HENSLEE APPEAL & BOARD OPINION

[renegade12@juno.com (Randy H Eiland)]

July 7, 1998 
Protest and Grievance Committee Vote* 50-50* with the Chair casting the
deciding vote against the Protest.

September 11, 1998
Board Appeal *13 - 8 (1 abstention -4 not voting)* in favor of the Appeal

As a member of the AERC Protest and Grievance Committee and a long time
member of the AERC Board, I want to address the recent Board decision on
the Henslee Appeal.  There have been several posts on ridecamp alluding
to this Appeal and much misinformation, misunderstanding, and display of
emotion expressed. Contrary to the feeling of the individuals intimately
involved in this Appeal,  the crux of the issue did not involve those
individuals except as precipitating cause of a bigger issue.  ALL Riders,
ALL Ride Managers and the integrity of our sport were the true issue and
the real result of the Appeal will be a better and more clearly written
rule benefiting every AERC Member.

There is not space to explain every detail of the Protest and subsequent
Appeal, but so you better understand the issues, I will give some
background. The Protest was filed by the Henslees (4-29-98) listing two
violations:

1)  Refusing entry to rides without cause
2)  Acting and inciting others to act in a manner contrary to the rules
of the AERC and in a manner illegal and unsportsmanlike.  

The above was based on a "Denial of Entry" to the Henslees with their
stallion.  The Denial was in the form of a petition letter circulated
among many Ride Managers and finally signed by 8 Ride Managers in the NW
(5 subsequently removed their names and were not a part of the Protest). 
The Denial of Entry was based on allegations that the horse "continued to
pose a danger in both the handling of and while riding to other riders,
Horses and Ride Management." and that "The insurance companies would have
a right to deny coverage of a happening with the past history of the
problems occurring during other rides with this horse situation. For this
reason, these managers have decided not to allow entry or even to be
present at a ride sight(sic) with your horse.."

As is true in all Protests, each of the parties absolutely beleived they
were right!  Each of the parties presented excellent arguments as to why
they were right.  Different than most Protests were the volumes of
supporting letters and documents that acted to conflict each other.  The
Henslees had volumes of letters from Ride Managers, Riders, and
Veterinarians outside of the NW Region (with personal experiences with
the Henslees and the stallion) stating they were no problem, "stallion
was a perfect gentleman", and so on.  The 3 Ride Managers had volumes of
letters from Riders and Veterinarians from the NW stating just the
opposite and describing disruptive and dangerous behavior by the
stallion.  Without exaggeration, for every letter stating support for one
side, there was a letter stating support for the other side.  However,
the P&G Committee could only act and decide on the issue of:
 1)  Refusing entry to rides without cause
2)  Acting and inciting others to act in a manner contrary to the rules
of the AERC and in a manner illegal and unsportsmanlike. 

As stated above, the P&G Committee vote was evenly split with the Chair
breaking the tie.  Jim Rogan, Chair of this Committee wrote an eloquent
letter denying the Protest, and ending with:

"......What we interpret from all the materials furnished to us is that
on most occasions Patricia's control over the stallion is exemplary, but
on some occasions the control and/or judgement of the stallion in
relation to other horses is lacking.  What these ride managers involved
in your protest relied upon for cause to deny entry is not binding on any
other ride manager or ride.  Each ride is a new event under the absolute
control of the ride manager who is free to exercise his or her individual
judgement about Patricia's ability to ride Solszar." 

As is the right of all AERC members involved in a Protest, the Henslees
filed an Appeal of the P&G Committee decision to the Board.  At this
point it is important to understand the difference in the decision making
process between the P&G Committee and the Board.  Obviously, the Board
has a broader and more diverse representation of thought based purely
upon its size...26 individuals compared to 5 on the P&G.  Additionally,
the P&G Committee operates with very little, if any, dialogue and sharing
of thoughts amongst its members.  P&G Members receive the information to
be reviewed, send in their individual opinions to the Chair and the
decision is thusly made.  Similarly, the Board receives the same
information reviewed by the P&G Committee, but the Board is mandated by
rule to share comments and opinions prior to casting a vote.  This
mandated sharing of opinions obviously can affect the decisions of Board
members by presenting a different perspective/solution to the same
problem.

 Board Members studied the voluminous documentations,  reviewed the
shared Board comments, and reached a majority opinion that the Denial of
Entry lacked "specific occurrence, substantiated by direct and
corroborated evidence" as defined in Rule 4.  Additionally, the Henslees
were not notified of the alleged problems when they occurred, instead
they were informed by Denial of Entry one year later and two weeks before
a ride they wished to enter

 The Board's decision was not an act of holding anyone up to
embarrassment or ridicule..the Board did not question the integrity of
any individuals and in fact, although the entire Board believed the Ride
Manager's heart and intent was in the right place, the majority of the
Board could only determine the Denial of Entry did not follow the AERC
Rules.  Although individuals were involved, the Board's message was to
all of AERC:

* Denial of Entry is a serious matter with wide reaching ramifications
and requires strict adherence to AERC Rules when enacted.  To find
otherwise sets a precedent that would allow for Denial of Entry based on
whims, fancy, and opinion rather than as defined in AERC Rule 4.*  

Please remember, in no way did the Board state, or believe, that Ride
Managers do not have the right to Deny Entry, nor control the safety and
quality of their own rides. The AERC rules are in place to help insure
fairness.  Denial of Entry by its very nature, must strictly adhere, and
appear, to be fair whenever applied.

I know this is long, but I hope it helps to clear up your understanding
of this issue.   Hopefully, the parties involved, whose emotions have
been set into a whirlpool, will realize this decision was not a sanction,
censure, or other penalty imposed upon them or their integrity.  I
further hope the parties who have canceled their Endurance Rides realize
that the only people injured by their decision are the riders in their
own NW Region.  The Ride Managers still have an implied right to insure
the safety and quality of their rides, as well as to Deny Entry in the
most serious of events.

Randy Eiland   

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]