning better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and prove yourself to be one.....

poltroon
Jul. 9, 2002, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by phanilah:
I also thought his response to the request for financial info was also a bit abrupt and snotty....not to mention ridiculous. Sure, he has no problem sharing USET financial info.....BUT.....you have to be able to come to the USET offices in person.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was Sheila Johnson he was talking to... she is a trustee, and she is entitled to the information. I thought his lecture about it being confidential and so they didn't want copies leaving the office was, uh, interesting. Presumably they have confidentiality agreements with their trustees, and should be able to trust them with the information? I can understand them being pissy about faxing those documents to AB, given that he's got an ex-oficio trusteeship, but presumably Mrs. Johnson was invited... She's a smart businesswoman and certainly understands a nondisclosure and the responsibility of a trustee.

Or maybe it's just that they have that rule for all the trustees and want to be evenhanded, in which case he should've said so.

And, she was understandably annoyed because she says she's been trying to get this information for some time, and she was at the USET offices last week.

poltroon
Jul. 9, 2002, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:

Denny: Being USA Eq president is a full time job, and Alan essentially acts as an unpaid exec director. Everybody in this room thinks there's going to be an amalgamated org a year from now. We're not going to achieve this on the backs of a volunteer on the phone 3 nights a week, it's going to be done by a highly paid Exec Director or a paid President. Both AL and AB need to go back and get with their people and figure out how to get this done. Rabin and Sadat didn't like each other but they both got together and got it done -- 'cept they both got ended up getting shot.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Someday I gotta pack myself up and go be a working student for Denny for a while! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mjh
Jul. 9, 2002, 03:47 PM
Did anyone catch that from here on out the meetings are to be 'open'?

Does that mean just open as in anyone can go to Kentucky. Or does that mean more webcasts?

Hermes
Jul. 9, 2002, 04:28 PM
All in all the technology did make it possible for me to follow-up along, however in the future, it would be helpful to have the speakers state their name before they start talking or even better yet, the visual screen could show their name. That way all of us that are listening via Webcast could follow along a little better. For example, I didn't realize it was Sheila Johnson asking a few of those important questions and reading the letter from Laura Kraut.

Also, I'd have to go back over the tape(s) to be sure but I thought after the vote about Balch and Leone stepping off the negotiating committee that all of a sudden Leone "had to leave?" For those of you that were there, did he leave early to stick it out until 5:20 p.m.?

mjh
Jul. 9, 2002, 04:33 PM
I had my headphones on for most of it. I have to admit I didn't concentrate on it for the whole time because I was doing work at the same time.

When Mr. Leone had to leave, he announced very strongly that he had to leave for business reasons and he DID NOT want it to appear it was USAE / USET related.

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sonesta:
We won't tell your partners how you spent your day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmph. I was supposed to be AT the dang meeting in person, until a client interferred yesterday about 1/2 hour before I was to leave for the plane. So I dared them to bitch at me about it today! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Then of course, as could be predicted, yesterday's "emergency' has now become something that the client has put off doing -- again! You and the other lawyers (and accountants, and business types, and ...) understand. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Portia
Jul. 9, 2002, 04:59 PM
The resolution that was passed today is in favor of following the outlines of the USA Eq July 2002 Plan, which is either available on the equestrian.org website as part of the meeting materials or will be soon, I'm sure. Part of that plan is that all the negotiations from now on will be open to whoever wants to attend (live or by phone, or maybe webcast) and to equestrian media so that they are public and everybody can make their owns evaluations about what happens and not have it filtered through either side's spin.

I think that is a wonderful development, IF the USET will agree with it. Remember that this is just what USA Eq decided to do, while USET has previously voted to endorse the USOC hearing panel recommendation. So now, the USET has to decide whether it wants to come back and negotiate, with the knowledge that if they don't and it doesn't get settled, USA Eq is going to file an arbitration challenging the USOC action, and the dispute will finally and definatively be decided by the arbitrators, one way or another.

Given the truly eggregious legal infirmaties of the USOC panel recommendation (converting the challenge to some hybrid of a challenge and a grievance, ordering things it has no statutory power to order, etc.), I hope the USET can see that it is unlikely the USOC ruling would be upheld by a panel of 3 neutral arbitrators. Hopefully, therefore, the prospect of such an arbitration may make the USET willing to return to the table and negotiate in good faith.

Lord Helpus
Jul. 9, 2002, 05:29 PM
I was there--- a very interesting afternoon. And it turned out just as I hoped it would, with AB and Al being barred from the negotiating teams. After all, THAT is the sticking problem, so why have them resign, if the two organizations can get by the negotiations without overlarge egos getting in the way?

I made a note about that early on and, in my quest to find a director in the hall to raise that point, ran across AB and asked him about it. He said that such an idea had been put into the book the directors had been given, but seemingly had been lost in the rhetoric of the afternoon.

So I snuck up to Susie Hutchinson with a note and asked her to raise the question. But she had already been heard on another issue, and at that point, they were only taking questions from people who had not yet spoken. She raised her hand, but was ignored by the "chair", with all the other board members who wanted to speak.

Then, Lo and Behold, that is exactly the amendment that was added onto the initial motion and, to me, was the only substantive one to come out of the afternoon. The original motion (to base further negotiations on the Cincinatti Plan (but only loosely), and to agree to arbitration when the deadline arrived (DUH!) were almost no brainers. The real problem was how to deal with AB and AL. Fire AB? Too drastic. Keep him on? Too contentious. Keep him out of the negotiation process? Just the right plan, but it was not even raised until the very last moment.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eat well, stay fit...die anyway.

DMK
Jul. 9, 2002, 05:32 PM
Had to run to the barn as soon as I logged off the conference call - ponies needed dinner! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

My impressions (such as they are)...

First I will say that AL did not win any good will from me with the way he handled Karen O'Connor and Sheila Johnston's questions, and overall I thought his manner was a tad defensive. But to be fair, a) my judgement is probably colored by past events and b) he was not in "his" home court. Given both of those things, I would say other than the aforementioned incidents, he was well within the acceptable behavior.

I will say some of his comments were not without merit. I was surprised to find that there had been some agreement on the issue of liability prior to the completion of the due diligence. And yes, I did hear that the solution may not completely indemnify the successor organization, but I also heard (or believed I heard) that the USAEq was willing to accept the risk.

The consequences of the upside risk were not as well explained by AB as I would have liked. In theory I understand where he is coming from, but I can't help but think we were at the place that it was time to compromise.

That said, it was not even the beginning of an excuse for the USET to pick up their toys and leave Cincinnati. I can't help but think they were looking for a reason to leave. Also, the USAEq idea put forth as a result of the upside risk - 9 out of 19 members of the Board being elected - was a great idea. 10 appointed, and 9 elected - a balance between people who represent the membership and those that represent the committees. An excellent idea, only improved by David O'Connor's 10/10 (or 5/5/5/5) plan.

I was very pleased with the steps taken to conduct the meeting within Robert's Rules of Orders.

I think AB should hope and pray nobody takes him up on the "more people at the mediation" idea. A+ for involving the membership, but it is still not exactly a known way to succeed at compromise and mediation, despite prior failures along the normal lines.

However, kudos to his idea that from this point forward there should be open meetings including USOC observers. Amen. The people this affects the most have been left in the dark the longest.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

jr
Jul. 9, 2002, 05:55 PM
Thanks Portia. Your fingers must be tired.

Portia
Jul. 10, 2002, 08:21 AM
Thanks everybody.

I thought the point Sam Barish made was one of the best. I didn't know where he was going at first, it sounded like a segue into "Balch shouldn't stand in the way so let's get rid of him." Then when he continued and his point became clear, that is, "Is getting rid of one man really so important to the USET that it outweighs the interests of the sport as a whole and they will sacrifice trying to reach an agreed solution," I was very impressed by it.

My personal impression was that AL's attempt to turn it around and argue that "Balch isn't that important therefore you should force him out so the negotiations can go forward," did not have nearly the same credibility as did Barish's point.

