Okay folks, remember me saying that I hope there was a response from the home office of the Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association and its Board of Directors. Well our wishes came true, sort of, as the PRCA home office issued a statement late last night that I have just received a few minutes ago from the headquarters themselves. Once you read it you all can start to draw your own conclusions and start to take sides as more information starts to come out. As you may already expect the two sides are very far apart on what actually happened and what is being demanded. Here is the official statement from the headquarters of the Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association and its Board of Directors:
PRCA Statement
January 7, 2014
A group of approximately 20 PRCA contestants called a meeting Jan. 3-4 in Waco, Texas, a day after requesting a special PRCA Board of Directors meeting. Upon 48 hours’ notice, the PRCA Board agreed to hold that special meeting via teleconference on Jan. 4. During the Jan. 4 Board meeting, the 11 contestants in attendance asked the PRCA Board to add and amend 18 bylaws related primarily to newly created contestant Board seats and contestant eligibility for the Wrangler National Finals Rodeo. The contestants discussed their proposed bylaw changes at length with the Board. The PRCA Board expressed concerns about the contestant demand that all 18 bylaw changes be voted on that same day, within 48 hours of the notice of the meeting, as that timing did not allow for the necessary vetting and research to be done in order to make legally sound, informed business decisions greatly affecting the entire membership. The contestants stated that their urgency for immediate answers was based upon their belief that a deadline of Jan. 6 existed for negotiating the Wrangler National Finals Rodeo contract. However, the PRCA Board was never informed of any Jan. 6 deadline, and was at the very same time receiving a conflicting counter-offer deadline of Jan. 14 from multiple members of the Las Vegas Events Board. In the interest of serving all 6,000-plus PRCA members and the entire sport of professional rodeo, the PRCA Board requested additional time to research and carefully consider all requests from the contestant group, but the 11 contestants denied that request.
PRCA Commissioner Karl Stressman and the PRCA Board of Directors at the 2013 WNFR
PRCA Commissioner Karl Stressman and the PRCA Board of Directors, in my mind, leave a lot to be said after this so-called statement. As I said earlier I was expecting to see both sides have completely different views on the “meeting” but I was not expecting the response from the PRCA. It seems to me that the cowboys and cowgirls are not wanting to hide anything about what, why and how they went about this and the reasonings behind it. On the other hand, the PRCA statement is very short and sweet and still refuses to talk about everything in detail. I believe that the PRCA is trying to figure out what to do since there is a whole lot riding on what happens within the next few weeks as this all plays out. I hope that both sides will take the time to figure out the best way to go about things from here on out. All in all, to say the very least, this will be an extremely important and demanding year for all those involved in this drama. Make sure to stay tuned to www.therodeoroundup.com for all late breaking news regarding this and all other issues throughout the year!!
Remember there are 6000 members in this Asso , not just 11, who all have something to gain or loose , before invoking 18 bylaw changes All should be posted & every member having the chance to read & understand each of the 18 , And the chance to challenge or agree , never should a bylaw change take effect with out the majority vote of the membership. For too long a hand full have been the deciding factor of rules & changes that effect the entire membership !!
Stressman is an employee of the PRCA, as is Santos – how many others on this board are also employed by the PRCA? This was one of the reasons I got involved in our local school board – employees were sitting on the board and answering to the superintendent during the day and being his boss at night, at school board meetings. That is a severe conflict of interest in most circles. I realize rodeo is often “different” and really nothing more than a huge old boys club but this is pretty in your face. She makes six figures working their “media” from her home office in Calif AND sits on the board that votes on her pay? And they employ her brother too, to work from his office in Calif as well. Interesting. Guess it’s a damn good gig if you can get it!
Wally – most publicly traded corporations or associations with memberships the size of the PRCA have the CEO as a Board of Director also. Not disagreeing with your comments, just a reference. Your local school board does not operate under the same principles.
Granted, but many don’t have six figure media heads on the board. She is not a member, nor is she a contestant, nor has she ever been to my understanding. It’s a small bone, I agree, but where there are small bones, there is usually a full skeleton and after the Ellerman debacle, of which she was very favorable toward him, it just makes one wonder who many people’s palms are greased at the cost of the membership.
I agree Johnny, any changes should be posted for review prior to any votes. I also would like to see what the contestants opinions are as to keeping the integrity of the sport, taking the sport to the next level and some of the other issues they claim is their reason for starting this new organization. What is the true goal here, do they feel monies are not being spent in the proper place, or could it be the way a contestant is qualified for the finals. I really would like to see something to their reasoning for backing away. The way I’m seeing this right now, is the ones that have made the most money in the sport appear to be the loudest voices right now. I really wonder if this does not go their way, will they be there next year making those large payouts. Please, show us something that backs up the claim to make these changes.