December 21, 2011
Ray LaCroix responds to the comments offered by co-signators to his letter to AHA. Read Ray's letter regarding issues with the Tulsa venue HERE.
I am really encouraged and gratified by the hundreds of members who have endorsed this letter and I would like to say thank you to everyone. The comments that come with the signatures are amazing and enlightening. Both the comments with the signatures and the comments posted on the Arabian Horse World Facebook page, have caused me to think about the issues raised by the letter. Regardless of my personal thoughts on Tulsa, this entire issue is not about what I think; it’s about what the membership thinks, and what the best outcome might possibly be.
From the signature comments I have read so far, there is enough dislike for Tulsa among the members who participate (those who show regionally and nationally, who have shown at Tulsa within the past three years) that the question on everyone’s mind is: will the contract with Tulsa be renewed?
While all past venues have carried some problems, none have created as much discontent as Tulsa. A national show should garner interest in the breed, both within the existing membership and from the general public. If it fails to do so, and instead produces disinterest, the number of exhibitors and horses will decrease, vendors will stop participating, and the show will shrink and lose prestige. As a result, show horse sales become more difficult causing less demand for breeding, and the downward spiral of negative growth for the Arabian breed continues. We all want the breed to grow and addressing the discontent caused by this one venue is a step in the right direction.
This discontent, plus the membership’s general lack of understanding of how (what are the criteria) and who makes the decisions on venue change, causes many to question why the membership is not being polled about something that is very important, and a real "sore spot" to them. What’s needed is more transparency with this issue.
The letter I wrote poses the question: ‘Of all who have read this, how many of you agree with it?’ A partial answer will come in the form of the number of endorsements.
What does this tell the AHA Board of Directors?
1. That there is a significant number of members who think that the Tulsa venue is insufficient to meet the various needs of the membership.
2. That there is anger among the members because they think that they are being ignored.
3. That the members don’t know how to make themselves heard and don’t think that voicing their discontent does any real good. In fact, one member who endorsed my letter suggested, “Let’s occupy AHA!”
The point of all of this is that the Board of Directors should be more proactive and not let membership discontent become so great that it boils over.
What should the Board of Directors do about this? Tell the members "we hear you,” by publicly acknowledging the letter or the situation. Tell the members "we would like to know specifically what we can do for you,” by canvassing the participating membership with a questionnaire to find out facts about the issues at Tulsa. After the facts are known, tell the members, "Here are your concerns,” by publishing the actual results of the poll so that there is transparency. Finally, the board needs to tell the members, "Here’s what we are capable of doing about these issues.”
What would the outcome of this process be? The members will have been heard, not ignored. A process for dialog will have been created. Through this process, AHA will become much more informed about what the members really think and, most importantly, become more responsive to their members.
How simple is that?
If you agree with me, please click on the link above and co-sign my original letter.
Respectfully, Ray