Although a Missouri member, I have been following the California recall of TWHBEA Director, Kristi Lantis, along with thousands of other people on the Internet.
I am writing to determine exactly what is being accomplished with the draconian requirement that California TWHBEA members travel to Lewisburg to vote for a Director that represents their interests? How reasonable is it for people to spend hundreds of dollars to travel to TN for a membership that costs $60?
Does the Walking Horse industry really need this negative publicity? Sympathetic TWHBEA members and other interested persons are sending daily updates to Senators Alexander and Corker to demonstrate the prejudicial and unreasonable action being taken by TWHBEA officers against its members. Do you believe this action will enhance TWHBEA’s or Steve Smith’s reputations for integrity with legislators or the press?
I read the publication, What Every Board Member and Officer Should Know ““ A Guidebook for Tennessee Nonprofitsand thought you might be interested in the first few sentences,
“Although as a board member you may not manage the day-to-day activities of your
nonprofit, you do act as a steward and have certain fiduciary responsibilities under
Tennessee law. Specifically, Tennessee law imposes upon you the duty of loyalty and the
duty of care.
The duty of loyalty means that you must act with undivided loyalty in the best interests of
your nonprofit organization . . .
The duty of care means that you must act reasonably, as a prudent person in similar
circumstances would . . .
So what is TWHBEA hoping to accomplish with an irrational travel requirement imposed upon California members wanting to vote for a Director who represents their interests? How is this travel requirement acting in the best interests of TWHBEA? Wouldn’t it make more sense to fairly and quickly hold a mail-in election so that a Director is elected that is aligned with his or her members’ wishes?
What is Ms. Lantis hoping to accomplish by not resigning when she is fully aware she is not representing the interests of the majority of her constituents? How is Ms. Lantis acting in the best interests of TWHBEA by ignoring the wishes of her members? If Ms. Lantis wants to keep her Director’s position, how rational is it for Ms. Lantis to recruit California members and ask them to travel to TN to vote for HER?
Would a prudent person require that TWHBEA members travel over 1000 miles to Lewisburg to vote? Or, would aprudent person use the same voting mechanism that has been used for decades at TWHBEA which is a secret ballot mailed to an independent CPA firm? Just because your decision to have a vote in Lewisburg is legal, it does NOT mean it is PRUDENT nor does it mean it is in the best interests of TWHBEA.
Once again, I am curious as to how this travel requirement decision against California members benefits TWHBEA?
· Proves that all the power is in TN? (Yep, sounds judicious to me even though TWHBEA claims it is an international organization””we now know its mere window dressing, don’t we?)
· Proves that TWHBEA members’ wishes are irrelevant if they do not coincide with the EC?
· More articles published about this incident in newspapers and on the Internet for the next 30+ days? (And, who do you expect to take TWHBEA’s side? Roy Exum?)
· Defend a complaint filed with the Tennessee Attorney General for TWHBEA discriminating against nonresident members by imposing unreasonable voting requirements? (Wow, defending that complaint is a fiscally sound use of TWHBEA funds, isn’t it? And, you all could not see this coming? Well, now you know what to expect so don’t say you were not warned)
· Bring public awareness to the fact that there are EC members with HPA violations so why would we expect them to fairly treat TWHBEA members who want the laws strengthened against soring? (Similar to having embezzlers on the Board of Directors of a bank, isn’t it?)
I look forward to your response and learning of the benefits accruing to TWHBEA for forcing members over 1000 miles away to travel to Lewisburg to vote for a Director that represents their interests. If you don’t mind, I am also interested in how you plan to defend this decision as a prudent one? Remember, the standard is prudent””not legal.
Missouri TWHBEA Member