February 13, 1998

To: All QMA Members
From: QMA Board of Directors
Subject: Mike Tierney Resignation Letter

Dear Members,

To this point the BOD has elected not to respond directly to criticism aimed at QMA or the BOD. The reasoning was that by "fighting it out" a response would only serve to prolong and exaggerate an already obvious difference of opinion. We felt that given the opportunity the membership could determine the truth (and has!). Time is the best healer of all wounds. Unfortunately, by not responding, the claims and accusations of the aggrieved have become more and more reckless, destructive and distorted. Mike, as our Publicity Director was our voice to the membership on many issues. The BOD is concerned that because of the membership's familiarity with Mike and his official responses, they may confuse his personal opinions with the facts. Our response to his resignation letter follows.

Mike's opening statement is essentially correct and ends on a positive note. Most of us can identify with the stress a position with this amount of responsibility can generate.

Paragraph 2 deviates from this positive tone. Differences of opinion in any group are to be expected. On a Board such as this they are to be encouraged. Mike did not deal well with less than unanimous support of his efforts. The Quarter Reporter is clearly the responsibility of the Publicity Director. His format (Newsletter) was adopted at the 1997 Annual Meeting on his recommendation and insistence. "He", not "we" could not get it out. Yes, there were problems with mailing lists etc. These problems can not be used as an excuse for not having the QR ready to at least mail in a timely manner. The job of producing the QR is no small task for anyone, especially a volunteer with employment and family responsibilities. The Board (and membership) would certainly have understood late issues. Shifting of the responsibility or the blame is neither accurate nor productive.

Paragraph 3- Mike's estimate of revenues is way off the mark. 2500 families times a maximum of $100 = $250,000. Additionally many family memberships consist of one handler or one handler and one driver, $50. and $75 respectively. He also neglected to mention the need for the dues increase and that it can be rescinded at next years meeting if it is not necessary. The need for an increase is based on the proposal to have a paid, full time Director. This can not be funded on our current income. We are prohibited by the QMA Bylaws from assessing the membership for anything other then dues. If there is to be any hope of having a paid Director in 1999 we must have the dues increase in place this year in order to have it available next year. Mike is partially correct that I did "promise" to work on a business plan, and I did. But after countless hours of thought and work it became obvious that there was no clear direction that the membership desired for QMA to go. Thus this years mandated committee that is charged with polling the membership on their wishes, desires and opinions. This committee's progress and findings will be reported to the Regional Directors during this up coming year, and at the 1999 annual meeting. I agree in part that his marketing plan is somewhat useless. Not because there is no business plan but because he will not be there to see it through. I strongly disagree with his assertion that there was "no professional preconceived (?) agenda". There was an agenda and we got most all of the necessary work done. I'm sorry if it didn't meet with his standards. The Board would have loved for him to help us on this if he had offered. His ideas on publicity were for the most part well thought out and visionary. He should be commended for his efforts. However, the nasty old mundane current business sometimes must get done first. He is also correct that the Board seldom wrote a press release. Early on he reminded us that job should be delegated to publicity. Mike's assertion that the Board did not support publicity is not true. He was given almost free reign on most issues he brought to the Board. If by support he means that other Board members did not aggressively assist him in his endeavors he might be correct. However we all have more to do in our own areas of responsibility than can be done. It is true that there were "heated discussions" on issues involving the Publicity Director's responsibilities. Some may even have been allowed to go on to long. Discussion, heated or not, is necessary to allow the Board to "feel its' way" with each other. Not working or meeting with each other in person has its' draw backs, and this is certainly one of them.

Honesty? No small part of honesty is telling the whole story! Along with this goes the responsibility of making sure that you are aware of all the facts and then relaying them in an accurate and unbiased manner. In regards to the Fred McNeill report, I NEVER told Mike or anyone else to "keep quite about it". I did ask Steve Schmidt and Mike McCluney to only release their reports to me. I also asked that no one release the names of other people mentioned in the reports. I have no recollection of Mike ever speaking to me regarding the status of the report. I question the basis of the concern he shows at this time. Except for sensitive issues I never asked Mike to withhold any information from anyone. I certainly never "chastised" him for answering questions. I did suggest that he get the facts before he answered questions, particularly questions from Regional Directors. They above all need to have accurate answers so that the information they pass along is correct. To sum it up, honesty is a 2 way street. That is, get correct information and pass it along completely. Unfortunately the traffic isn't always going the way we would like.

In his conclusion Mike refers to "the brick wall of reality called 'the board majority' ". I'm not sure what he means unless this is a statement of his frustration in not having complete autonomy in his actions. If that were the case we would not need to have conference calls or meetings.

I learned of Mike's resignation on Monday, Feb. 9th from a Regional Director who suggested that I read the Quarter Midget.Com home page. The letter was dated January 31, 1998. On Thursday, Feb. 12th I did receive his resignation in the mail. The envelope was postmarked Feb. 5, 6 days after its' writing. I expected more from Mike! I am dismayed that he chose this method to end his term.

The BOD does desire to wish Mike and his family well! We hope that time will speedily heal our differences and we all agree to a person that he did make a POSITIVE difference during his time on the Board.

Thanks Mike, and God bless you as well!

For the Board of Directors and with their approval,

Sincerely,

Pidge

PS Since the above reply was written the following letter was written and posted to the Quartermidget.com mailing list by Mike Tierney.

>>John,
>>I don't know if the mailing list is up and running yet. The mailing list was a superior 
>>disappointment in the way it was cared for in the 1996-to-present timeframe. Pidge's promised 
>>date for producing a correct mailing list is this Friday, February 13th (hey - Friday the 13th). 

>>But the mailing list was not the final straw. One of the final straws came when I got a phone 
>>call from Rose asking me "What do you got for the Quarter Reporter Mike - I'm trying to get 
>>it out by Monday". I could have died laughing. I guess that must have been her way of saying 
>>she is going to help me! I suppose that Rose is truly trying to help me there but this is not the 
>>correct way in "taking charge". 
>>Mike Tierney<< 

QMA's response to this letter is:

The mailing list IS up and running with all membership applications received by Denise as of the first of February entered. The list DOES NOT include members from 1997 whose 1998 applications have not been received but are still carried as members until March 31st 1998.

Second paragraph - When Mike left the annual meeting Saturday morning it was clear to everyone at the meeting that he needed help. He had in fact asked for help. Since that time it came to my attention that he had already made arrangements to have someone else do all the layout work and send the copy to the printers. Additionally on the January conference call he suggested that HE be appointed Vice President and that Rose be appointed Publicity Director. This suggestion was discounted and the comment that "Rose would do anything to help, no matter what" was made. Mike agreed that would help. If in the rush surrounding Mike's early departure from the meeting the offer that Rose made to many on the BOD did not specifically get to Mike I apologize. However if he had made the BOD aware of his arrangements the situation would never come up. The bottom line is that he needed help, asked for help, and received help or offers of help from 2 parties! To blame this incident on Rose is not fair or accurate! Especially in light of the fact that the resignation letter is dated January 31st, two days prior to the date of the call from Rose on February 2nd! Rose "came on board" to do a tough job and to slam her publicly after resigning is not appropriate.

This will be the only public response that will be issued by the QMA Board of Directors concerning Mike's resignation.

Again for the BOD,

Pidge