# AMHR Convention News (Unofficial)



## Yaddax3 (Nov 4, 2010)

The word out of Little Rock is ...

All proposals to change the way minis are measured went down in flames.

Youth can now qualify in Open classes for AMHR Nationals.

Proposal to add a Pleasure class for Modern-type minis defeated.


----------



## txminipinto (Nov 4, 2010)

I don't see a problem with any of that!


----------



## Mominis (Nov 4, 2010)

Thanks for the update!


----------



## kaykay (Nov 4, 2010)

I am very happy to say none of the gelding hardship proposals passed through the committee meetings

There is some friction over bylaw changes that Ray Tobin wanted voted on but was tabled by the BOD. Thank goodness!

Kay


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Nov 4, 2010)

Here is some more unofficial results:

Putting HOF info in the studbook. PASSED

The horse is to be standing in a natural possition

DELETE: The horse is to be standing square. FAILED

Measure at the base of the withers. FAILED

Measure at the high point of the withers. FAILED

Allow unregistered geldings to be hardshipped. FAILED

Hardship of ponies at 5 years of age. FAILED

Herd of 4. PASSED

Optional stake classes, divided by height. PASSED.

Optional open driving classes, divided by height. PASSED

Take out overchecks and overcheck bits in the Western class. FAILED

Change of the Park Harness class. FAILED

The PVC pipes, with change in wording, in Obstacle. PASSED

Change the wording to Championship for driving when no paybacks are being offered, have stakes when paybacks are offered. FAILED

Open Jumper. FAILED

Group Costume. PASSED (NO more unders and overs costume)

Youth qualifying proposal. PASSED

Roadster In-Hand, rules to be put in the mini section. PASSED

Miniature modern pleasure driving. FAILED

Change of fee for hardship for geldings. FAILED

A mini can have multiple HOFs for one class. PASSED

The vendors proposal was not suppose to be in there.

Info on Nationals:

35 more horses then last year

6500 entries

made a profit

Next years dates Sept. 8-18


----------



## midnight star stables (Nov 4, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> Here is some more unofficial results:
> 
> Herd of 4. PASSED
> 
> A mini can have multiple HOFs for one class. PASSED


Can someone explain these two in more detail?

JMS Miniatures, THANK YOU SO MUCH for all this info!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Nov 4, 2010)

midnight star stables said:


> Can someone explain these two in more detail?
> 
> JMS Miniatures, THANK YOU SO MUCH for all this info!


Herd of (4), 38" & Under, any age, any sex. Judged on conformation and uniformity. One owner and entry is made in the name of the owner.

If you look in the rulebook they offer this class for the shetlands only I believe it has to be 1 stallion and 3 mares, like his herd. But I could be wrong. I personally didn't see much value of this class, especially since it can be any sex, I didn't vote for it, but it passed.

The multiple HOFs. For example if you have a horse in Jumper, he earned his 70 pts for Jumper and received his HOF. However, you want to continue to show him and earn more points and now you can do so, if you got another 70 pts in Jumper, you got another HOF. Just the same like the other classes. I don't think they know exactly how they are going to handle it, but everyone was positive for it. Another example you just bought a horse that has his HOF, you can now go for it again for yourself.


----------



## Yaddax3 (Nov 4, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> The multiple HOFs. For example if you have a horse in Jumper, he earned his 70 pts for Jumper and received his HOF. However, you want to continue to show him and earn more points and now you can do so, if you got another 70 pts in Jumper, you got another HOF. Just the same like the other classes. I don't think they know exactly how they are going to handle it, but everyone was positive for it. Another example you just bought a horse that has his HOF, you can now go for it again for yourself.


We have a mini, Classique's Phantom Gold, with 616 HOF points in Jumper. Does that mean with another 14 points he earns his ninth HOF in Jumper?


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Nov 4, 2010)

Yaddax3 said:


> We have a mini, Classique's Phantom Gold, with 616 HOF points in Jumper. Does that mean with another 14 points he earns his ninth HOF in Jumper?


See I wonder if they would count from previous horse's points too? I'm curious what they will do with this proposal.


----------



## ponyrecruit (Nov 5, 2010)

Does the HOF proposal also state that they have to get the 5 championships (if applicatable in that class) all over again as well as the points?


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Nov 5, 2010)

ponyrecruit said:


> Does the HOF proposal also state that they have to get the 5 championships (if applicatable in that class) all over again as well as the points?


Yes. Everything is still the same, its just you can now get it multiple times.


----------



## RayVik (Nov 5, 2010)

kaykay said:


> I am very happy to say none of the gelding hardship proposals passed through the committee meetings
> 
> There is some friction over bylaw changes that Ray Tobin wanted voted on but was tabled by the BOD. Thank goodness!
> 
> Kay



Everyone should. understand the bod has no control to table or not table this matter as I have repeatedly stated these bylaws will come before the membership at the annual meeting it is not a matter of decission by the bod it is a right of the membership. Everyone should consider the reasons our bod would assume too prevent this membership from exercising there rights when they are responable for protecting them.

