Re: RC: PNER NEWSLETTER

[jlong@mti.net (Joe Long)]

On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:15:49 -0700, DeWayne R Brown
<dwhorseman@juno.com> wrote:

>The PNER newsletter does not contain "defamatory allegations" as you have
>written.  It contains FACTS pertinent to endurance riders participating
>in AERC sanctioned events in the NW.  The facts are that this former
>RM/Vet is not licensed to practice veterinary medicine in Oregon or any
>other state.  The fact is that it is against Oregon State Law for an
>unlicensed individual to even call themselves a veterinarian, "in the
>conduct of any occupation or profession pertaining to the diagnosis or
>treatment of animal disease or CONDITIONS mentioned in this charter,
>unless such person is legally entitled to use such designation." ORS
>686.020

You can call them facts, and maybe they are, but until they are proven
they are still just allegations.  And the FACT remains that the vet in
question was not given an opportunity to give her side in the
newsletter along with the articles attacking her.  That is not the
"American Way" where we have a right to face our accusers.

>AERC rules clearly state that a ride must be under the control "of a
>veterinarian".  Under Oregon State Law this person is NOT a veterinarian.
> She may not judge the condition of an animal or treat an animal under
>Oregon State Law.

Are you suggesting that no veterinarian who does not have a license to
practice in the state in which the ride is held can ever again vet an
AERC ride?

>The fact is that the Sunriver ride was not "taken away" from this RM. 
>Rather AERC chose not to sanction the Sunriver ride given many years of
>late fees, bounced checks and ride results not turned in on time. 
>Another group was given the Sunriver ride date and they were to put on
>their own ride in the same area.  The fact is that this ride was NOT
>originated by this individual in the first place, but was handed over
>several years ago by a retiring RM, and was taken over from this RM when
>they were no longer putting rides on for a time, and again taken back a
>few years later.  The facts are that the "Director" had every right and
>reason to deny sanctioning to this individual.

She was the current ride manager.  The AERC can, if it has good
reason, decline to sanction the ride under her management.  It has no
right to give the ride to someone else without her consent.  If
someone wanted to put on another ride in it's place they didn't have
to call it Sunriver.

>To SUM this up IMO the PNER Newsletter is the perfect place for the
>officers of this club to publish important information and FACTS
>pertinent to the riders in this region.  Maybe YOU should check the FACTS
>before you vent in a public place such as Ridecamp.

If it is going to publish these kinds of allegations the person being
accused should have the opportunity to give their side.  That's just
basic fairness -- you should have learned it in Kindergarten.

I never claimed to know all of the "facts" in this situation.  I doubt
that you know all of the "facts" either.  The question is one of fair
treatment.  And oh, the last time I looked the PNER newsletter was
just as public as Ridecamp.

-- 

Joe Long
jlong@mti.net
http://www.mti.net     Business
http://www.rnbw.com    Personal


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=