LEWISBURG, TN – What’s worse, a President like Loyd Black with a law degree and no leadership ability or a Sr. Vice President like Walt Chism with no law degree and no leadership ability?
The “Internet Chatter” Court continues with “Judge Judy” Walt Chism pontificating left and right with no legal leg to stand on other than “might makes right” in his and President Steve Smith‘s continued attempt to oppress the California members of TWHBEA. It may play well in sore Tennessee, but it’s not going to play well when that bus cranks up heading toward Lewisburg. TWHBEA has already spent over $2,000.00 in legal fees using members money to oppress members trying to protect Big Lick Director Christy Lantis from being removed by her 79% Sound constituents
. And they wonder why TWHBEA is a joke and has no credibility in the equine world?
Here’s the latest Email Court Session in which two accomplished licensed attorneys, Fran Cole from California and Teresa Bippen from Missouri “attempt” to communicate with one male chauvinist pig of a TWHBEA official Sr. VP Walter Chism who apparently gets his jollies “playing” Judge and thinks it is cute.
Meanwhile Stephen B. Smith is U.S.Senator Lamar Alexander’s $3 Million Campaign Finance Chair in one genre, and the Dictator of THWBEA Steve Smith in another.
From: Fran Cole
Date: December 30, 2013 5:48:29 AM PST
To: (Judge)Walt Chism(TWHBEA Sr. VP)
Subject: Written Ballots
Everyone understands that you have called the meeting in Lewisburg. No one is disputing where the meeting is being held or that is being called under the statute, so you do not need to keep repeating that.
What is at issue is TWHBEA’s failure to allow California members to vote by mail, and you have repeatedly evaded answering that question. The petitioners have agreed to pick up the costs for TWHBEA of providing written ballots, so there is no cost to TWHBEA, other than the thousands of dollars in legal fees you have spent fighting your members on this issue. Attached is a form of written ballot that I prepared and sent to Tracy Boyd to use by TWHBEA for the original meeting called for December. I have adapted it for the upcoming Special Meeting.
Please answer this question directly:Why is TWHBEA not allowing California members to vote by mail?
WRITTEN BALLOT FOR
SPECIAL MEETING OF CALIFORNIA MEMBERS OF
THE TENNESSEE WALKING HORSE
BREEDERS AND EXHIBITORS ASSOCIATION
To be held on Tuesday, February 3, 2014, at 9 a.m. CST at
250 North Ellington Parkway, Lewisburg, Tennessee 37091
Please mark one of the following:
_________I hereby vote FOR the removal of Christy Lantis as a director.
_________ I hereby vote AGAINST the removal of Christy Lantis as a director
Please print your name as it appears on the Association’s records:
_____________________________Print name of member
_______________________________ Member signature
If you wish to vote by written ballot and not in person, please place your signed written ballot in the envelope provided and mail or otherwise submit it to the Association. Written ballots must be received in the Post Office Box by 5:00 p.m. CST on Monday, February 2, 2014, to be counted. Once sent, written ballots may not be revoked.
JUDGE WALT CHISM
From: Walter Chism
Date: December 30, 2013 7:08:02 AM CST
Subject: RE: California TWHBEA MembersReasonable and what I think has no bearing at this point. The meeting has been called under a Tennessee statue and it will be conducted in accordance with that law.We have bylaws for removal of directors only for cause but under the statue of Tennessee a director can be removed by the members for no cause and then that same law defines the rules. We’re going to follow those rules. It doesn’t matter what the bylaws say, Tennessee code trumps TWHBEA bylaws.—————————————Subject: Re: California TWHBEA MembersFrom: Teresa Bippen
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 07:17:21 -0600
To: Walt ChismThe law is being used as a shield to discriminate against nonresidents of TN, and it is pretty darn obvious.California has asked for a mail-in vote. Is it reasonable for TWHBEA to deny that request? Is that in the best interests of TWHBEA? Is that what a prudent person would do? Or would a prudent and reasonable leader work with the members in California to assure they have proper representation at minimal inconvenience and cost to all parties?And, how do “legal” discriminatory actions against nonresidents help TWHBEA grow outside of TN? Just curious.Teresa BippenMissouri TWHBEA MemberSent from my iPadFROM JUDGE WALT CHISM
On Dec 30, 2013, at 5:56 AM, Walter Chism wrote:Thank you for your email. This recall action has been requested under a Tennessee statue and it will be conducted in accordance with the that law. The law specifically states that the meeting shall be held at the corporate headquarters.
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 18:47:28 -0800
From: Teresa Bippen
Subject: California TWHBEA Members
To: firstname.lastname@example.orgDear TWHBEA Executive Committee,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 Nonprofits and 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 yournonprofit, you do act as a steward and have certain fiduciary responsibilities underTennessee law. Specifically, Tennessee law imposes upon you the duty of loyalty and theduty of care.The duty of loyalty means that you must act with undivided loyalty in the best interests ofyour nonprofit organization . . .The duty of care means that you must act reasonably, as a prudent person in similarcircumstances 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 a prudent 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.Teresa BippenMissouri TWHBEA Member