My work is done Saturday morning. This memberships begins

Ray Tobin


----------



## Mominis (Nov 5, 2010)

Which bylaw changes are causing problems?


----------



## RayVik (Nov 5, 2010)

Mominis said:


> Which bylaw changes are causing problems?



In a nutshell term limits for directors and removing the Shetland seats and making all seats open

Ray Tobin


----------



## Margot (Nov 5, 2010)

RayVik said:


> In a nutshell term limits for directors and removing the Shetland seats and making all seats open
> 
> Ray Tobin


I see nothing wrong with term limits or having open seats. Everyone knows it is Miniature Horse money that keeps things going and I think it is stupid for a director to have to own a Shetland.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 5, 2010)

Ray I am confused I thought you said you were AGAINST term limits when I previously brought that up.

Also Ray when I first met you you said you had no agenda to do away with Shetland seats and here we are.





Honestly the mood here is very tension filled and I dont think this bylaw thing is in the best interest of the club right now. To put through sweeping bylaw changes all at once is just not good.

I was not here on Wed night but from what I was told the Board did say that this was tabled or am I incorrect?

There has been a lot of innuendo about what is going to happen on Sat morning and again this is not in the best interests of this club to cause so much discord.

Makes me sad

Kay


----------



## ponyrecruit (Nov 5, 2010)

Margot said:


> I see nothing wrong with term limits or having open seats. Everyone knows it is Miniature Horse money that keeps things going and I think it is stupid for a director to have to own a Shetland.



If you were director in an open seat, can you say that you would be objective toward ALL the registries that this association is responsible for (ASPC, AMHR, ASPR, NSPR) - doesn't appear so by your response.....

So much for working together for the good of the association as a whole, embracing the uniqueness of each of the 4 registries and enjoying the small equine of your choice....


----------



## muffntuf (Nov 5, 2010)

Folks, I do understand this is coming before the membership meeting, but honestly we elected the BOD we will have in place as of tonight, if we elected them let it stand. This dissension is getting us nowhere as a registry.

The bylaws that are suggested we need to change - really?


----------



## jah97071 (Nov 5, 2010)

Margot said:


> I see nothing wrong with term limits or having open seats. Everyone knows it is Miniature Horse money that keeps things going and I think it is stupid for a director to have to own a Shetland.














But it was Shetland money that got AMHR going. Too bad every member of ASPC/AMHR can not appreciate the uniqueness each brings to the association.


----------



## midnight star stables (Nov 5, 2010)

jah97071 said:


> But it was Shetland money that got AMHR going. Too bad every member of ASPC/AMHR can not appreciate the uniqueness each brings to the association.


I have to agree here. Each pony division is unique in their own way, and I wish they'd all get along.


----------



## Songcatcher (Nov 5, 2010)

I am confused here. I'll admit, I don't pay much attention to the "politics" or either AMHA or AMHR. Am I reading correctly that ALL members of the BOD must own a Shetland? Are they required to own a Miniature or a Show Pony?


----------



## sdmini (Nov 5, 2010)

Up until about 5 years ago (time line is approx so don't quote me) yes you had to own a ASPC horse to be a director. Now 1/2 of the director seats are reserved for those whose herds are over half ASPC papered. The other 1/2 of the seats are open to either AMHR or ASPC owners.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Nov 5, 2010)

I am in agreement with changing the amount of Shetland seats. Yes the Shetlands started the registry but, as with everything that grows, things change. I think that rather than having 1/2 our directors Shetland owners it would enable more fair and equal representation if the number of seats correlated to the number of members in each division.


----------



## disneyhorse (Nov 5, 2010)

MiLo... I'm not sure how you'd calculate that, especially with the numbers of people who own both types of small equine.

I don't see the problem with having it split. OR, you could make it so ALL have to own BOTH as well as an ASPR or something!

Andrea


----------



## Minimor (Nov 5, 2010)

I see nothing wrong with the board seats as they are now. I think the BOD we have now is a very well rounded group--while many of them are "Shetland people" they pretty much all have an interest of some sort in Miniatures--they are not "just" pony people. If they don't own miniatures themselves then they have clients who own/show miniatures, or they have family members who own/show/breed Miniatures...I believe that they do represent all the divisions of this registry in a very fair way. I'm sorry to say that if the BOD seats get changed to the way that Ray Tobin (and some others) want them to be and don't think that the same will be true. Quite obviously from some things that have been written and said on this subject there are those who do not have the best interests at heart for ALL divisions of the registry!


----------



## Margot (Nov 5, 2010)

ponyrecruit said:


> If you were director in an open seat, can you say that you would be objective toward ALL the registries that this association is responsible for (ASPC, AMHR, ASPR, NSPR) - doesn't appear so by your response.....
> 
> So much for working together for the good of the association as a whole, embracing the uniqueness of each of the 4 registries and enjoying the small equine of your choice....


It does not appear that the present board can be objective either. I think all the registries should enjoy equal representation, I just don't think you should have to own a certain type to be able to be on the board and that everyone should be able to enjoy the horse of their choice.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 6, 2010)

If a person really looks, you will see even the shetland "seat" directors usually own at least one miniature and usually many more. There are a lot like myself that own and love both.

