With how social media and such turn everything into a huge deal that a person must be racist (note this thread for example) I can totally see him saying ‘no way, I do not want to deal with this’. I do not think it is overly dramatic for what happens in today’s times. If someone had asked a few years ago things might be different.
15 Likes
By all accounts, Leslie Wiley and John Thier do indeed know exactly who Denis Glaccum is, and he knows who they are.
As someone stated way way early on in this discussion… they poked the bear. And there is no doubt they knew they were poking the bear when they did it.
Here is a summation of the reality of the situation, as I presently understand it based on comments, a lot of 2nd hand information, and some public first hand information.
Leslie contacted USEA/USEF first regarding her opinion that the name of this event should be changed. They did not respond in a very rapid or satisfactory manner, for whatever reason, so at some point in mid to late summer, she reached out directly via letter and e-mail to either Denis Glaccum - who is President of the entire PFEE Board of Directors, or her letters and e-mails were directed to the full PFEE Board of Directors. We don’t know which… but it really doesn’t matter. Multiple folks who were on the PFEE Board of Directors saw these communications. And it has been consistently reported that the essence of the communications were that she, and EN, thought the name of the event needed to be changed.
Let me again list the names of the people who are on the PFEE Board
Board of Directors
Ms. Kathy Blank
Ms. Amy Ruth Borun
Mrs. Mary Coldren
Mrs. Evie Dutton
Mr. Phillip Dutton
Mrs. Lornie Forbes
Mr. Denis Glaccum
Mrs. Bambi Glaccum
Mr. James Hicks
Mr. Boyd Martin
Ms. Anne Ogletree
Mr. Cuyler Walker
Mr. Michael Bucklin
Mr. Frank McEntee
Mr. Douglas Howe
At some point in the course of communications between LW and DG as well as the rest of the PFEE board, during mid to late summer, it was communicated back to LW that the name of this venue would not be changed this year.
At some point in either early communications directly with USEA/USEF, or during the course of the direct back and forth between Leslie and PFEE in mid to late summer, Rob Burk became aware of all this as well. He, or someone else with a governing body, informed Leslie and EN that they didn’t have the authority or ability to force PFEE to change the name of the event, if PFEE was unwilling to do so.
Everyone involved apparently continued to communicate. At some point in late August, with less than a month to go until the event, Boyd Martin informed EN (and possibly Rob Burk and USEA) that if the push for a name change continued, they risked deeply upsetting and offending Cuyler Walker, the land owner, and if that happened, the lease between the land owner and PFEE for use of the land for the purpose of holding USEA/USEF recognized competitions would likely be terminated, and the entire venue would be lost.
John Thier (the “publisher” of EN) apparently responded to Boyd Martin, indicating that he was of the opinion that there were worse things than offending Mr. Walker and losing the venue and the support of someone like Mr. Walker… and that keeping the name the same was one of those worse things. Because in JT’s opinion, it was an offensive name. And JT believed he and Leslie (the “editor in Chief” of EN) were advocating for something that was “right” and needed to happen.
At some point along the way, apparently close to the point in late August when Boyd Martin conveyed the risks to all parties involved of continuing on their chosen path… and that answer was still “no” with respect to changing the name… there is an allegation that EN communicated back to folks involved with PFEE that they would bring this issue to the attention of the broader media if PFEE continued to stand by their decision not to change the name of this venue.
PFEE apparently then informed EN that they were unwelcome to “cover“ anything related to the September event, nor were they welcome to come onto the property during the event.
In close proximity to this general timeframe, USEA apparently held a meeting of its own board of directors, and decided to take a vote on the use of the word “plantation” in any media and marketing materials related to their organization… and the vote was to stop using that word from there on out. It is unclear if EN had also gone to USEA and informed THEM that they would be bringing this issue to the attention of mainstream media outlets if USEA didn’t take this action… one can only infer that it is possible some communication went back and forth between people with respect to that issue…
so after the vote by the USEA Board, Rob Burk snd Max Corcoran sent a letter to Denis Glaccum and the PFEE Board of Directors on September 13, with literally days to go until the event was scheduled to run, and informed them that in all USEA media releases about the event… USEA would be referring to it as “P Field” going forward.
Well… at that point, Mr. Walker, the property owner, decided he was officially done with this whole issue. And on September 14, he informed everyone involved very politely that he felt the whole debate was disrespectful to him and his family, and their reasons for naming the property what they had chosen to name it. He also regretted ever getting involved with this group of people affiliated with eventing, and allowing them use of his property, and he was resigning from the Board of PFEE, and would be terminating the property lease. And though the event could go ahead and run as scheduled, after that, it was over, and he would work with Mr. Glaccum to coordinate the removal of all PFEE equipment and assets from his property.