Snowbird
Jul. 10, 2002, 08:44 AM
Whilr everyone was pretty much in favor of the motion including all the officiers and AB with their little green cards. There were two red cards for NO! and two abstained. Peter I could see and he definitely had a red card up, and Armand abstained.

That did not bode well for exactly what he will bring back to the USET Board. A member of the Board asked him if he was willing to bring the motion back to his board and it was a muffeled reply.

Portia
Jul. 10, 2002, 09:21 AM
On the final vote on the motion, I'm guessing by then the writing was on the wall and some who would have voted "no" if they thought they could win went ahead and voted "yes" to be in the majority.

That's a good thing, I think, because it shows they were willing to show a united front and give support to the plan and help in trying to reach a solution on that basis, even though it may not have been their original preference.

poltroon
Jul. 10, 2002, 10:01 AM
I thought about it last night, and was thinking about how very specific he was about EVENTING and then, the other olympic disciplines.

Is there funding uncertainty for transporting teams to the WEG for the other 4 disciplines at this point - reining, endurance, vaulting, driving?

vineyridge
Jul. 10, 2002, 10:44 AM
USET is in a bit of euphoria right now because it thinks it won the USOC hearing. It thinks that if a vacancy is declared and it's been found an equal half of the current NBG situation that it will have an equal shot at being selected with its very well designed plans to take over the administrative functions.

So they will be very hard to deal with on any changes to the USOC plan.

Balch has been removed the USAEq face to face negotiating team. AL has to either be removed by his board in a reciprocal motion, or he has to go back and resign from their committee voluntarily. It seems to me that whichever one of these two happens will say a great deal about the flexibility of the USET on changes to the USOC decision.

They also know that USAEq had voted to go to arbitration. That, to my mind, is the really significant part of this because the arbitrators won't be as impressed with past medals as the USOC obviously is.

My reading is that the USET feels like it's won, and until reality sinks in, with accompanying expenses, they will be hard to settle with.

I foresee no settlement until after the arbitration
factfinding is over.

Please, please, let me be wrong.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 10, 2002, 11:03 AM
I think USET left that meeting yesterday in a state of total puzzlement. I suspect that they had to get together afterward to sort it all out and realize what went on.

When they went to this meeting, they (USET) were all loaded for bear, thinking they would force Alan Balch's ouster. That didn't happen. That had to be a letdown. Having him out of the negotiations is a small victory - they wanted the whole enchilda, which was to have him booted as USAE president. Along with the others on the USAE negotiating team.....

Then, to hear the USAE board back their leaders was also a letdown. And to know that the board of USAE is not afraid of arbitration (although no doubt they would prefer NOT to go there) had to be a letdown.

This is not over by a long shot, but I believe the USET group didn't realize they had been more or less gutted until towards the end.

Only God knows what will be reported back to the USET board. And as one, who like all of you, who has followed this long saga, only God knows what action the USET will take.

Perhaps the USET could follow the USAE and declare that their meetings will be open and in the sunshine - novel concept, huh?

Although I hate the cost of it, I favor arbitration because the USET cannot flouce off in a huff, taking what's left of their marbles and going home.

Portia
Jul. 10, 2002, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by poltroon:
I thought about it last night, and was thinking about how very specific he was about EVENTING and then, the other olympic disciplines.

Is there funding uncertainty for transporting teams to the WEG for the other 4 disciplines at this point - reining, endurance, vaulting, driving?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He was very careful to mention only the 3 Olympic disciplines, and to be careful to say the budgets passed earlier this year, which had been cut substantially, were "funded." I recall quite clearly, however, that at the UOSC Membership & Credentials Committee meeting in San Antonio in February 2001, AL also said several times that all of the athlete programs for that year were "fully funded," which proved to be far from accurate. History (and the testimony at Austin hearing) the has shown that the USET has a creative notion of what "funded" means, and saying a program is "funded" cannot be considered a statement that they have the necessary cash in hand.

The other 4 disciplines either have to come up with the vast majority of the necessary funds on their own or plan on swimming to Jerez.

His Greyness
Jul. 10, 2002, 11:23 AM
I listened to the webcast of the whole meeting and was a bit disappointed that the meeting didn't come to grips with the fundamental, as opposed to personality, issues dividing the USAEq and USET.

Denny Emerson touched on the issue with his reference to the trustees of Independent New England Schools. In the ideal situation the trustees share the same vision as the school management. As I have pointed out before the trustees of non-profit organizations tend to be chosen for their deep pockets and their willingness to make up any budget shortfall in the organization of which they are a trustee.

The trustees of the USET DO NOT share the same vision of international horse sports as the executive committee of the USAEq.

The ugly reality of international equestrian competition is that it depends on a small number of wealthy individuals and, mostly in other countries, commercial organization willing to fork out large sums of money to:

(1) Buy top class competition horses and loan them to leading riders.

(2) Pay for the upkeep and training of these horses.

(3) Contribute to the cost of sending teams to international competitions. (Remember Karen O'Connor's question to Armand Leon about how much her owners were going to have to pay to get to WEG.)

As was pointed out by a West Coast Rider whose name I forget, these owners expect results, or they find another rider.

Although these owners and affluent contributers each have their own beliefs, enough of them amongst the USET trustees appear to believe that "We have the money so we make the rules". The deficit in the USET finances can be remedied at the discretion of these trustees.

The situation is aggravated, but not caused, by Alan Balch sharing with Hillary Clinton the ability to instantly aggravate large numbers of people no matter what the merit of their proposals.

I am extremely disappointed that those individuals, mainly the heads of the individual FEI discipline associations (ADS, USEA, NRHA, etc.), who sit on both the board of the USET and the USAEq, don't appear to have made much of an attempt to reconcile the two organizations. I admit I don't know what went on behind the scenes so I may be a bit unfair in my criticism.

The NGB dispute is going to arbitration because I don't believe negotiations with the USET in the next month will be successful. Unlike most of you "NGB groupies" I have no expectation that truth, justice and the American Way will prevail in arbitration.

Heather
Jul. 10, 2002, 11:35 AM
Speaking as an eventer, you'll have to excuse me if I don't fall all over myself being grateful to the USET for all it's eventing funds.

We've never had the developing rider tours offered to the jumpers and dressage folks, and our budgets are continuously hundred or ten of thousands of dollars LESS than those sports. We have always been the poor stepchildren of the USET--which I'm SURE has nothing to do with that fact that a certain USET bigwig doesn't own an eventer (a dressage horse, a show jumper, and a driving team, but not an eventer).

Though I give AL full bravery marks for speaking to Karen like that--not too many people would take that sort of chance, LOL.

vineyridge
Jul. 10, 2002, 11:44 AM
In answer to someone's question, the reason the meeting was so civilized is that it WAS open.

The problem with open meetings without a Sunshine Law to back it up is that the factions do all their work before they arrive and just speak prepared speeches. There is almost no creativity or spontaneity in an open meeting.

That's why negotiators and mediators always work in private--it's the only place to get true, honest discussion between opposing sides. Of course, afterwards the parties come out and posture to their memberships, but what they say is very useful in determining what are crucial negotiating points.

Balch wants open mediation, and that's because he wants public pressure on the parties. That can only work if he is very of his support and of his position. It's very risky, and almost dooms negotiations to fail. The whole point of mediation is coming up with new and creative ways for the parties to come to agreement. I think from the meeting, USAEq must know that mediation won't work unless it is based to a large extent on the USOC panel decision, especially if the USOC adopts it. The pressure is now on the USOC, since arbitration is pre-ordained before a vote is even taken.

I comepletely agree with His Greyness about the lack of information from the consituent organization trustee. Why aren't those folks more vocal and involved? If they are dual trustees, then why do the two organizations show such different results.

Do the discipline trustees/directors report to their organizations? What are they saying? They are the ones with most at stake here, since they are the ones who will be providing life preservers and rafts for their representatives' swim to the WEG.