I know I sound like a broken record but you really have to go back to the history and why things were set up the way they were.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Nov 6, 2010)

I think it is fairly easy to go to the registration books, see how many of each breed are being registered and divide the seats accordingly. I personally feel that any Miniature Horse owner/director is equally capable of making as unbiased a decision as any Shetland owner/director is.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 6, 2010)

keep in mind these things passed thru the mini committee so they still have to pass the Bod meeting today


----------



## Sandee (Nov 6, 2010)

MiLo Minis said:


> I think it is fairly easy to go to the registration books, see how many of each breed are being registered and divide the seats accordingly. I personally feel that any Miniature Horse owner/director is equally capable of making as unbiased a decision as any Shetland owner/director is.


Until I purchased a Shetland this past year, I was one of those "die-hard" individuals that thought minis were THE only thing that was important. THEY were the BEST, the BRIGHTEST, and put the most money in the coffers and should be the "future".

Problem is guys; these ponies are just like the minis - maybe not as cute as a whole, however, some are downright gorgeous and every bit as smart and willing to please as a mini. Even hubby who is NOT a horseperson was surprised by how this "big" guy craves attention and is easy to work with. I used to have a QH so we know that size does not affect personality but it can mean that they use that size to be "pushy"! He doesn't!

However, if you carefully listen to the PEOPLE that own Shetlands and the ones that own Minis, you get the distinct difference in how they think. Just look on this forum how the minis people RIP on the Shetlands. Go to the Shetland forum and that's not happening in the reverse. I'm not saying that mini people are rude or difficult but we have been brainwashed, so to speak, from the first start in minis that our horses were special and Shetlands were the "difficult" ones. I was just as insulted when I first started that our money went into the same pot as the Shetlands and that ALL the pictures in the magazine were Shetlands. I didn't understand then about covering different shows like Congress in one issue and Nationals in another.

I'm not so good with the words but we need to be more open. We need to look at things from both perspectives. NO I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT. I'm not a breeder nor trainer. I just LOVE showing! I just feel that if you (we) think that we're the best, we're slighted, we, WE WE....maybe "we" should try a few steps in "their" shoes. The Shetlands really are wonderful, sweet animals and their attendance is down (the economy isn't helpful) and they need support and help. Hmmm, I believe this was how minis got started---- a helping hand and some understanding ...could it really hurt?


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Nov 6, 2010)

The rumors are flying on the internet but be assured most are just that rumors. I have read there is a move to dissolve the board I have heard no such thing from anyone here.

The issue with IA Congress.. we were not give a price not an accurate accounting of the cost of the facility for anything However depsite that I have not yet talked to anyone not one person who things IA is a bad move. The timing is not great for 2 areas and it is easy to say oh well when it is not your area whoses area show is effected but short of that everyone is really more then ok with the IA vote that I have spoken to.

The dates are a bit of an issue but the location seems to be one most are really more then ok with

Area shows are important to discount them or say to clubs oh well is not ok An area show is supposed to give htose who can not make it to the National show a place to show that is like Nationals why is it ok to take that away from members?

There should not be a shetland seat and a open one. I do not care what was I care what is all open seats is more then fine lets remember Minis are not the most important however they deserve a voice. I do not have exact numbers in front of me will post when I get home but registration this year... 1000 or so ASPC in all divisions.... Minis close to 5000 huge difference yet many feel we should not be equally represented on the BOD

Why is it minis pay but should not get to play? But that aside..

While some want to paint this horrible registry killing atmostphere.. that is not the case. Last night we all had a great time no matter what side of the issues you were on. I personally sat with many BOD last night until well into the wee hours of the morning - those who were are different sides of issues then me and guess what we all had a great time laughing and talking. As I have done every night since we have been here. This is not a cut the tension with a knife every moment thing we raised alot of money for the youth last night We have great new Royalty and have gotten some good things done here so far.

there is a lot of good and a lot of people having a good time despite trying to get some business done. General meeting set to start here pretty soon but please everyone before you get panties in a bunch... let Convention be over things be decided and know that the majority of us here are having a great time talking ponies and minis

Off to the meeting now will update AFTER the board meeting when things have been decided.


----------



## jah97071 (Nov 6, 2010)

Sandee said:


> Until I purchased a Shetland this past year, I was one of those "die-hard" individuals that thought minis were THE only thing that was important. THEY were the BEST, the BRIGHTEST, and put the most money in the coffers and should be the "future".
> 
> Problem is guys; these ponies are just like the minis - maybe not as cute as a whole, however, some are downright gorgeous and every bit as smart and willing to please as a mini. Even hubby who is NOT a horseperson was surprised by how this "big" guy craves attention and is easy to work with. I used to have a QH so we know that size does not affect personality but it can mean that they use that size to be "pushy"! He doesn't!
> 
> ...


----------



## jah97071 (Nov 6, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> The rumors are flying on the internet but be assured most are just that rumors. I have read there is a move to dissolve the board I have heard no such thing from anyone here.
> 
> The issue with IA Congress.. we were not give a price not an accurate accounting of the cost of the facility for anything However depsite that I have not yet talked to anyone not one person who things IA is a bad move. The timing is not great for 2 areas and it is easy to say oh well when it is not your area whoses area show is effected but short of that everyone is really more then ok with the IA vote that I have spoken to.
> 
> ...


