Re: [RC] AERC By-law revisions

[Heidi Smith]

PS:  I meant to add to this statement that I'm listing Barney as an example of the sort of person who supports what he perceives to be in the best interest of the sport despite his financial interest--and I'd hate to see our bylaws written in such a way that such people are precluded from voting as directors on the very issues about which they have the most expertise.  So I hope no one construed this statement as picking on Barney--rather it is picking on the wording of the new bylaws.  I can think of other examples of directors over the years who have had a significant financial interest in the direction taken by our sport, but who nonetheless had the foresightedness to realize that it was the overall health of the sport that was important, not the immediate potential gain.  Those are the very sorts of people we NEED as directors, and we need their votes on issues regarding their areas of expertise, as well as their advice.   Heidi     ----- Original Message ----- From: Heidi Smith To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: RideCamp Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [RC] AERC By-law revisions 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?