I would guess the NJ suit hasn't been re-opened again, since it wasn't mentioned.

Just thinking out loud.

DizzyMagic
Jul. 10, 2002, 11:52 AM
Does anyone have any idea how many people listened in on the webcast? I'm just fascinated by the possibilities of web technology to broaden our ability to be actively involved in all aspects of our sport....

Emily

The best way to predict the future is to create it!

Portia
Jul. 10, 2002, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by His Greyness:
The NGB dispute is going to arbitration because I don't believe negotiations with the USET in the next month will be successful. Unlike most of you "NGB groupies" I have no expectation that truth, justice and the American Way will prevail in arbitration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know, His Greyness, as someone who's law practice is 90% commercial arbitration (domestic and international), I've seen the good and bad of arbitration pretty close at hand. And I still have much more faith in it than in the USOC. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

poltroon
Jul. 10, 2002, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:

He was very careful to mention only the 3 Olympic disciplines, and to be careful to say the budgets passed earlier this year, which had been cut substantially, were "funded." I recall quite clearly, however, that at the UOSC Membership & Credentials Committee meeting in San Antonio in February 2001, AL also said several times that all of the athlete programs for that year were "fully funded," which proved to be far from accurate. History (and the testimony at Austin hearing) the has shown that the USET has a creative notion of what "funded" means, and saying a program is "funded" cannot be considered a statement that they have the necessary cash in hand.

The other 4 disciplines either have to come up with the vast majority of the necessary funds on their own or plan on swimming to Jerez.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, since USA Eq is the NGB, and has responsibility for getting our athletes to the WEG, are they going to pony up funds for the other 4 disciplines?

Yes, I agree.. he very carefully said, "the BUDGET is funded" which could mean very many things depending on what is and isn't in the budget!

(And actually he said it was 80% funded but would be fully funded in time.)

His Greyness
Jul. 10, 2002, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by Portia

I don't know, His Greyness, as someone who's law practice is 90% commercial arbitration (domestic and international), I've seen the good and bad of arbitration pretty close at hand. And I still have much more faith in it than in the USOC. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Portia

I don't disagree that the arbitrators will be less politicized than the USOC. However, I don't think arbitration will guarantee any better a solution.

One issue that nobody wants to tackle is that of funding. The present international structure is supported by a small number of large donors. Some of these donors may choose to pick up their ponies and go home if the future NGB is not to their liking. While a campaign to attract a large number of small donors represents a more democratic solution, none have been successful in the past.

I am not a lawyer. I am a part time environmental regulator who has learned to read enabling regulations, DEP regulations and all the fine print that applies to my activities. As such I have also beem involved in open space preservation. Sometimes large land owners have been extremely aggravated and threatened to break off negotiations because outsiders have been loudly proclaiming what should happen to the land while it is still the landowner's property. Therefore, I can appreciate, even if I don't agree with, the position of some large donors.

jr
Jul. 10, 2002, 01:20 PM
I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but I'm not sure I buy the argument that if the new structure isn't to their liking, the large donors will take their money and go. Go Where? Their choice will be to support the NGB that is recognized, or not participate at all. I can't imagine that a sponsor will let a $1M horse sit the barn and pass on the olympics because they're angry with USAE.

And if they do, I'm not sure I care. This is supposed to be about the horses and their human partners, not egos. If a donor only donates because they get to run the organization, is that the US Equestrian Team or their own private party. Maybe I'm unrealistic, but I would hope that our NGB could be run for the betterment of the sport, not for the specific benefit of a few large $ donors. I suspect there are a lot of folks like me...I have refused to support the USET in the past with my paltry $250 BECAUSE it has often appeared to be run by a small elite group, for a small elite group.

phanilah
Jul. 10, 2002, 01:33 PM
As someone who doesn't have an allegiance to either organization, I hope they continue to keep the mediation process open - so I can hear for myself. Personally, I've found it very frustrating trying to follow this through the publications and forums - because there has been so much polarization of certain issues/people and plenty of obvious bias.

I'm glad I was able to hear the discussion, firsthand, yesterday, because it helped me understand better many of the issues better - without having to sort through the "agenda or preferences" of someone else.

Beth

Albemarle Cty
Jul. 10, 2002, 01:47 PM
One reason and maybe the main reason I like the new USAE is because they are putting their own documents up on their website.

What a great thing. You don't have to guess.

The answers to a lot of these issues are up there.

Their officer report says how they will fund the WEG disciplines. The same report already suggested that Leone and Balch not be in the negotiations from now on, so that was not any concession that I can see by Balch. They put it out there a week before the meeting.

I think the international organizations have their hands full promoting and educating on their specific interest. The funding and all the overall regulation has to come from the NGB. That is what this is all about as I recall. The NGB cannot delegate that, and the USET has shot it's own leg off by starting the whole mess and now forcing the NGB to prevent the USET itself from doing what it used to do.

Stupidity. Total USET stupidity.

Snowbird
Jul. 10, 2002, 01:50 PM
The head honcho of Host Communications said there is a ton of national sponsors that could be available if we end this debacle. It seems to me tht you are all overlooking the possibility that with proper management like the other sports including skating we are a national advertising treasure.

I for one prefer to put my potatoes in the basket with a guy who is a proven performer and modify our attitudes to conform to what is needed.

The other question I had is, didn't I read somewhere that USAE had agreed to make sure that all the WEG stuff would be properly financed? Could Armand be counting on that money just like all the other pledges that may or may not happen?

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 10, 2002, 03:01 PM
and she hasn't even entered the theater yet.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 10, 2002, 03:33 PM
do share it with those of us not as in the know as you......

duggieboyus
Jul. 10, 2002, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anne FS:
Uh, Armand Leone can't give out the information on how USET is funded because "it's a work in progress" and he "can't let that information out of the office"?????

HOW MANY YEARS have people been asking him to do this? And when he's asked for it by a woman he says you should've asked me before not here at this meeting & she says I asked you months & months ago and you (Armand)said 'give me 2 weeks' and I still haven't seen it...Armand says "that's the way you recall the conversation".

Aarrgghh. When he's called on something and directly confronted with a lie he simply denies the conversation ever took place. I can't believe what I'm hearing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "woman" was Shiela Johnson and she seemed very frustrated that she, as a USET Trustee, could not get financial stuff.
It seems strange that the USAE presents financial info here to all board members, but the USET will not give financial info to those who are also USET Trustees.
How can she or anyone make informed decisions without all the information?

Snowbird
Jul. 10, 2002, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It seems strange that the USAE presents financial info here to all board members, but the USET will not give financial info to those who are also USET Trustees.
How can she or anyone make informed decisions without all the information?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does it seem strange? You answered your own question, they don't want informed decisions.

Decisions are made in a vacuum because if the truth be told they would have never been authorized to file the challenge.

duggieboyus
Jul. 10, 2002, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
AL: Doesn't agree with Peter Alkalay's analysis re successor liability. Says the USA Eq has about $1 million in accounts payable and the USET has about $500,000, so both sides have liabilities. Financial liabilities are not an issue in the model put forward by the mediator.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If both have payables, it's one thing, but if one organization has $2 million loan too, I don't see that as equal.

Snowbird
Jul. 10, 2002, 04:18 PM
If you have pledges you count them as cash and then if you have enough you can think your debts are covered. But, if the pledges don't come through then you go broke.

Look a patron says on the phone don't worry I'll give you the million dollars. So, you think the bill is paid. Now, 90 days later you don't have the check or cash. Said patron says the market dropped today I have to wait awhile.

Now, the payables still have the debt, you can't pay but you write it on the books against the pledge. If said patron gets miffed then you may have to declare the debt.

There is a difference between regular payables that cover recurring constant expenses and big commitments that are not covered by cash on hand and depend on the residual effect of pledges being paid.

The USAE has in the bank enough money to cover all of it's payables and has a regular income from shows and members.

The USET has used up all it reserve cash and has a much smaller member base on which to calculate income. If a patron gives them a promisary note that can be taken to the bank and they can borrow against it, but pledges are not promisary notes.