I understand the concern over the dates of Congress and the dilemma that it may and will affect some local and area shows. I also know that area shows (according to rulebook) must be done by Aug. 1.

But as a possible solution to this . . . has anyone suggested that the BOD pass an exception to allow area shows to happen after Aug. 1 since ponies don't have to qualify to Congress anyway for 2011 only?


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Nov 6, 2010)

Sandee said:


> Until I purchased a Shetland this past year, I was one of those "die-hard" individuals that thought minis were THE only thing that was important. THEY were the BEST, the BRIGHTEST, and put the most money in the coffers and should be the "future".
> 
> Problem is guys; these ponies are just like the minis - maybe not as cute as a whole, however, some are downright gorgeous and every bit as smart and willing to please as a mini. Even hubby who is NOT a horseperson was surprised by how this "big" guy craves attention and is easy to work with. I used to have a QH so we know that size does not affect personality but it can mean that they use that size to be "pushy"! He doesn't!
> 
> ...


I agree this whole shetland vs miniature debate has gotten old. I rather see us together and decide on issues thats best for the club itself and as far as Congress location and dates if that helps it to succeed then so be it. It will be tough on a couple of Area shows, but Congress outweighs them.

Has anyone heard of the Area locations yet? I will be curious to know what happens after this morning.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Nov 6, 2010)

Can anyone report on the 2011 Congress and National judges, I expect these were reported at Convention.

Thanks.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## kaykay (Nov 6, 2010)

The area 2 show will be in Greenville

area iv will be gordyville

area 5 will be ada oklahmoma

shoot im too tired to find my list and I am coming down with a cold.

I have had a great time here at convention!!


----------



## muffntuf (Nov 6, 2010)

Area I - Harrington DE (July 1-3)

Area II - Greenville, OH (June 24-26)

Area III - Shelbyville, TN (June 24-26)

Area IV - Ronatouille, IL (Gordyville) (June 17-19)

Area V - Ada, OK (June 24-26)

Area VI - Winona, MN (July 1-3)

Area VII- Burbank, CA (June 24-26)

Area VIII - Spanaway, WA (July 8-10) This is the only show that has not changed its dates or location.

2011 Convention - Portland, OR

2012 Convention - Branson, MO

Thankfully Dissension was squashed. Folks this is a great organization and a lot people make it up, but only a percentage makes the decisions - my advice - try to make it to Convention and help the Organization make the decisions!!!

Also - look for the Articles and By Laws - this was tabled until we can get a better understanding of what is the old articles and bylaws, what is proposed, the intent of the new article and bylaw(s) and whether legally it reflects the articles of incorporation of IL and if the bylaws are the right thing to do for our organization. Everyone who is a member is effected by this. If you haven't been to the ByLaw website, go there, voice your opinion. If you haven't seen what is proposed - get a hold of a copy of what is proposed. Its a lot to digest!

Read it - BE INFORMED!

Also - We can have a mail out ballot done on the articles and bylaws changes - so tell you BOD members you want it.


----------



## jah97071 (Nov 6, 2010)

So excited to see 2011 Convention in my neck of the woods . . . Portland, Oregon!!

I want to invite all of you to plan to head west next November. Lots of farms close by to visit, great shopping (Lloyd Center, Pearl District, Washington Square, Woodburn Company Stores), major airport and wonderful mass transit system to get around easily, Mt. Hood within an hour's drive to the east and the beach within two hours to the west. The Pendleton Woolen Mills where the famous Pendleton blankets are made is across the Columbia River.

Have I wet your appetite yet?

Judy Howard


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Nov 6, 2010)

Cool, will see about going to Ada. But I got to ask, and you know I shouldn't really complain because Branson is like less the 2hrs from me. But why Branson again? I thought it rotates around the country? Again not complaining just wondering.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 7, 2010)

it was asked why we are going back to branson so soon but there wasnt really an answer.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Nov 7, 2010)

I was told that it is supposed to go to all the different areas but some areas can't or don't want to sponsor it so it goes to the area willing to sponsor it, thats why it ended up in Arkansas this year.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Nov 7, 2010)

Sandee said:


> Until I purchased a Shetland this past year, I was one of those "die-hard" individuals that thought minis were THE only thing that was important. THEY were the BEST, the BRIGHTEST, and put the most money in the coffers and should be the "future".However, if you carefully listen to the PEOPLE that own Shetlands and the ones that own Minis, you get the distinct difference in how they think. Just look on this forum how the minis people RIP on the Shetlands. Go to the Shetland forum and that's not happening in the reverse. I'm not saying that mini people are rude or difficult but we have been brainwashed, so to speak, from the first start in minis that our horses were special and Shetlands were the "difficult" ones. I was just as insulted when I first started that our money went into the same pot as the Shetlands and that ALL the pictures in the magazine were Shetlands. I didn't understand then about covering different shows like Congress in one issue and Nationals in another.
> 
> I'm not so good with the words but we need to be more open. We need to look at things from both perspectives. NO I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT. I'm not a breeder nor trainer. I just LOVE showing! I just feel that if you (we) think that we're the best, we're slighted, we, WE WE....maybe "we" should try a few steps in "their" shoes. The Shetlands really are wonderful, sweet animals and their attendance is down (the economy isn't helpful) and they need support and help. Hmmm, I believe this was how minis got started---- a helping hand and some understanding ...could it really hurt?


