Re: BOD: Qualifications for the NC

[Roger Rittenhouse <roger@vmaxept.com>]

AERC BOD,
Randy, I agree with you fully. They way I tried to define the NC Committee
purpose was to provide advice and help to the RM each year with some
issues that are different or new issues that may arise. If the committee
is comprised of a few of us that go to all the NC events, and the
previous RM(s), I think we can provide a source of information WITHOUT
getting in their way.

I know it MAY sound  like the government joke 'hi, I am from AERC and
we are here to HELP you'. Then make the mistake of taking over. Count
on it, I have NO intention of getting in Connie's way  nor the new one
from Ca.
I DO believe we need to insure the site is suitable for the event, the
RM is very experienced with LARGER rides and they are aware of the
costs. The data collected by Diane, who has been to all 3 (4) can be a
major asset to the new RM for 2003.

It has been suggested we should look for venue locations that are easy
to get to and have LOTS of space for the bigger rigs.

How many sites in CA could host 200 rigs?
Are other locations better? Say in the MW or MT zones, or even CT.
That way both coasts have the same travel while those closer riders would
benefit.
I can think of a number of sites that just MAY be better then northern
Ca in the Redwoods. While a great place to ride, how difficult will it
be to get riders to come and how many rigs can get there.
Not a major issue at this time, but it should be considered.
I suppose we need to get number 4 finished this year then go from
there.

Randy's  "B" is right on. THAT really stressed out a number of riders
with a few horses. Also the 1000 miles  combo exception. However those
WITH the 1000 miles  plus combo did NOT complain. They are in the ride. I
cant wait to see how many high mileage teams show up.

Anyway, good point paper.

Roger
mailto:roger@vmaxept.com

-