|
Please define in this context "relevant and
consequential." I would suspect that many folks would think that what
Barney Fleming earns vetting rides, for instance, is both relevant and
consequential, given the number that he vets, and thus it could be a
conflict of interest, by this definition. So should a
director/veterinarian who works at the level within the sport that Barney does
be ineligible to vote on many veterinary issues?
As I said, I know conflicts of interest exist--and
not all of them are financial! But I think it would be sufficient to list
the potential conflicts, and then let the board itself decide if a particular
one should preclude someone from voting (if they do not voluntarily excuse
themselves), rather than simply making a blanket statement regarding financial
interests and voting.
Heidi
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 10:24
AM
Subject: Re: [RC] AERC By-law
revisions
Hieid I think the answerr is in the pharse "material finanicial
interest" - the meaning of "material" in this pharse is "Being both relevant
and consequential." Lets take an example of an issue which might come before
the board. Say a rule which states every ride will have at least two vets, one
of which is licensed to treat in the state of the ride, a rule that states
every ride will have at least two vet checks in the 50 mile distance. This
could have the effect of requiring more vets for rides. No vet I have
ever talked to has told me vetting endurance rides was a money making
proposition. In fact most will tell you that the money from the time off from
their practice is not covered by the fees they they make vetting rides. Then
there is the issue of time away from family, etc. They do it because the love
the sport, not to line their pockets with green. I do not believe there is a
vet on the board that would have a "material finanicaial interest" in the
outcome on a vote on this rule - hence no conflict of interest.
In fact
I would be very surprised if there were any vet related issues that would rise
to the level a material finanical interest of a board member just because they
were a vet.
Truman
Heidi Smith wrote:
000d01c1e4f9$25a451c0$aed8790a@heidi type="cite">
So you're telling me that NO veterinarians on
the board who regularly vet rides should vote on any veterinary issues,
NO ride managers on any issues pertaining to ride management, and NO riders
should vote on such issues as awards programs? I can see cases where
we no longer have a quorum to vote. And quite frankly, I vote for
veterinarians, RM's, etc. who have knowledge, experience, and integrity
precisely so that they CAN vote on those issues about which they are
well-informed. But the fact remains--ride veterinarians regularly
provide service and receive money, ride managers regularly put on rides and
receive money, and riders regularly ride and receive placings, awards, etc.
which can in turn be used for various purposes, including advertising one's
horses, etc. My point is not that we should not be concerned about
conflict of interest, but that this proposed bylaw rules a significant
percentage of our board out of voting on the vast majority of issues that
are presented to it--and I think the majority of our members have voted
those very people ONTO the board precisely to HAVE their votes count on
those very same issues.
Heidi
PS: Here are the pertinent statements in
the proposed bylaws:
7.12. Each Director shall act in good faith to serve the best interests
of the Conference. To avoid conflicts of interests, each Director shall
comply with applicable law as well as the following:
(a)Any Director with a material financial interest in a
proposed direct transaction between the Director or the Director's immediate
family and the Conference shall disclose such interest to the Board and
shall refrain from voting on the transaction.
(b)Each Director shall file with the Conference no later than January
31 of each Ride Year a statement disclosing any conflict of interest between
the Director's business or professional interest which is potentially
impacted by decisions of the Board. Business or professional interests
requiring disclosure include, but are not limited to:
(1) Ride management;
(2) Veterinary services to Rides;
(3) Breeding or sale of Endurance equines;
(4) Manufacture or vending of supplies for Endurance Riding;
(5) Consultation for compensation to other persons or organizations
relating to Endurance Riding. A Director's "Conflict of Interest
Statement" shall be updated throughout the year within 30 days of a change
in circumstances requiring disclosure. The "Conflict of Interest Statement"
of each Director shall be available at the National Office for inspection by
other Directors and by Active Members of the Conference.
(c) A material financial interest of a Director shall include
both an interest of the Director personally or an immediate family member
and the interest of any employer of the Director or any person or
organization with which the Director regularly contracts to provide goods or
services.
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Monday, April 15, 2002 8:23 PM
Subject:
Re: [RC] AERC By-law revisions
And if there are board members with a conflict of interest
on a particular issue, IMO they should not be voting on said issue.
Truman
Heidi Smith wrote:
003a01c1e4ed$d78feb80$aed8790a@heidi type="cite">
Truman, I'm not doubting that we need a
provision regarding conflict of interest. And making a
statement in advance regarding what one does relative to the
sport that brings in income is not a problem. But truly, the
way our board is structured, there is likely someone (and in many cases
a great number of board members) who would technically not be able to
vote on many issues, the way I read this.
Heidi
|