I have not in this thread, or any other, "ripped", "bashed" or felt threatened by Shetland ponies in ANY way. I own a Shetland mare that we all love dearly - she is sweet, well mannered, gorgeous and a lovely little horse in every way (she didn't arrive that way but it was in her all the same)! I have trained many Shetlands and met an equal number of them as Minis that can be difficult or not. I don't think I have ever met ANY breed of horse that didn't have many redeeming characteristics (even Trakehners



) but I also own and breed Minis and I don't think it is a bad thing to want equal representation in our registry which I don't necessarily feel we are getting at present. It is my feeling that the Shetland people feel they 'own' the registry and don't want to 'lose power' to the Mini people. ARE they working in OUR (the memberships) best interests?


----------



## OhHorsePee (Nov 7, 2010)

Sandee, I own both minis and ponies. I can't speak for all that own ponies but I do not hear discord for minis when I am with "pony people." I wish everyone would just acknowledge that they are both small equine and look at them from that angle. A lot of us "pony people" have and love both. It's all good!

I wish they would have Convention at a place that is more horse related like Louisville, KY.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 7, 2010)

Larry said something that really hit home with me on the mini vs pony thing.

I am paraphrasing:

He said "I thank the miniature horse people for their contribution and support of AMHR and shows. I thank them for helping the ponies out of a bad spot all those years ago and enabling me to show my ponies."

"I thank the Shetland people for having the foresight to start a registry for small equine and for giving me a place to show and register my miniature horses."

Kay


----------



## muffntuf (Nov 7, 2010)

Yes I agree. I listened carefully to those words that Larry spoke. It is true. The miniatures added value to the registry, but the Shetland,the Show Pony and the National Show Pony are adding their value to us. I think we have much more as a registry to offer the world, because we have diversity, yet we are related by heritage.

I own miniatures, all divisions of shetlands except Foundation, and show ponies. I see no difference in my pasture. They are all beautiful and all hold a place in my heart. And all can be shown!


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 8, 2010)

Folks, we are still sitting at the hotel where the convention was held and will start home today. All in all it was a lot of fun and I enjoyed getting to see folks I knew from the forums in person. Additionally, I enjoyed sitting in on the committees, the judges work shop and watching the process work in person.

Yes, there was a bit of discord at the convention and several tense moments for a number of people. But with that said, the majority of the points of contention were worked out prior to any real in-fighting developing. Politics suck most of the time to me in cases like this, but when folks attempt to put aside personal agendas/differences and work thru a problem. Personally I can handle whatever the outcome is and in most of the cases this is exactly what happened here at convention.

The few exceptions of things left undone caused several folks that had put in a lot of time and effort like Ray Tobin into the tasking that the BOD had charged them with in a position where the fruits of their labor did not bear fruit or come to a final decision. I want to say to Pat (our new president), Ray and a few others thanks for your efforts and please continue to think of what is best for the registry in the future.

The costume party was a blast to attend also, the costumes were crazy and it was a little hard to tell who was who with some of them.

Of the two points that someone else brought up that were points of contention in the proposed by-law changes, I can only give you my personal take on them.

On the subject of term limits: My postion is pretty straight forward and I was the the lone no vote on the by law forum against this proposal. I do not want to do anything to limit the ability of someone that is is willing to put in the time, effort and money it takes to be on the BOD. It is at best a thankless job, pays nothing, is highly controversial and a labor of love that most "rational" folks want no part of. If a BOD member is not doing what we want in any given area we have the ultimate choice of voting them out. So I was against this proposal.

On the subject of removing the required shetland seats; This was more than likely the most polarizing proposed by-law change. In my personal opinion, it is more than likely lived past its usefullness. But with that said, in order to maintain as much harmony as possible within our ranks it is more than likely best for the registry to let it alone for the time being. At some point in the future we as a registry will address it, but we have bigger and more important problems to deal with right now. We need everyone's help and efforts channeled towards dealing with the current economy and how it effects our breed as a whole in my opinion.

I am aware of the history and foresight of the founders of the registry and am thankful to them for putting all this in motion for we the present day members to take advantage of. It is paramount that we as current members foster, groom and move forward with the business of the registry in as an effective manner as we possibly can. The attitude of "Inclusion not Exclusion" has always been ASPC/AMHR's strongest asset and we need to continue to foster that approach if at all possible.

Thanks to all of you that attended and we are looking forwartd to seeing everyone again in Portland next year.


----------



## Reble (Nov 8, 2010)

Sounds like we will never please everyone.

I believe change can be for the better.

but, not just to please a few handful of people.