Rob Burk was also included on the September 14 communication from Mr. Walker, expressing Mr. Walker’s regret at ever having allowed anyone associated with eventing access to his property, and terminating all association with and sponsorship of the sport.
Apparently at that point, some folks at USEA started communicating behind the scenes… and decided that they would not refer to the event as “P Field” after all, and that they did sincerely regret offending Mr. Walker so deeply, and didn’t wish for this outcome.
However…
On September 16, EN started publishing a series of editorials about the “controversy” over the name of Plantation Field, and how they believed the name was an issue of concern for the sport of eventing, and hurtful and disrespectful to black people. Shortly after the first EN editorial went up online, PFEE wrote their own press release, announcing that 2020 would be the last competition at the venue given the owner’s decision to cancel the lease, and providing background information on why the event was named Plantation Field, the general history of the surrounding area (which was in no way connected to slavery), and the property owner and his family’s long long history of giving to philanthropic causes in the area. But it didn’t matter. EN continued “publishing“ editorial content… though John Thier’s editorial did express some regret for their role in this mess.
But… the controversy did hit the wider news. And a story about it has now been published in the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Times. Leslie Wiley actually did speak to the NYT and provided comments when they asked her for them. The story was not a complimentary one with respect to the entire community that participated in the sport of eventing, and essentially characterized many eventers who spoke up online protesting this whole controversy and ENs handling of it and the loss of this venue over the issue of the name, as racially insensitive and intolerant. The article then took broader strokes, and cast much of equestrian sport in that light.
PFEE and Mr. Walker did not provide comment to either the Philly Inquirer or the NYT. But Mr. Walker’s name, and the fact that this venue was his family’s property and the name was tied to he and his family… that was noted in each article. It was also noted in one or both articles that Mr. Walker is a registered Republican.
[B]So there you go folks. If someone thinks I have been unfair in this summary… by all means point it out. I tried to stick to the facts regarding what is known.
My own opinion, the venue is gone for good. It does not matter now how profusely anyone with the USEA and USEF apologizes… the NYT article was ugly and it’s done. And Leslie Wiley did willingly contribute to that NYT article.
You can blame Mr. Glaccum if you want to. He may very well be a “curmudgeon”… but come on… Leslie Wiley and John Thier are clearly the root of this whole mess. And likely EN is making additional revenue on the extra clicks on the EN site as a result of all this publicity as we speak. [/B]
23 Likes
Thank you for the summary. Perhaps someone from EN can verify the events as they do read this forum.
1 Like
There is no indication Leslie Wiley or John Thier ever wanted to have a discussion. They wanted the name changed. One board member in comments on social media essentially dared Leslie Wiley to publish the letters and e-mails she sent to the PFEE board in late summer, because according to the board member the communications spoke for themself, and it was abundantly clear that EN had demanded a name change… not contacted e wry one to request a discussion.
Just another aspect of it for consideration.
11 Likes
That is not correct. I’m not going to get into the details but this land owner and organizer were treated poorly. This was trying to force down change when the side trying to do the forcing had no leverage. The landowner really didn’t need to have eventing on his land. They were TOLD the name Planation wasn’t going to be used and that was that…and their response was understandable…they then then really didn’t need USEA/USEF eventing on their land. The Landowner and organizer were not approached in a manner that was conducive to change. Real change takes time. This was cutting off your nose to spite your face. My only hope is that people calm down…give this some time…and let people have civil discussions. I think 37 pages on COTH is enough.
I just read Boyds most recent blog post, Walker was/is an owner for him? I was not aware. Hopefully this won’t effect his support of the sport further.
yeah thats not good.
3 Likes
Assume for the sake of argument that no matter how gently and respectfully the landowner was approached, he is dead set in his refusal to change the name because it honors his grandfather, because changing the name would be expensive, etc.
Should the USEA take the position, “We cannot possibly hold another event at a place with the word ‘plantation’ in it, so goodbye, we will never set foot on your property again.”
Or should they instead play the long game: “Look, we wish the name were different, but change isn’t in the works this year… we’ll keep the lines of communication open and hope an opportunity for change comes up in the future, and meanwhile we’ll keep putting on wonderful events and take every opportunity to emphasize that everyone is welcome and that this event does terrific work to benefit inner city kids…”
I would pick Option 2. The world (and the people in it) aren’t always perfect, and you just do your best with what you have. But then too, I’ve never been one for flouncing off in a huff and refusing to speak to someone because they have a different opinion than me.