USAE has a base of 80,000 members and 2700 shows every year.

USET has about 1300 members and only the USET class at horse shows. They used to have a wonderful line of products to sell through tack shops that I'm sure produced income.

Armand Leone said at one time that when there was a shortfall the Directors all kicked in to cover the amount, that's no way to balance your budget.

This is how Enron, Xerox and Worldcom got into trouble. To reference to our business you have a yearling colt. He's cost you $25,000 so far but no one knows for sure what he will be worth. You put him on the asset side of the books at $25,000. It looks good but how much cash can you raise by selling him? For sure? not hopefully? You write off his costs as operating expenses and the books look like you have $25,000 in the bank.

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Jul. 10, 2002 at 07:30 PM.]

Hermes
Jul. 10, 2002, 04:32 PM
Perhaps its the big salaries all the USET staff makes that they: can't answer a question when contacted by phone, can't provide accurate information to the media, can't update their Web site, can't raise money, can't provide their own officers with information that they are entitled too, can't be civil when asked a question in a public "open" forum where hundreds of people are listening.

Therefore, the USET is grossly irresponsible and should for the good of the sport, step aside. The writing is on the wall, they are bound to lose and unfortunately at the expense of the riders, dues paying members to both organizations, and to the reputation of the U.S. as a nation competing in an international arena.

As a spectator (via Webcast) I was open-minded in the beginning of what was a long 5 hour 20 min. meeting, I thought with every minute, the USET and their case grew increasingly weaker based on the facts presented, the deportment of the presenter, and the way in which said speaker responded to the questions posed (as in manners and tone).

Just an innocent bystander sharing a few random thoughts...

[This message was edited by Hermes on Jul. 10, 2002 at 11:12 PM.]

duggieboyus
Jul. 10, 2002, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
Sheila Johnson: Asked for a USET financial statement last October and hasn't received one yet. Also, tell us where the financial support comes from.

AL: It primarily comes from individuals. As a USET trustee, she can get the data if she comes to the USET offices to examine the books.

SJ: So you can send me a financial statement, you have that?

AL: No, you have to come look at it.

Disagreement between AL and Mrs. Johnson about her request for financial data. She says she has a fax machine and he could provide the financial statement, but AL says its confidential and trustees can look at it but they can't just send them out of the office. Mrs. Johnson says she wish she had known that last week when she was there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they don't want to show a list of who gives money is one thing, but not even a simple list of revenues and expenses is available to a Trustee. -Wow!

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 10, 2002, 06:16 PM
Period.

Snowbird
Jul. 10, 2002, 06:20 PM
The New Jersey Court told them that...but I guess they don't care.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 10, 2002, 06:20 PM
she can hire an attorney well versed in deciphering such info, and send said attorney to view the USET records.

The attorney can make notes as he or she wishes.

It's disgraceful that she would have to go to such lengths, however.

It would behoove the USET to be forthright and make such info available without Mrs. Johnson having to jump through hoops........

Most non-profits that are correctly and properly run routinely make the info available to all interested parties. One does not have to be a trustee to see the records.

Hermes
Jul. 10, 2002, 06:34 PM
Nonprofit Organizations - Annual Reporting Requirements
Nonprofit organizations are generally required to file an annual information return, Form 990 [IRC ?6033]. The typical annual return specifically states items of gross income, receipts and disbursements, and other information.
Nonprofit organizations not required to file an annual information return (Form 990 or Form 990-EZ):

Churches. (Including affiliated organizations.)
Governmental agencies.
Nonprofit organizations whose gross receipts are less than $25,000.
Private foundations. (File Form 990-PF.)

See IRS Publication 557 for a more detailed list.

Caution: An exempt entity that is not required to file an annual information return, Form 990 or Form 990-EZ, is still responsible for other applicable returns. Examples: Payroll tax returns; or unrelated business income tax return (Form 990-T).

Filing Deadline

The annual return is due by the 15th day of the 5th month after the accounting period ends. If the nonprofit organization has been liquidated, dissolved, or terminated; the return is due by the 15th day of the 5th month after that date. Use Form 2758 to request an extension.

Where To File

All nonprofit organizations file their information and tax returns at the Ogden Service Center, Ogden, UT 84201.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 10, 2002, 06:44 PM
Perhaps Emmet can fill us in in greater detail.

And while you are at it, come out into the light... identify yourself and get credit for being one of the crowd ever in the know!

vineyridge
Jul. 10, 2002, 07:19 PM
What do you mean, JulieMontgomery?

Is there breaking news that isn't posted?

BTW, Hermes, it's the Hunter/Jumper Council that can't come up with a business plan, not the USET. The USET probably has never had or even tried to have a business plan. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Snowbird
Jul. 10, 2002, 08:14 PM
You never know when there is news. If it was not for AB posting everything we all wouldn't know enough to have a dialog.

When someone makes a statement like Emmet did, there is a suggestion that there is news we haven't heard that is coming or happening. That may not be true or it may be true but without full information we won't know and we won't be able to have an opinion.

I just spent time looking at how the NHJC has spent almost 2 million dollars over the past couple of years. Now, I feel that we should be able to say that those persons collecting fees for professional services are not getting the job done. I'd like better explanations as to why and where this money was spent.

So we have a division of philosophy, those who feel we are entitled to know and to be heard and those who feel they know better than we do what should be done and don't want to tell us because we will ask questions expect answers and make them accountable.

I feel we have done it the latter way for the past 100 years and I'd like to see us have a voice and information, because maybe it can be done better.

You're absolutely right, the USET has no business plan and hasn't been asked for one since the Operating Agreement was signed so until now they have been free to do what they wanted.

This argument started because AB as President of USAE felt this affiliate had to permit oversight on the business affairs of the USET.

The NHJC like the USET was, is a committee of the USAE and is supported to the tune of half a million dollars a year. The business plan the USAE was seeking was that the NHJC could like the other associations be independent and self sufficient.

So far, NHJC has no plan that does not involve us being compelled to be members instead of them trying to figure what they can offer so that we want to be members.

Hermes
Jul. 10, 2002, 08:19 PM
Thanks for catching my error, I have amended my earlier posting.

I must admit, I am vague on what the National Hunter Jumper Council is exactly... will go to their Web site and read up on it.

In any event, someone should step in and help them with writing a business plan perhaps? Shouldn't they have had to present one in order to receive funding (like a grant proposal)?

"Research is formalized curiousity. It is poking and prying with a purpose."
-- Anonymous

duggieboyus
Jul. 10, 2002, 09:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hermes:
Nonprofit Organizations - Annual Reporting Requirements
Nonprofit organizations are generally required to file an annual information return, Form 990 [IRC ?6033]. The typical annual return specifically states items of gross income, receipts and disbursements, and other information.
Nonprofit organizations not required to file an annual information return (Form 990 or Form 990-EZ):

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That seems to be the problem. I read somewhere that the USET reported a deficit over 5 million dollars last year, but no official report, audits, or nothing yet. Could it be worse than that?

I heard in the USAE meeting that their reports are complete.

DMK
Jul. 11, 2002, 04:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hermes:
In any event, someone should step in and help them with writing a business plan perhaps? Shouldn't they have had to present one in order to receive funding (like a grant proposal)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Tom Struzzieri made a request that the USAEq assist the NHJC in writing that business plan. I have to say he impressed me when he did that. It ain't easy putting the interest of the sport ahead of your ego, but he paid lip service to that idea in a very public forum. Let's hope both groups put words into action now.

Also, earlier you said that the USET's plan sounded weaker and weaker as the meeting went on. I do have to take a [heretofore undreamed of] moment to defend the USET here (gasp)... The meeting really was the USAEq's show - it was their board meeting, so I tend to think no matter how good (or bad) a case the USET has, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss/strategize the USAEq's plans. It just so happens that they have common board members, so it tends to muddle things up a bit.