All ponies in our economy today, need help to keep things going in the

right direction.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Nov 8, 2010)

John let me say it was wonderful talking with you and your wife is very sweet. I enjoyed our evening well I guess it was later then evening at the bar discussing all kinds of things 

As far as the tension there was some tension for a few moments but like John said.. it was not the entire Convention and often times those on opposite sides of a couple issues came together and had a great time staying up till wee hours of the morning talking and laughing.

The ability to put things aside outside of committee meetings and enjoy the company of old friends and new and just simply enjoy being with our mini and pony friends seems to be had by most.

Those that chose to remain negative and grumpy throughout the entire Convention did only themselves a disservice.

Me I am already looking forward to show season.. Congress and Convention next year

John hope you guys have a safe trip home


----------



## kaykay (Nov 8, 2010)

John it was so nice meeting you and getting to chat with you and your wife!

Lisa it was good seeing you again too! While you and I dont agree on many things its not a personal thing its just a difference of opinion.

I do think my post on here saying there was some tension has been blown way out of proportion. There is always going to be tension at any kind of organization meeting. Some have really taken that statement and ran with it but thats okay, I always have my big girl pants on





I had a fabulous time there getting to see old friends and meeting new people. Overall it was a blast!

There were other concerning things besides the shetland seat removal, and it was more than just a couple people concerned as the vote to table the bylaws was I believe 96 in favor and 23 opposed. (I could be off by a couple on that) Remember this was a majority vote! Which is exactly how the members portion of the meeting is supposed to be.

Kay


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Nov 8, 2010)

Was there anything else important that was discussed? Any talks about the Journal for an example?


----------



## muffntuf (Nov 8, 2010)

There was a Journal Committee meeting, but I did not get to attend that. Everything else would have had to be a closed session of the BOD.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Nov 8, 2010)

How did everyone get to meet John but me? Everyone kept saying "John's here!" I would be like where? And he would be gone. I began thinking they were all delusional. I wanted to meet you. Maybe next time!

I for one didn't feel tensed. You could see the tension of others. Some paced frantically with a stern look while others verbalized how tensed they felt because of this or that. Some even verbalized it loudly at others because they had a perception that they were being spoken about when they had not been. Put a bunch of adults with different views in one room together on a one on one stance and they will talk about their differences. Place the same people in a group setting and they feel they have to act out. Some is human nature and then some is romper room type behavior. I so hope everyone can just take a deep breath and just respect one another.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Nov 8, 2010)

Jamie... I think you were sitting behind me in the AMHR Committee but I wasnt sure so if it was I am sorry I did not say hi. Going on about 2 -3 hours of sleep a night my brain was having a hard time functioning lol

As for the Journal I was at the committee meeting the only one I did not stay for was breed promotion but anyway the Journal will be and is taking applications for a new editor

They are expecting the next issue to be pretty close to on time and hopefully will have someone in place quickly

YOUTH WILL NOT NEED TO PAY TO REJOIN THIS YEAR.. BUT THEY MUST FILL OUT AN APPLICATION AND SEND IT IN TO GET A NEW CARD ISSUED


----------



## ruffian (Nov 9, 2010)

disneyhorse said:


> MiLo... I'm not sure how you'd calculate that, especially with the numbers of people who own both types of small equine.
> 
> I don't see the problem with having it split. OR, you could make it so ALL have to own BOTH as well as an ASPR or something!
> 
> Andrea


The answer is simple. Make all the seats open with the stipualation that they must be a member of AMHR/ASPC/ASPR. It doesn't make sense that someone would have to have a breed - AMHR/ASPC/ASPR - that you don't want in order to be on the BOD.

However, if you carefully listen to the PEOPLE that own Shetlands and the ones that own Minis, you get the distinct difference in how they think. Just look on this forum how the minis people RIP on the Shetlands. Go to the Shetland forum and that's not happening in the reverse. I'm not saying that mini people are rude or difficult but we have been brainwashed, so to speak, from the first start in minis that our horses were special and Shetlands were the "difficult" ones. I was just as insulted when I first started that our money went into the same pot as the Shetlands and that ALL the pictures in the magazine were Shetlands. I didn't understand then about covering different shows like Congress in one issue and Nationals in another.[/]4
All it takes to get the Shetland folks going is to state that you don't want them in the miniature horse world. Watch the rockets fly!!


----------



## MiLo Minis (Nov 9, 2010)

ruffian said:


> The answer is simple. Make all the seats open with the stipualation that they must be a member of AMHA/ASPC/ASPR. It doesn't make sense that someone would have to have a breed - AMHR/ASPC/ASPR - that you don't want in order to be on the BOD.


That would be fine by me!


----------



## kaykay (Nov 9, 2010)

To occupy the open seat you must also own either a miniature or a shetland. You wouldnt want someone that didnt even own a miniature or a pony as director would you?

The founding fathers were smart people. They made sure that if the new registry they started was successful it couldnt take over the parent company. This is common business practice. Coke and Diet coke are both pretty popular but my bet is Coke owns it all





I have asked many times in the past and no one has ever answered. Where are we as miniature horse owners being slighted? AMHR nationals gets way more exposure, decoration etc than Congress. in general miniature horses get more exposure and promotion. I just dont see where we are being slighted anywhere?

