RE: RC: RE: ride managers

["Bob Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net>]

Remember there is no substitute for the Vet. The reason for the "day
manager" is to provide the "ride manager" an opportunity to sponsor the ride
but then ride and not have the responsibilities of MANAGER. 

Way back when, we had Rm's putting on rides and riding the ride, leaving no
one in charge. It had to be stopped and this (the day manager) was a way
out. But, we had a rule the ride manager MUST be a member of the AERC to
obtain sanctioning! Hence the situation where one person gets the ride
sanctioned with absolutely no intention of actually managing the ride. The
initial person may do all the work, the trail, the porta-potties, the land
permits etc. but in the end someone else is actually the true manager.

I do not really agree with this arrangement but it has solved a situation
that was much worse at the time the rule was implemented.

Realize most of our rule extensions are promulgated by persistent violations
of the basic rule.

Bob Morris

-----Original Message-----
From: CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com [mailto:CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 9:02 PM
To: bobmorris@rmci.net; tobytrot@bigfoot.com; ridecamp@endurance.net
Subject: Re: RC: RE: ride managers


In a message dated 2/18/00 7:40:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
bobmorris@rmci.net writes:

<<  The Ride Manager
 who rode and had a "day manager" who was not a member could just slough off
 any problems by saying "well he is not an AERC member so did not know". We
 had to stop up that loop hole.
 
 The lower fee for Vets was to try to get the vets interested in endurance
 riding and to become more familiar with the AERC requirements as well as
the
 necessary expertise for the care of endurance horses. >>

Sounds like (with the exception of the necessary expertise to care for 
horses) the same rationale would apply to non-riding managers....

Heidi

winmail.dat