Originally Posted by
Richard F, Hoyer
On the Oregon Falconer's Assn. web site, I asked NAFA president Dan Cecchini to respond to the information that appeared in the initial post by Fred that began this tread. Dan Cecchini has declined to respond.
The failure of the NAFA leadership to be accountable is disturbing. This is the second time NAFA leadership has refused to explain their actions. Last year during the badly botched 'Private Property' issue, a majority of the NAFA board and Dan Cecchini failed to respond or explain.
As for the current controversy with the 'petition' issue, the NAFA leadership portrayed the petition process as badly flawed. The 'fix' they proposed was not to just double the number of required signatures but to increase the number FIVE FOLD. The realities of such a drastic change has been to effectively kill the petition process thereby removing any rational chance for members to be heard through that process.
It can be noted that such an outcome was not mentioned by Dan in his communications to the NAFA membership. So two question come to mind. Was the board members that approved the ballot measure and Dan Cecchini consciously aware they were scuttling the petition process? Or is the NAFA leadership so inept that they failed to consider the potential consequences?
The link in Fred's post contains a chronology of events by attorney Mathew Gould. If you click on Mr. Gould's letter of 11/21/08, his last paragraph provides a reasoned analysis of the petition situation. With Dan Cecchini refusing to respond, one is left with the understanding that 1), the portrayal of events and conclusions reached by Mr. Gould are reasonable and accurate and 2), by not responding, Dan Cecchini is essentially conceding that fact.
Last year, the same NAFA leadership badly botched the handling of the 'Private Property' (of falconry birds) issue and now is following-up with a similar encore with this 'petition issue. So once again, I have concluded that the conduct of the current NAFA leadership is unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
Around the end of 2007 or early 2008, on this forum I urge all falconers to consider joining NAFA as representation is important and there is strength in numbers. Sadly, in the aftermath of what transpired last year and now this year, in good conscious I can no longer advocate joining NAFA. And in fact, I would advise just the opposite or at least wait until a more responsive and responsible leadership emerges. Even though I began my NAFA membership in 1962, with the current sad state of affairs, I am inclined to just let my membership lapse next year.
Finally, I am aware that I could be all wet in the above considerations and viewpoint. But before I offer an apology, in rational terms it needs to be pointed out just where I have made my mistakes.
Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