I do want to see the Miniatures become a breed and I am hoping we can all work toward that!


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Nov 9, 2010)

Kay we are going to have to agree to disagree here.

No one is saying they are slighted well with the exception of saying you guys bring in on the lowest years 400,000 thousand more into this registry but we sure as heck do not want to give you your own seat on the board- I see no issue with the board holding 8 mini and 8 shetland seats and if one area has no one to run for a seat then it becomes open for a year at a time until such time someone is available to run

Wont even get into the Congress -Nationals debate until we pick a permanant location

My guess is that it will be a long long time until all areas filled a mini seat as we do not have a huge influx of mini people now filling the open seats so in the long run do I think the BOD would change much.. probobly not however it is the option and acknowledgement that the minis are equally important to the BOD and decisions that would be nice and frankly I do forsee it happening and do not see the decision for a split board (which by the way is what our newly elected President says he feels is the way to go) being the end of either divison


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Nov 9, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> Jamie... I think you were sitting behind me in the AMHR Committee but I wasnt sure so if it was I am sorry I did not say hi. Going on about 2 -3 hours of sleep a night my brain was having a hard time functioning lol
> 
> As for the Journal I was at the committee meeting the only one I did not stay for was breed promotion but anyway the Journal will be and is taking applications for a new editor
> 
> ...


LOL thats ok Lisa, I didn't get to sleep around 2 that morning I guess and woke up around 6 like I usually wake up so I was tired too, just couldn't get my brain to work.

Anyways I don't know about all these bylaws or shetlands seats or whatever. When it comes down to it financial wise who is bringing in more money and all, do we want to divide AMHR and ASPC and actually have our own seperate unit I guess you can say. Or do we want to come together and help the little guy. Yes AMHR is bringing in more money, if it wasn't for ASPC there would be no AMHR. ASPC is going under, but besides pointing fingers and blames lets get together and become a organization thats a family. Yes families may have disagreements but they are always their for eachother.

I don't know that might have sounded to much G rating lol but thats what I feel.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Nov 9, 2010)

I do not think anyone wants any seperation by any means at least I do not . I simply put just see nothing wrong with 8 mini seats and 8 sheltand seats with the provision that if one area has no one to take the spot by qualifications then the spot remains an open one. Just seems like the fair way to do things

Frankly I can not see any reason that anyone would disagree


----------



## dmk (Nov 9, 2010)

There is always tension at Convention. Someone is always pushing an agenda that someone else is opposed to. This year was no different than most others that I have attended. From what everyone was saying, the general meeting was going to be horrible and it didn't turn out nearly as bad as some predicted. As usual, some could have been nicer but for the most part, everyone behaved I thought.

I was in the 23 to vote on the by-laws. Frankly I wanted to get it out of the way. We had the number of people to make it count one way or the other...if we didn't like the by-laws as written get rid of them and start again next year. That would be no worse off than sitting on these as they are. Now we have to vote on these again.

I will never vote to do away with the Shetland seat no matter how you word it. I am opposed to having only open seats for the simple fact, the organization belongs to the American Shetland Pony Club. The American Miniature Horse Registry is a part of that parent organization. To me that is pretty simple. Like Larry, I thank AMHR for everything it puts into this group. I see nothing that would benefit the group except perhaps we would get rid of some die hard old timers that won't move Congress maybe? (as in is that the point?) Otherwise, what would it do for us as an organization? Especially if we DO see the day there is an all mini board...for the Shetland Congress that does not make money what would happen to us? If the money is the issue then I can foresee a group thinking well that group doesn't pull their weight let's cut that out. Then what? No Shetland Pony votes in the American Shetland Pony Club? Sorry I just don't see it.

Term Limits I cannot deny might be a good thing. Frankly, I think term limits for Committee Chairs and committee members might be a good thing too. Works for the United States Government.

Anyway...Convention was soooo much fun and as usual a learning experience. I think the future looks bright for the club as a whole. Spending time with friends and getting to talk about ponies is always nice. Seeing the group work together and solve some of these issues in an amicable and adult manner is always good, too!


----------



## kaykay (Nov 10, 2010)

> I was in the 23 to vote on the by-laws. Frankly I wanted to get it out of the way. We had the number of people to make it count one way or the other...if we didn't like the by-laws as written get rid of them and start again next year. That would be no worse off than sitting on these as they are. Now we have to vote on these again.


I did think long and hard about it. The reason I preferred to table it rather than vote it down, is because if we had just voted it down it would disappear and no one would look at it. There are things in the bylaws that need to be fixed. By tabling it a new committee is formed and will work on it again and hopefully at the next convention everyone will be better informed and the issue with the articles will be cleared up.

It has never been a secret that miniatures bring in more cash than shetlands. But at the end of the day it doesnt matter who brings in more cash.