If you want to truly analyze both sides positions, you need to look at the transcripts from the USOC hearing [that turned out to not be a hearing]. Both sides had equal time and equal witnesses to present their case.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

buryinghill1
Jul. 11, 2002, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Emmet: and she hasn't even entered the theater yet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, she is sitting back.

Did y'all notice who didn't speak up? Did y'all notice who has never spoken up, for the past 2 years? Don't you find the silence of many BOD's and industry leaders interesting?

lauriep
Jul. 11, 2002, 06:20 AM
Emmett is now, and has been for the last 30 years, involved at the top level of showing, both hunters and jumpers, and has the utmost respect of all the top names on the show jumping circuit today. Because of this respect, and her longevity in the sport, she has access to sources of information we can only speculate at. It is for the reason that she IS still involved that she must be careful of what she can say on this BB. Still a lot of vindictiveness out there, you know.

Trust me on this until she chooses to make herself known to you. Those that do know who she is won't dispute this, hmmm yd, abby, weatherford, et al?

Laurie

Caruso
Jul. 11, 2002, 06:30 AM
I think this is the first time Sheila Johnson has openly argued with the USET. Be prepared to see her ousted from the Board - although, since she is also a BIG sponsor, it may not happen.

I heard a rumor that needs verifying that the USET filed a suit in NJ Court against Mr. Balch on Tuesday. As the USAEq was so kindly SEATING the USET Board members.

Can any of our NJ people verify this? This needs to be OPEN not SECRET information!!!

Caruso
Jul. 11, 2002, 06:33 AM
Unless this the information to which Emmett was so cryptically referring??

Caruso
Jul. 11, 2002, 06:45 AM
And, since they must have done this without Alan's knowlege, HOW did they do it? I mean, how did they do it without the Board member's agreement, since we KNOW there are still some board members who are for compromise.

Oh, maybe THEY, TOO, are no longer board members. I will bet even Mrs. Johnson is removed soon.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

wtywmn4
Jul. 11, 2002, 07:02 AM
Thank you yd said silence is quite telling! Have been muddling that about for some time /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

buryinghill1
Jul. 11, 2002, 07:13 AM
/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 11, 2002, 07:16 AM
Vindictiveness? Yah think? I just told my close friend who bred my up and coming young hunters that we can "bag it" - probably - no matter how nice they are.

Because of my outspokeness, I don't ever expect that they will get a second glance during their careers......

Beans
Jul. 11, 2002, 07:42 AM
A not for profit must have their financials available for inspection in their office at all times. They CAN mail copies to individuals who request them and CAN charge a fee for this service. To tell Sheila Johnson that she has to come to the office and just look at them - is an insult and given the fact that Mr. Leone is also a lawyer ....well?

Perhaps what people should do is organize a day where busloads of people arrive at Gladstone and ask to see the financials....if they refuse - videotape it and take it to the IRS.

This is so sad that what once was a respected equestrian institution is now some sort of "private club" that doesn't want people to know the details. As the saying goes...."the devil's in the details".

lauriep
Jul. 11, 2002, 07:53 AM
people don't... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Laurie

Caruso
Jul. 11, 2002, 07:59 AM
Well, Beans, are you going to call them (the IRS, I mean)??

I think the visit is a GREAT idea...

Anne FS
Jul. 11, 2002, 08:00 AM
Beans, he knows the rules, but there are no consequences to either him or to USET for not following them.

If USET can simply say, as they have done/are doing, over & over again, I don't have that, I can't give you that, etc. etc. and NOTHING happens why WOULDN'T they continue to act that way?

I've been reading about USET's lack of law-obeying for non-profits for YEARS now. I'm SICK of it. No one ever calls them on it.

You're right, when are people actually going to go there, demand what they must provide by law, and not accept the brush-offs anymore?

Sorry, maybe I'm just so sick of Enron, WorldCom, USET, etc. just doing whatever the h*** they please and NEVER getting in trouble for it. (And no, these companies are now in trouble, and the poor grunts getting laid off, but the executives are rolling in clover).

Caruso
Jul. 11, 2002, 08:01 AM
Right on, AnneFS!!!

SoEasy
Jul. 11, 2002, 08:10 AM
that Alan Balch did call them on it ... remember the NJ lawsuit filed in his name as a member of the BOD?

Think about the outcome - the Court said he was right, and upheld his right to see the financials.

He has been VILIFIED ever since.

NOW - how many active competitors, especially any with aspirations, are going to follow the lead? BEFORE the NGB issue is settled? Is it not obvious that that is asking for retribution and vindictiveness? ((Read what JulieMontgomery just wrote - she is writing off the as yet unstarted careers of her baby horses because of her outspokeness ....))

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 11, 2002, 08:31 AM
The rumor that Caruso heard is not a rumor.

It is fact.

On July 9, as the USET group (Leone, et al) was attending the USAE board meeting in Lexington, a countersuit was filed by the USET in response to the original suit filed by Alan Balch (as a USET trustee) so that the financial info would be made available.

I do not know the exact contents of the countersuit, but a part of it concerns removing Alan Balch as a USET Trustee.

For what? Demanding to see USET financial info that he is entitled to see anyway? Info that all of us are entitled to see?

I believe that John Strassburger has a copy of this suit (a/k/a "the latest USET antic").

Perhaps he can have Erin confirm this, and I certainly hope he will write another commentary about this latest silliness.

So let this be clear...... as the USET folks sat at the July 9 meeting, their minions "back at home" were filing yet another suit - a countersuit.

How they must have giggled at filing it on the very day of the July 9 USAE meeting. Giggling like, ah, children.

I feel sorry for the USET at what it has become, and sorry for the board members behind this bunch - who obviously care not a whit or are too stupid to know that they are being led like lemmings to the sea.

SoEasy
Jul. 11, 2002, 08:35 AM
to amend their by-laws yet again?????

Doesn't Alan hold the seat on the USET BOD by virtue of his USA Eq post? BECAUSE IT IS IN THEIR BYLAWS THAT THAT SEAT IS RESERVED TO THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF USA Eq???

Weatherford
Jul. 11, 2002, 08:57 AM
Yes, SoEasy, that is correct.

But we have to actually see the lawsuit to understand the ground for which they are planning to remove him.

Of course, the USAEq did NOT HAVE to seat the USET representatives at Tuesday meetings, as the USET has not paid affiliate dues for two years. BUT they paid the $300 just before the meeting, and although the Nomination Committee unanomously voted NOT to SEAT the USET reps (and recommended to the USAEq Board that they NOT seat the reps), the USAEq Officers, including Alan Balch, unanomously recommended TO seat them, as they felt the USET representation is important.

I agree with Caruso and wonder how long it will be before Mrs. Johnson is removed from the Board - it would only follow established patterns of behaviour. Of course, they still want her millions (or is it billions??)

Very sad state of affairs!!

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

Weatherford
Jul. 11, 2002, 09:02 AM
Since this is already 9 pages long, I am starting a new thread.

USET Suit against Alan Balch (http://chronofhorse.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=691099205&f=1970907951&m=5223050806&r=5223050806#5223050806)

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

Anne FS
Jul. 11, 2002, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SoEasy:
that Alan Balch did call them on it ... remember the NJ lawsuit filed in his name as a member of the BOD?

Think about the outcome - the Court said he was right, and upheld his right to see the financials.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But, SoEasy, that's my point. Yes, I remember the lawsuit. Yes, I know the court upheld AB's right to see the financials. But what HAPPENED?

NOTHING. USET lost a friggin' LAWSUIT and what happens? Mrs. Johnson, a Board member, asks & gets no response. Asks, and is told "two weeks" but nothing happens. Asks at the 7/9 mtg. and gets no response and NOTHING IS DONE.

AL actually said ALL of these in response to Mrs. Johnson's request at the 7/9 mtg: you can't have it unless you come to Gladstone, it's a work in progress, I can't let it out of the office, I can't fax it, I don't remember telling you you could have it in 2 weeks. Isn't that ridiculous? Which one, AL? Which one is it?