13 Likes
Thanks for quoting it…I went to edit a typo and it went poof. This land owner is a huge supporter of open space. This land isn’t going to become a strip mall. My hope is that he will allow some eventing and schoolings to still take place even if it is not big International Event…but who knows. This all needs some time to calm down a bit and it really is a very sad way to lose an event. Especially because of this venue was one that was very good for introducing people of all levels to the sport of eventing. Their starter trials were incredibly welcoming and affordable. A lot of young eventers got their start there and got a kick at riding near the big Advanced fences. Plus…as a spectator…it is one of the few venues that you can really see everything. Just a truly stunning piece of land.
14 Likes
This is a very astute take on it all.
A few follow on points…
- USEA does have its own board of directors, and they were the ones who apparently took a vote in the days leading up to the actual event this year about whether or not the USEA would continue to use the word “plantation” anywhere anymore in it’s media and marketing materials.
They voted not to keep on using the word.
But it does seem quite clear that this specific vote was a way to achieve a de facto name change of sorts, on the part of USEA itself, in relation to this event.
-
Am I the only person wondering why the USEA Board of Directors decided to vote on this specific issue, at this specific time, with less than a month to go until this competition took place on the calendar… a competition about which they most certainly would be putting out a press release or two?
-
Did Rob Burk and whoever else was involved fully inform the USEA Board of Directors that if they forced the issue of a name change to this particular venue, they risked losing the support of this important private individual, and access to the land associated with the venue for good?
7 Likes
One thing that didn’t happen (again from hearsay/what I’ve read in comments) is that they never approached the Area II chair which should have been the first step as per the bylaws.
6 Likes
“Hi, thank you for reaching out. We are not interested in changing the name of the organization or the event because it celebrates a service project that is important to our family.”
We are going to destroy you and your business on social media as avowed racists who don’t care about traumatizing minorities. Given the current climate, someone is pretty much guaranteed to set your 30000 acres on fire. Enjoy.
I just. I can’t. I reread Nineteen Eighty Four every year for this reason.
The landowner’s response was to extricate themselves from a situation that could only damage them. They handled it more graciously than was deserved.
They should probably avoid the horse industry in the US for the foreseeable future.
29 Likes
I would send Boyd to Europe for the remainder of his career.
2 Likes
See… exactly. This is exactly what I tried to explain. But… you are much more succinct. :lol:
As the old saying goes… brevity is the soul of wit. :winkgrin:
10 Likes
She posted on FB in the area II group… I saw it. No… no one did ever involve her in this mess. She learned about the cancellation of the whole thing after the damage was done on FB just like the rest of us.
Maybe that was because the whole issue already was. Wing handled by Rob Burk… and he’s the CEO of USEA. I’m unclear though. And that can be a little tricky in and of itself… I believe an area chair is elected to represent the interests of area members… whereas a CEO is a full time position managing the corporation. It’s not like Rob Burk is the “boss” of the area II chair.
2 Likes
I would say that we have enough information.
This is not a court of law…but it does seem to be the court of public opinion. This landowner does not need to justify himself to anyone. I’m sure all the conditions of the lease are being complied with, so anything else, is just a smear campaign.
Why would anyone want to touch this publicity? Why wouldn’t a rational person opt to stay away…far, far, away. Who wants to bring this hassle into their house? I am sure this demand was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back.
Which is why it is incumbent on people who are interested in making a change to understand the context, the stakeholders involved and what are the ramifications of upsetting the status quo.
As someone upthread said…EN poked the Bear…and the Bear won.
8 Likes
Thanks, that’s a much more detailed timeline with more information than I’ve seen before. It also seems that USEA played a bigger role than I realized, as their change of position and vote to not use the name right before the event seems to have been the last straw with the landowner. It is interesting that no one from PFEE has released the emails if it does show that EN/USEA were the only ones acting poorly, but perhaps since public opinion is already on their side so they don’t feel the need. I acknowledge that if the above is accurate, it seems that EN was the party not interested in compromise.
5 Likes
No, Ms. Amy Ruth Borun said the emails couldn’t legally be released, which includes the ones sent by Ms. Wylie. BODs have rules to follow
2 Likes
I had missed that. Thanks.
2 Likes
Yeah, it’s several pages back. I copied & pasted it if you want to see if you can find it. I don’t recall what post number - sorry.
1 Like
