My BOD Motion re NC Qualifications

[Oldwaggy@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/25/02 9:33:54 PM, steph@endurance.net writes:

<< This motion came from an individual. Personally I think it is John's way of
throwing up his hands, and a poorly composed motion.  >>

Oh Steph,

Accuse me of delusional thinking, perfidy or corruption, but don't criticize 
my compositional skills!  The motion is in fact very carefully worded for 
what I want to accomplish.  Let's think it through together.  But first let 
me relate a little background.

There was a conceptual tension behind the AERC National Championship Ride 
when it was established for 1999.   Most people wanted a prestige event like 
the ROC and hoped that the NC would replace the ROC, which was unraveling at 
the time.   But others realized it was a new ride and would have a hard time 
attracting entrants, especially with ROC style qualifications.  Accordingly, 
the first ride did have some qualifications (top ten finish in your weight 
division at a regional qualifying ride) but they were relatively easy to 
meet.  The main problem was making sure you got an entry to your region's 
qualifier.  

Some people may remember a series of semi-humorous posts I sent to ridecamp 
and Randy Eiland about this.  I pointed out that even Trilby and I could 
qualify in the 100 and that the potential number of entrants, a thousand or 
so, would exceed the number of people who have passed through Timberon, the 
ride location, this century.  I did in fact qualify and ride my pony 
Remington to a third place middleweight finish in the NC 100.  Although it 
remains the only race we have ever top tenned where there were more than ten 
horses entered, we also came in last.  That should speak volumes about how 
"hard" the NC qualifications were at the start.  (I'm still cranky that '99 
was the one year the NC didn't count for regional point purposes because it 
cost me the 1st MW placement in my region.)  Most of the top horses in the 
country went to the Pan Ams instead.

The second year the NC qualifications were diluted further.  Top five in your 
weight division seemed tougher, but you could do it in any ride in your 
region.  NC entry numbers went up but were still relatively modest.  A lot of 
fine horses showed up but it was hardly a collection of the top talent in the 
country.  

The qualifications for last year's ride were changed but weren't exactly 
rigorous.  The ride itself was a resounding success, however, by all reports. 
 There were a large number of entrants.  The mixture of weather and terrain 
made for a tough ride.  Some relatively inexperienced horses did very well.  
The large group of top vets kept things under control so there were few horse 
injuries.  Ride management provided a great party and people who attended 
said they had a wonderful time.  The whole ride was a credit to ride 
management and to the region.

So what about this year's ride? It will be held in the same place by the same 
people.
Ne'ertheless, the BOD saw fit to tinker with the qualifications yet again at 
our midyear board meeting in November in Phoenix.  I have sat on many 
non-profit boards for decades.  This was one of the most profoundly 
embarassing attempts at board deliberation I have witnessed.  The responsible 
committee abdicated its leadership role to another board member who then 
presented a series of ill conceived, inconsistent, and ambiguous 
recommendations which the board then chewed on for nearly four hours in three 
sessions.  We wasted our time on a subject which should have been fully 
explored in committee if brought up at all.  A couple of us got involved in 
the debate for the sole purpose of bringing some clarification to the wording 
under discussion and for bringing the interminable debate to a close.  When 
we finally had a chance to move on to something else, we wound up conducting 
our voting on the wholesale revision of our bylaws, the governing document 
for this organization, after midnight.

As soon as we returned home, the debate really started.  No, I'm not 
referring to debate among the members but to debate among the directors who 
had just finished meeting with each other.  Turns out no one had consulted 
the ride manager about the new qualifications.  Turns out people were 
concerned that the qualification period had started in mid-August when the 
2001 NC was held but that folks wouldn't learn until five or six months later 
of the changes we made in November.  By beating the subject to death after 
the meeting, we made the notice problem worse because EN staff decided not to 
run anything explaining the new qualifications until the BOD made up its 
mind.  A straw vote of directors after the meeting showed that most wanted to 
go back to the old qualifications or at least revisit the issue again in 
Reno.  So, in a few days we will be once again deciding the qualifications 
for a ride which takes place in approximately six months.  Riders are 
wondering how they qualify.  I am sure ride management is wondering why it 
has worked so hard to promote, finance, and prepare a first class ride when 
the AERC BOD keeps changing the qualifications.  How many riders will show up 
this time?