And what happened? NOTHING. He prattles on and on and no one ever says, excuse me, Dr. Leone, according to the court verdict such-and-such, you MUST make the financial statement available. If I do not have them by such-and-such a date, I am [appropriate legal action: report to IRS, go back to NJ court, whatever the legal beagles know is the right thing to do].

Period.

It is so telling about USET that USET ignores a COURT ORDER. And sadly, it is also telling about the horse world that no one does anything about it. This zeitgeist of assumed entitlement and above-the-law-ness of American executives is
REALLY getting to me. (Gee, how can you tell?)

No enmity, no personal agenda, just responding to business facts. Ray Texel was getting at this when he said that as a rider he's judged on RESULTS and he sees no results here.

[This message was edited by Anne FS on Jul. 11, 2002 at 12:38 PM.]

vineyridge
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:15 AM
Nancy Jaffer on the meeting on about.com/equisearch

Nancy Jaffer's article (http://horses.about.com/cs/english/a/eqalanmeet2433.htm)

Weatherford
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:24 AM
Nancy was not at the meeting.

The only real journalist there (well, I don't put myself in that category, as I am free-lance) was John Strassberger.

Wait for HIS report.

By the way, the entire thing is ON VIDEOTAPE as well as AUDIOTAPE. SOOOO - write and request a copy.

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

SoEasy
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:31 AM
My point was that anyone who tries now to follow up on the financials is risking that retaliation/vilification/prejuidice against their horses/family - and there are few people who are willing to openly risk all in order to see the financials.

I really think it was telling that Sheila Johnson spoke up publicly, and Karen O'Connor as well. And maybe they have the power and stature to force compliance without suffering the consequences that have been foisted on Alan Balch, but I also expect the USET to remove Sheila Johnson from the BOD.

Anne FS
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:51 AM
It was so nice to have Laura Kraut & Ray Texel speaking up forcefully for their views. Admirable. I hope other riders follow suit no matter what their views. The active riders sense of get-the-job-done is really needed. More power to 'em.

vineyridge
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:51 AM
Do you think that the lawsuit might be just egregious enough to get the USET discipline board members talking?

Who authorized the countersuit?

Where is the money for it coming from?

Is this why the non Olympic disciplines have to swim to Spain for the WEG?

This must mean the AB NJ suit is still live.

When is the next USET board meeting?

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:54 AM
the one and only (Thank God) Ms. Cavanaugh of HODV.

Anne FS
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:57 AM
SoEasy, we must've posted at the same time. Yes, if people of the stature of Karen O'Connor, Laura Kraut, Mrs. Johnson and others continue to speak out, what a good thing. The powers that be can be vindictive and limiting to small fry, but bouncing Karen O'Connor, David O'Connor, Laura Kraut, Ray Texel, Sheila Johnson....hmmmm, more & more people are speaking out and the more that speak out the more people USET has to bounce from the board and keep off teams. One voice, two voices, can be silenced. Yet as more respected voices speak out, it will be impossible to silence them all and things will be done right. I am grateful to these riders & owners who have started this trickle of forthrightness. You weren't afraid of retaliation. Even if you ARE afraid of retaliation you did it anyway, which makes you even more admirable. I KNOW others will join you now. Again, it's easy to bounce one or two people out, but the more that join in, well, USET will face the prospect of either keeping the top two dozen riders off of US teams, or accepting this paradigm shift and moving on to great things for the USET and equestrian sport.

phanilah
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:15 AM
[QUOTE]The only real journalist there (well, I don't put myself in that category, as I am free-lance) was John Strassberger.

Wait for HIS report.[QUOTE]

**********************************

JMO but this is the exact reason why I was glad that I could listen for myself. Whose to say Nancy Jaffer wasn't doing the same? Since when does a single person become the only legitimate source for a meeting review? And let's face it - the COTH is just a bit biased toward the USAE - so "being the only real journalist in attendance" or not, I think that anyone who is interested in this issue should read as many reviews as possible...the commentary written by John S. is not the end all here.

And here I thought the USET and USAE were the only ones tossing arrogance around in this issue.


Beth

Weatherford
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:16 AM
Well the list of people the USET has ALREADY ousted (including large donors) is rather FRIGHTENING - from David O'Connor to Dr. Salick...

Horrible, if you ask me. And I am sure Sheila Johnson (who is a really neat person!) will be next!!

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

SoEasy
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:17 AM
did already bounce David O'Connor off of the Board.
Julie -- LOL -- HDV is SO fair and unbiased!
/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif (Hey Weatherford - why not write an article and submit it, just to see the answer?) /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Portia
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:37 AM
I found nothing objectionable in Nancy's article, or in the way she reported it. What she reported was accurate and I'm guessing she did listen in on the webcast. If so, then great! -- that's a big part of what it was for, so that people who couldn't get to the meeting for whatever reason could still hear for themselves what was going on. It seems she then followed up by calling AL and AB and getting their comments. I don't know much about journalism, but that sounds good to me.

That said, Weatherford can certainly explain if she feels inclined to do so, but my impression was that she did not mean the comment about JS being the only journalist present at the meeting as negatively as it may have come across. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anne FS
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:43 AM
Yes, I know D O'C was bounced, and Dr. Salick, which is why it is even more important and more admirable that Laura Kraut, Ray Texel, Sheila Johnson & Karen O'Connor spoke out. They are forcing USET to bounce them all from the board and from the teams, they and the ones who come after them and the ones who come after them, and as others take courage from these first speakers, the tide WILL change. Read history. Great things are done from small beginnings. Dictators count on the masses not challenging them, they count on their power frightening them, but eventually they go too far, power-loving people always do, and one lone voice becomes 2, becomes 3, becomes many. The riders are getting fed up at last.

[This message was edited by Anne FS on Jul. 11, 2002 at 04:25 PM.]

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 11, 2002, 12:48 PM
she wouldn't put up with their muddled up shenanigans for 10 minutes. She has reached a certain point in her career, and she doesn't have to. She has earned the right not to, but in any case, it's not in Laura's nature to walk away from an injustice. She speaks her mind, then goes about her job of being a wonderful, talented rider and representing our country with dignity.

I have known Laura for years, and admire her tremendously. She has ridden for me. She has found horses for me. She has worked hard, as has Ray Texel (whom I don't know) and many others who have made the team through sheer determination and talent rather than being someone's "favorite".

Bravo to both of them for stating their position, and also to Karen O'Connor for asking questions ... all of them - just like us - have every right to ask questions.

I, too, hope that other of the riders will see the light. It's fine for them to mumble about being tired of it, etc, etc, etc, - but someone has to force these issues to be brought out in the open.

Otherwise we will have the status quo which certain people have been very happy with for lo these many years. Sloppy administration and back room deals.

Enough.

canterlope
Jul. 11, 2002, 12:59 PM
Maybe I'm incredibly naive, but what does any of this have to do with the whole reason why these organizations are even in existance in the first place...the horses?

I think it is time to send a few of the leaders (and I use that term loosely) of our national organizations back to kindergarden to refresh their memories that they should play nicely with the other children, never tell a lie, and when you get tired and cranky, go have some graham crackers with milk and take a nap.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoops, there goes another rubber tree plant!

Snowbird
Jul. 11, 2002, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I, too, hope that other of the riders will see the light. It's fine for them to mumble about being tired of it, etc, etc, etc, - but someone has to force these issues to be brought out in the open.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the crux of the situation, someone had to get this started and now it is a trickle of people which is gradually broadening into a flow.

Malaise and apathy the acceptance of the inevitable are the tools of those who seek any kind of power.
Alan Balch became the poster boy for the insurrection and they really thought that if they cut the head off the enemy that apathy and malaise would solve the rest.

I am so pleased that so many have now become aware that it is not just who is NGB that is at stake.

JustJump
Jul. 11, 2002, 01:32 PM
Fat lady schmat lady.

Just what we do NOT need at this point are more "above it all" comments from alleged insiders and their faithful groupies.

Just get it over with. Someone shoot it, please.

