Protest, AERC, rules and principles

[Steph Teeter <step@fsr.com>]

I've been asked by many in the NW region to explain what is going
on with the recent protest and ride cancellations. I'll state the facts
and then try to explain AERC's decision on the issue:

The facts:
A few ride managers in the NW had concerns over whether or not 
their insurance would cover injuries to horse, rider, or property, if
the injury was caused by a horse with a previous history of injurious
or dangerous behavior. They discussed this concern at a ride manager's
meeting at the regional PNER convention, and were advised that this 
might present a coverage problem, and they should check with their 
insurance carrier. They were not satisfied with the answers that they got
from the agencies, and felt it was in their best interest to not
allow a particular horse that they considered a liability to attend
their rides. They composed a letter addressed to the horse's owner,
and mailed it to 10 other ride managers in the regions, to allow them 
to endorse it if they chose. Most endorsed it, some did not. Those 
that endorsed the letter effectively banned the horse from their rides. 
The letter was received by the owners of the horse in mid April of 1998.

I was contacted by the owners of the horse after they received the letter
asking if I could help resolve the issue. I suggested they call the ride
managers who signed the letter, and I also called them. Some of the
ride managers withdrew their denial of entry because they were satisfied 
that the horse's owners were now aware of the issue, and that they 
provided adequate insurance coverage through their own policy. Some 
still felt they could not take the chance, and upheld their original decision
to deny entry. 

The owners of the horse then filed a protest to AERC against the ride
mangers based on violation of the following rules (see copy of 
AERC rules below):
1.  Refusing entry to rides without a cause (Rule 4)
2. Acting and inciting others to act in a manner contrary to the rules of 
the AERC and in a manner illegal and unsportsmanlike (Rule 16)

The Protest and Grievance committe denied the protest. The committee
of 4 was split 50:50 on the issue, and the deciding vote was cast by
the P&G committee chair.

The owners of the horse then appealed the decision of the P&G committee.
In the case of an appeal, the issue must go before the AERC board of directors 
for a vote.

The AERC board voted 13 to 8 (and 1 abstention) to uphold the appeal and 
overturn the original decision by the P&G committee. 

Those are the facts.

Regarding the AERC bod's vote, I cannot speak for everybody, but the decision
to uphold the appeal was based NOT upon the prinicipal that ride managers
have (or don't have) the right to deny entry for cause. Those that supported 
the appeal made this *very* clear in their discussion - everybody agreed that 
ride managers are entitled to deny entry to riders for cause. Those that 
voted to uphold the appeal did so because they felt that the specific 
actions taken by the ride managers violated AERC rules; The letter to the
owners did not state specific cause (incidents) for the ban. The letter was
received after the ride season had commenced. The ride managers had not
contacted the owners prior to the letter, telling them of their concern or intentions.
The fact that the letter was circulated to other ride managers for signature,
and was therefore a 'group' letter was seen by the owners as a black-listing, 
and a violation their rights.

In the process of discussing the issue most of the board (especially the rules
committee) concluded that the current wording of the rules (Rule 4) concerning
denial of entry are not adequate. Some on the board thought it was 'obvious'
that the rules supported the ride managers' action. Some thought it was 'obvious' 
that there was a violation of the rules. Most agreed that the rule needs to be rewritten
to provide clarification, and guidelines for riders and ride managers.

This decision that the board made on the issues was about Rules, not Priniciples:
In principle ride managers have the right to deny entry for cause, in principle
riders have the right to attend rides (Rule 4). According to the rules, what the
ride managers did was not acceptable.

Disclaimer - the following is MY opinion only!

I personally voted against the appeal. I feel that the specific actions taken by the
ride managers were wrong -  they should have dealt with the owner on a personal
level, and at the time of the incidents - not a year later. The impersonal group
letter was injurious and the reason that the protest was filed in the first place.  
But, I do feel that *in principle* the RM's did what they did because they felt they had 
an obligation to protect themselves, their riders, and property owners from potentially
damaging (and liable) situations. I also feel that the rules are ambiguous enough
that I can't find enough any obvious infractions. (yes, rules and their interpretations
are fodder for lawyers!).

So, hopefully this helps clarifiy the situation. It's a highly emotional subject for
all involved parties. It stings to receive a letter banning your horse from all rides
in your area - and it stings to have the AERC deny your right to refuse entry 
because you didn't 'do it right'. 

I've had a LOT of discussion on this subject with the parties involved, and other
board members. These words from Randy Eiland might help a little more to
clarify...

" Also, I think it is important to note that the P&G Committee was split
50-50 on the vote, with the Chair forced to cast a deciding vote.  I
think this is important because those not familiar with the issue should
understand this was not a clear cut situation nor an easy decision for
anyone.  The sheer amount of voluminous and conflicting information
provided both the P&G Committee and the Board clouded the real issue,
which was:

DENIAL OF ENTRY IS A SERIOUS ACTION THAT HAS WIDE REACHING RAMIFICATIONS
AND, THUS, REQUIRES STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE AERC RULE.

Never was there a question that Ride Manager's can't deny entry..however,
the denial in this case, although done with the best of intentions, was
done incorrectly and if allowed set a poor precedent."

Hopefully we can all move forward now .... and ride.

Steph

p.s. for those of you in the NW that are now looking at 4 fewer rides next year,
maybe it's time you considered putting on a ride of your own? These ride
managers have hosted exemplary rides for many years - they all deserve
our gratitude for this. But it's hard work, and I suspect they're looking forward
to a little less stress in their lives. Somebody want to take over for a while??
If so, contact me for available dates - and I can give you information on what
it takes to put on a ride.




------------------
AERC RULES (http://www.aerc.org - they are printed here if you
want more) -

4 Entry to a ride may not be refused except for cause. 

     4.1 Cause is defined as a specific occurrence, substantiated by direct and
     corroborated evidence of, including but not limited to, one of the following: 
     Non-payment of ride fees, such as insufficient funds check not made good. 
     Abuse of an equine, such as drugging or continuing to ride after being pulled without
     the specific permission of a ride vet. 
     Abusive harassment of ride personnel, other riders, or crews, such as arguing with
     the veterinarians, breaking the line at vet gates, or deliberately blocking other riders
     on the trail. 
     Removing or altering trail markers. 
     Cheating, such as deliberate short-cuts or deliberately leaving timed holds early.
     4.2 Cause might also be determined by the Board or one of the committees of the
     AERC.

-------


16 Violations and Penalties
When assigning penalties, the Protest and Grievance Committee and the Board will take
into consideration such things as severity of the infractions,intentional infractions, repeated
violations, and multiple infractions. 

     16.1 Individual violations. Violations include, but are not limited to the following: 
          a. Infraction(s) of AERC Rules and Regulations.
          b. Acting, or inciting any other to act, in a manner contrary to the rules of the
          AERC, or in a manner considered otherwise illegal or unsportsmanlike.
          c. Physical assault upon a person and/or cruelty to an equine.
          d. Failure to obey any penalty imposed by the AERC.