Meanwhile a debate has raged on this list over the NC qualifications for 
months now.  As a director I am well aware of many people's positions.  If 
posts are votes, then my friend Bob Morris has really stuffed the ballot box. 
 As earnest as the discussion has been,  I don't think it has been very 
conclusive.  Whether you call it tweedledum or tweedledee, or simply dumb and 
dumber, the new qualifications are not very different from the old ones.  

Like the slightly different qualifications from each of the past years, they 
are still easy to meet.  To give an extreme example, one of my ponies 
qualified for the 1,000 mile lifetime alternative in just thirty days this 
summer.  We are still a long ways from anything approaching the sort of 
qualifications where you say that the qualifying team has really done 
something special to belong in a one day determination of the AERC's fastest 
horse and rider over 100 or 50 miles.  (The question of whether an AERC 
champion should even be the fastest horse and rider in just one ride, however 
I would answer it, has already been decided by the BOD's election to 
establish a one day NC ride.)

The philosophical tension between the goals of impressive qualilfications and 
building up entry numbers remains.   The debate over qualifications will 
become strictly academic if the ride dies for lack of interest, especially 
after it proceeds to a new region and new management next year.  There are 
good arguments for both sides of the debate but they won't be reconciled this 
year.  It's just too late.  

Moving on to my motion, it is intended to achieve a quick resolution to the 
NC qualification issue for this year and this year alone.  That's why it says 
to abolish the NC qualilfications imposed by the AERC "for this year."  I 
don't want to see another multiple hour debate distracting the board from 
other important issues at this board meeting.  Whatever the board does in 
Reno will not settle the argument and is unlikely to cure the problem of 
inadequate notice to potential entrants.

It is also important to understand that my motion refers expressly only to 
abolition of the NC qualifications imposed by the AERC.  It does not require 
abolition of NC qualifications imposed by ride management itself.  The ride 
manager, Connie Caudill, is an experienced 100 miler and is a new member of 
the board.  I have come to appreciate her intellect and ability to carefully 
weigh both sides of an issue as a member of the Protest and Grievance 
Committee which I chair.  Since her neck will be out, so to speak, in putting 
on a successful ride in just a few months, I will rely on her to set the 
qualifications she thinks will work on such short notice.  I expect she will 
simply keep the old qualifications in force.  Not much of a shock, huh?  But 
even if she decides to have no qualifications at all this year, it will not 
be the end of the world.  The fastest horses that day will still win,  as 
respected veterinarians Jim Baldwin and Dane Frazier, have pointed out.  They 
and other vets like them will be there to watch out for inexperienced riders 
who don't know any better and  experienced riders who should.

The point is that the BOD will simply leave the issue alone for this year's 
ride and rely on ride management's judgment for this year alone.  Ride 
management could not possibly do any worse than the BOD in figuring out what 
do for this year.  Aside from the benefits to the ride and potential entrants 
of leaving the BOD out it this year, we need to think of the benefits to the 
BOD and AERC of ending this debate quickly and once and for all for this 
year.  The BOD can spend a few minutes on this issue in Reno instead of a few 
hours.  I am very much afraid that if the BOD starts to discuss what the 
qualifications should be again in Reno, the debate will not focus on how to 
salvage this year but will be another free for all with no focus at all.  We 
really do have other things to do.  

Since my motion does not resolve whatto do in the future, we should refer the 
matter to the Competitions Committee for full exploration of all sides and 
the presentation to the board of carefully considered alternatives and 
recommendations.   After an appropriate report of the Committee to guide the 
discussion, the BOD can then take the time to deliberate on what direction 
the ride should take and what the qualifications should be for 2003 when new 
management takes over.  We can even elicit the thoughts of the new management 
when the BOD considers what to do in 2003.  Heaven forbid, we can even 
consider the thoughts of our members, especially now that they will have the 
time to think about how to balance the twin goals of growth and prestige for 
the NC.  If we are patient I think we can come up with a way for the two 
goals to coincide.

For now, let's drop the issue for 2002 so we don't screw up a ride which may 
not be the ultimate, ideal NC but is still a pretty nice try.  Ridecampers 
who disagree with me probably don't need to worry very much, since I don't 
think the majority of the BOD will vote for my motion.  For Steph or any other
 directors who think they might agree with what I want to accomplish, please 
feel welcome to compose something which says it better.

John Parke
PSW Regional Director