And-- Let's have Sheila Johnson for NGB president!

Albemarle Cty
Jul. 11, 2002, 01:38 PM
Somebody asks what this all has to do with the HORSES.

I thought they were pretty clear in the meeting on Tuesday about that.

The NGB is JUST how the horses GET protected.

No rules, no rule enforcement, no drug rules, no defending against Barney Ward killing horses and on and on, without a good NGB. An NGB protects all those things, and we need one and only one.

For sure we need the one we have now, after the developments of the last couple days.

Weatherford
Jul. 11, 2002, 01:40 PM
I apologize for my arrogance and pissy comment.

My point was, this was an important meeting - it was known in advance that it was going to be an important meeting. The journalist table was empty except for John, a USAEq staffer, and myself.

I was sorry that other magazines and newspaper didn't send someone to come visit. The NUANCES and body language during the meeting was VERY telling.

Certainly, I did NOT mean to imply anything about Nancy - she is a neat woman and good journalist, AND, as a free-lancer/columnist does have to pay for these sojurns herself - on her journalist's pay. (Susan Lucas, SusanGray, Snowbird, and myself just paid out of our pockets from other jobs. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

That being said, there were others who were obviously absent. Perhaps they were watching Armand Leone's lawfirm FILE the LAWSUIT against the USAEq & Alan Balch instead??

Again, my apologies, and yes, Nancy's coverage was good, as usual.

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

[This message was edited by Weatherford on Jul. 11, 2002 at 05:02 PM.]

canterlope
Jul. 11, 2002, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It IS the HORSES, Stupid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me!?! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I was not questioning whether or not there should be an NGB. Even someone as stupid as me realizes that it is critical to have a strong governing body presiding over the interests of our horses. My point, which you apparently missed, was that I believe the leaders of these two organizations are so caught up in the bickering and their own personal agendas that they have totally lost sight of why we need an NGB. It is for the horses, but you could never guess that from what is currently taking place between these two camps.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoops, there goes another rubber tree plant!

SGray
Jul. 11, 2002, 02:03 PM
http://www.chronofhorse.com/special/02/special_jul10.html

John's report

Albemarle Cty
Jul. 11, 2002, 02:08 PM
Sorry, Canterlope, I'm from another part of VA.

I meant it like "It's the economy, stupid."

Personally, from looking at the materials and taking an interest in the meeting, I thought the discussion was on a pretty high level, and the point WAS made clear that the NGB stuff has EVERYTHING to do with horses, and that is WHY this is going on. After Tuesday, I don't think it's about personalities.

USAE seems to get it. USET seems not to.

IMHO.

Portia
Jul. 11, 2002, 02:09 PM
Whoa, canterlope, I'm sure she didn't mean it that way! She was just paraphrasing the saying that hung on the walls of the headquarters for the first Clinton campaign to keep reminding themselves to keep focused on the issue of central importance to the voters: "It's the economy, Stupid!" /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(Looks like Albermarle Cty and I were posting at the same time. Thanks goodness I was right in my guess!) /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Snowbird
Jul. 11, 2002, 02:31 PM
Everyone seems to be a little thin skinned right now. And, we surely don't want to scare anyone so that they're afraid to post their personal opinions.

This is afterall a living room and not a witness box.
I think when we all get intense about a point of view we all use extreme examples and phrases. So could we gentle down the attacks on each other and consider the real culprits.

M. O'Connor
Jul. 11, 2002, 02:42 PM
NGB Fatigue Syndrome?

In addition, aside from the folks at the Chronicle and Nancy Jaffer, I'd be hard put to name any "hard news" equestrian journalists...and certainly none who would be able to put this story in print format either in a timely manner or a meaningful context. Most "news" is spun out of the very few PR firms used by the major shows (one of which is employed by the USET), and printed verbatim quite some time later.

Of course, those who really want to "know" tune in here to this BB!

MCL

Snowbird
Jul. 11, 2002, 02:59 PM
The regular press and the regular world, or it's agencies just don't give a hoot what's going on because they think of us a rich spoiled brats who play at working.

Therefore the reporters who cover this sport all started as writers of the activities on the social calendar. We haven't even yet been posted on sports pages except for Nancy Jaffer.

Does anyone know Heraldo Rivera? Could he be interested in the problem of who will be on the Equestrian Olympic Team or who pays for them and how?

phanilah
Jul. 11, 2002, 05:58 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Weatherford.

Beth

Snowbird
Jul. 11, 2002, 07:23 PM
I came home from the meeting delighted feeling that this had been the most intelligent and well run Board Meeting I ever attended.

I felt as if there was a meeting of the minds and all of us from USAE were on track together. It did not occur to me that USET was being so devious. I thought they just needed to re-group and by the time they got to their Board Meeting there would be a common sense approach to a settlement.

It certainly should be obvious to them that they were not selected as the NGB and that compromise was the only solution. Mostly, I think that would lead people to negotiate.

vineyridge
Jul. 11, 2002, 07:50 PM
Did you notice in the Jaffer article that she says TS is talking about creating a new, non-USAEq jumper council?

If USET has ongoing relationships separately with all the international disciplines, do you think it would affiliate a TS group for show jumping?

Then we'd not only have dueling NGBs, we'd have duelling show organizations. Do I heard banjo music?
/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird
Jul. 11, 2002, 07:59 PM
The USOC requires that there be a Hunter Committee and a separate Jumper Committee. Those plans will probably negate the NHJC as a committee of the USAE.

The USET could choose to make the new association responsible for all that the USAE does since none of that interests them, should they choose to go into arbitration with a plan to show they were self sufficient.

The problem that NHJC has is that they are based from the Zones which are part of the USAE and they do not have any members who choose to belong in addition to the USAE Membership. Now, membership in the NHJC is mandatory were it not mandatory, how many would be willing to pay $75.00 a year to belong?

Who would put up all the money needed to establish what was necessary for all those duties?

rideem
Jul. 11, 2002, 08:19 PM
"Now, membership in the NHJC is mandatory were it not mandatory, how many would be willing to pay $75.00 a year to belong?"

Ah, this is a problem all the other USAE affiliated organizations face. As a member of IAHA, in order to compete, I have to pay not only the IAHA fee but also the USAE fee (and the USDF fee). And that will be the crux of the issue that USAE will face in the future. The greater part of its effort, staffing and expense is focused on the hunter/jumper group and the rest of the membership, which outnumbers the hunter/jumper members get to pay for this effort, staffing and expense. IAHA is now considering withdrawing from USAE. Other breeds/disciplines are also thinking of leaving.

I think what will happen is that you will see a situation, where because of the expense of this fight between USAE and USET and its lack of relevance to most horse people, that many of the disciplines/breeds will leave USAE. And only the members who feel like they can and do want to compete in the FEI sports will join USAE. I believe this is what is happening with the endurance and reining crowd. Although these two sports enjoy a great many participants, probably far more than enjoy the other FEI disciplines combined, only a few hundred are members of USAE.

rideem
"The will to succeed is no good without the will to prepare" -- Craig Cameron

canterlope
Jul. 12, 2002, 03:42 AM
So, so sorry. Your reference blew right on by me, leaving me dazed and confused. To quote the late great Gilda Radnor in her infamous role as Emily LaTilla on Saturday Night Live, "Never mind." /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoops, there goes another rubber tree plant!

Snowbird
Jul. 12, 2002, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think what will happen is that you will see a situation, where because of the expense of this fight between USAE and USET and its lack of relevance to most horse people, that many of the disciplines/breeds will leave USAE. And only the members who feel like they can and do want to compete in the FEI sports will join USAE. I believe this is what is happening with the endurance and reining crowd. Although these two sports enjoy a great many participants, probably far more than enjoy the other FEI disciplines combined, only a few hundred are members of USAE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that might be true if the USET were to become the NGB, that is really all they are interested in managing. The grassroots and miscellaneous other things like hunters are of no interest to them.

