This wording is pretty normal.
Truman
Heidi Smith wrote:
003d01c1e497$68dd1b00$aed8790a@heidi">One good thing about the new bylaws is the article on conflict of
interest. It has some teeth, no as many or as sharp of teeth that I
would like to see, but it's sure better than the old bylaws.
While I agree that it is good to address conflicts of interest, I'm not sure
I entirely understand proposed bylaw 7.12 (a), which in essence states that
a director shall not vote on an issue where he has a conflict of interest.
I need to go through this one when I have more time, but as I read it,
directors who are veterinarians shall not vote on issues pertaining to ride
vetting, directors who are ride managers shall not vote on issues pertaining
to sanctioning and other things that pertain to ride management, etc. Is
this what we really want? While I've seen some conflicts of interest occur,
far more often it has been those directors actively involved in those areas
who have enough expertise and knowledge to vote wisely, and have for the
most part voted in the best interest of the organization. I'm not sure this
takes the problem in a direction we want it to go! If the people of the
region feel that the pe rson has the integrity to serve on the board, then
that person should serve, and should be able to vote on ALL issues (other
than, perhaps, such sensitive issues as protests involving family members,
etc.)--otherwise, there is little point in electing people experienced in
many walks of the sport, for fear they would not be able to vote on the very
issues on which we want representation. Give me an active ride veterinarian
who also rides, manages, etc. as a director ANY day, over someone who has no
so-called "conflict of interest"--the latter person hasn't even gotten their
feet wet and likely doesn't understand the issues.
Heidi