But, if things stay the way they are the USAE is already NGB and has been since before the inception of the USOC there would be no real change at all.
I think that once this is settled and if USAE retains it's authority those people from the USET who are talented horsemen will be included in the USAE programs.

Don't forget that the USET started and until only a few years ago was a committee of the USAE. Life was good! The sun rose every morning and it set every night, it still rained and there were still days of sunshine. Our teams proposered. The USET will resolve down to being the Foundation which raises money to support the teams.

SGray
Jul. 12, 2002, 09:40 AM
http://www.equestrian.org/webcasts/7-9-2002/letters/letters-recieved.pdf

I just read the letters that were transmitted to USA Eq - there are both letters of support and letters urging compliance with the USOC recommendation.

I did find the letter from Hope C. Hand and the letter signed by Guenter Seidel/Christine Traurig to be remarkably similar.

Snowbird
Jul. 12, 2002, 10:57 AM
Not surprising there has been so much rhetoric that it has turned in slogans. They have all the same reasons to believe they're right.

And, the letters I got a chance to read said that's why the others didn't think they should be in charge.

Time will tell!

CAH
Jul. 12, 2002, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SGray:
http://www.equestrian.org/webcasts/7-9-2002/letters/letters-recieved.pdf

I did find the letter from Hope C. Hand and the letter signed by Guenter Seidel/Christine Traurig to be remarkably similar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remarkably similar???? How about the SAME letter with a few words changed? Its done all the time when non-profits are looking for "letters of support" from other agencies/individuals. The requesting agency will often draft a "sample" letter of support and distribute it to selected individuals/agencies. The thing is, when someone copies the letter verbatin, I always ask myself why?

Oops USET, looks like your hand got caught in the cookie jar. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

marianne
Jul. 12, 2002, 11:31 AM
Those two letters are simply form letters similiar to letters you send to Congress to paper or pepper the Senators or in this case the BOD with the idea that the people have spoken. Someone has a letter file just a-cranking that one out. It would have been far better to have these people write from the heart rather than to rubber stamp ideas of someone else.

Snowbird
Jul. 13, 2002, 07:19 AM
We all went into this with such high hopes, the Board of USAE did everything they could to compromise and get a settlement on track.

I think we need to ask ourselves why? is this man such a threat to those who say they only want to field the teams and raise money?

How, devious and dishonest of them to sit there and pretend to be concerned when they knew that a countersuit was being filed at that moment in New Jersey. What is so astonishing to me is the hypocracy with which they demanded the withdrawal of the original suit as part of the original negotiations.

Shame on them, and shame on those members of their Board who either cannot or will not see the truth.

Jumphigh83
Jul. 13, 2002, 08:22 AM
I wonder what ELSE about them is bifurcated besides their tongues!

Betsy
Three Winds Farm NY

Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 13, 2002, 08:42 AM
Those who can think for themselves usually do. And they are able to express it in a personal way, no matter what their position on the mattter at hand.

Those who sign form-type letters are often considered dolts .... dolts who lack the interest or intelligence to express themselves regarding the issue at hand.

If you want to simply be a part of the movement, sign a petition. If you want to be taken seriously as an individual, state your own thoughts in your own words.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Or, at the very least, change a few of the sentences around! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 13, 2002, 08:45 AM
your Congressman/Senator probably thinks of most of his/her constituents as dolts.

It's only when the number of dolts add up that they get in a bit of a sweat!

poltroon
Jul. 13, 2002, 01:14 PM
It's a lot of work to write a letter, and given that Seidel and Traurig are in Germany training for the WEG, I don't think it's fair to diss them as "dolts" for signing a form letter.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 13, 2002, 01:57 PM
at least I didn't use any names.

However, writing a letter is a lot easier than coming to the US for a board meeting, I would think. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

poltroon
Jul. 13, 2002, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JulieMontgomery:

However, writing a letter is a lot easier than coming to the US for a board meeting, I would think. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Depends. First (and apologies to us ALL /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), they are horse people. And second, English isn't the first language for either of them. I'd be hard-pressed to write a quality letter in German, I'm embarrassed to admit. And y'all would make big fun of any letter I'd write in Spanish... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Weatherford
Jul. 14, 2002, 05:44 AM
There were letters (mine, for example) missing from that file.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

buryinghill1
Jul. 14, 2002, 09:48 AM
So, what do you NGB-heads think of this new H/J organization that /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif is starting up? Did ya get the calls? No? Then howsabout some of the e-mail?

Do ya think ** gives a rats ass about the NGB issue? Nahh. New group you gotta join to go HIS (and others) H/J shows.
Do you think ** cares about the NHJC being part of ANYTHING? Nah. Drug testing... goodbye! Throw them on the truck and show, show, show. This is an NGB-Free zone!
Do you think ** cares about Alan or Armand or dressage or vaulting or eventing or any those money-losers? Did ya ever wonder why HIS shows never have another other disciplines? Ca-ching.
Those boys be throwing sand in the sandbox and a whole 'nuther faction is gonna go get rich. Endless sections of Cashregister Hunters and Jumpers.
So, open your eyes folks. The NGB issue ain't peanuts. The H/J world ain't seen nothing yet.
Anyhow, hope you're enjoying all this reading. Thanks to those who have taken so much time out of your busy lives to be posting all this stuff.

How come nobody mentioned Lissie walking in 20+ minutes late and AB's kind comments? "Can we get you anything Lissie?" Do ya want us to start all over Lissie or just continue?" Do you even have any idea who is Lissie and what she will bring to the table? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Did anybody travel over to The Red Mile while you were in Lexington? Missed ya! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[This message was edited by yd on Jul. 14, 2002 at 12:57 PM.]

Weatherford
Jul. 14, 2002, 10:53 AM
There were several people who were late to the meeting - from both sides. They were all treated curteously (sp?) - though you may not have heard it online.

One woman has American Saddlebreds and was showing over at the Horse Park. She arrived in in show clothes (though, not full attire). She had called to say she was running late because her classes were running late (sound familiar? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

Louise Otten was the other person who was late due to a late plane.

I think that was all!

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

buryinghill1
Jul. 14, 2002, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weatherford:
There were several people who were late to the meeting - from both sides. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So??? I am aware of who arrived and when, and with whom we arrived, and possibly our attire!
Who cares at what time people arrived (or didn't).
I'm wondering if the NGB-heads have a clue who is "Lissie." (who was not showing at "the Horse Park"!!! sheesh). Any significance?

And now that I've posed that question, I wonder if the NGB-heads know what the other B.O.D.'s do when they're not sitting on the USAE or USET boards? On what other boards do they sit? Into which corporations have they invested? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Do you know? Do you care? Who are these people you hold in such high esteem - or low esteem? The Premarin thread made me think of that question. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Have fun.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 14, 2002, 12:13 PM
and you continue post, since you seem to know it all.

And you do so enjoy being cryptic. It will give you more thread space to be arch and mysterious!

I'll be glad to defer to you, and get my updates from you and emmet as the two of you are clearly in the "inner sanctum".

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 14, 2002, 12:16 PM
Does she spell her name "Lissie", with an "s", as you spell it in your post?

Or would it be "Lizzie"?

buryinghill1
Jul. 14, 2002, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JulieMontgomery:

And you do so enjoy being cryptic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cryptic? Not meant to be, at all. Sorry. Charades went out with bellbottoms. I'm just wondering if anybody asks the questions? Does any research? Why is this cryptic? Don't you want to know to whom you give your support? Who and what are they? From whence comes their money? To whom is it given?
Know it all? Me? Just an interested party. Aren't you? What I do know is the COTH cauldron has been stirred, and I thought it an opportune time to ask more questions... There's an awful lot of posting going on this past week and by adding once to the deluge I am all-knowing? Not. I want to know who's in charge. Don't you? Inner sanctum? Here? More like outer limits. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Alas, my time allows for more reading than writing, so post away.

Let us away.

And yes, it's Elisabeth.

SGray
Jul. 15, 2002, 07:07 AM
CAH - I'm trying to hone skills in understatement