I do think the future is bright and saw some really encouraging things at convention


----------



## RayVik (Nov 10, 2010)

It is extraordinary that this issue with the Articles was used to highlight the issue of the bylaws when the true ramifications of of this issue was that every single action taken by the BOD ...this organization..every convention..and everything else became a BIG question mark since that time...but it was only important to address it relative to presenting the revised bylaws which was by all existing previous articles ( if our latest were not ratified) one of the few actions that was and could prevail and was legal....

Just a FYI I found and brought this matter to the attention of the BOD at last years spring conference and it was put to bed then...But memories seem to be short and people wonder why or legal fees are high


----------



## muffntuf (Nov 10, 2010)

I agree and voted to table for a new committee and presentation at next falls convention meeting.

Not that I don't recognize the time and effort that Ray Tobin put into this.

But I chose to table it for the lack of use of the whole committee, for sections of the by laws and articles that I read (I read the whole thing before Ray started presenting it) that I think need correction and for the fact we as an organization have possibly not ratified the Articles from 2003-2004.

I also believe they should be published on the registry website and the Journal (and possibly sent out in the new E-newsletter application coming) for all members to read and have time to digest before the next convention.


----------



## RayVik (Nov 10, 2010)

A Little knowledge is a terrible thing...

The motion was to Table THESE revised bylaws so it is now old business for next convention it was not to send them back to committee or for review or revision...Stories seem to change..it was tabled and voted to allow people time to read them ..not to allow this revised version to be revised...and the vote was for just that ...to table them to allow time for review...how is it there seems to be those that somehow feel this was a vote of confidence in what they were are were not acceptable....and that now they are stating how a procedure which is out of order will take place in revising these...

If you do not like or agree with a section of them then say so but stop with the holier then thou and understand the process it only serves to further confusion when it is misstated.


----------



## LaVern (Nov 10, 2010)

This is just to hard for me. Have I got it right? The membership asked you to take a look at our By Laws to see if they were legal last year? You were to give a report this year, but no one listened?

But this is what bothers me, if I have it right and I must not. Don't we have a lawyer to tell us is our By Laws are up to snuff? We must because no insurance company is going to take us on if we are not doing things right.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Nov 10, 2010)

Frankly this whole excuse of the committee really makes me angry. I am sick of that excuse. Ray was asked to head a committee and head it he did. Lets not forget many things are simply not inline with IL state law which can only lead to more legal fees.

Had we allowed him to finsih reading so clarifications and questions could be made we would have been better off.

As far as the commiittee goes he was not a committee of one that is correct however if those chosen for the committee chose not to participate then that is on them and no one else. Guess what folks I am on the youth committee that does not mean I can complain about other decisions if I as a committee member chose not to participate and ensure my voice was heard that is my responsibility as a member of the committee. I can not blame it on anyone else and say I didnt get to participate if I myself did not make the phone calls and send the emails asking to be involved in the process.

But nonetheless we are now waiting another year and Kay these by laws are not thrown out and starting over sure you can write your own and present them to membership but this work was done and tabling it does not mean throwing it out the window and now lets hope everyone chooses to read it and not use an excuse next year.

My fear is how many things in our orginal by laws no longer even meet the state laws? And if that is the case what type of legal fees does that open us up to now?

I know there was more then one who worked on that committee not in name only but actually worked and personally I thank them for the very thankless job they undertook- and all the time and hours that were put in trying to ensure our registry and by laws were up to date and in accordance with state law.


----------



## muffntuf (Nov 10, 2010)

Lisa, he did not contact the committee, he even said that at the General Membership meeting. My area BOD did not talk to him until Congress - that's almost a year of no contact between them. So please don't go there. I personally called all but one committee member to ask them about their thoughts and they had no idea he was working on this, even though they were on the committee.


----------



## dmk (Nov 10, 2010)

RayVik said:


> A Little knowledge is a terrible thing...
> 
> The motion was to Table THESE revised bylaws so it is now old business for next convention it was not to send them back to committee or for review or revision...



EXACTLY which is why I said in my previous post I was in the 23 that wanted to VOTE on them so we could say yes or no. Now we have to look at these same ones again next year as is.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Nov 10, 2010)

Well Trace again we differ if they knew they were on a committee that is more then in name only you call your chair if you are interested in the outcome but lets get real and be honest..Now if a few on the committee do not like it they can voice their opinions but the only ones I have heard voiced were strictly about the BOD seats

This is nothing secret in fact some were posted in a Journal I heard although I have not opened my past 2 Journals so that could be incorrect. There has been a web site up with and about the by-laws for months now it has been posted here and on other forums and groups so others including the BOD and committee members could visit it

I was one who voted to hear them out and then would be ok if we decided to table them but I feel we needed to hear them to know what was a choice to vote on and what needed to be done to keep us in compliance with current laws

seems the one by law that most were opposed to is simple not allowing the miniatures to have equal say on the board.. plain and simple - lets call it what it is. That is what everyone is and was fired up over. To me this is simply about power

And was I the only one who heard many of those things were housekeeping things to keep our registry in compliance with IL state law?

this is not uncommon laws change and yet our by-laws and articles have not why are we not concerned about that? Has anyone (myself included) researched what we are open to now due to not having everything in compliance? My guess is no.

Even if we had 8 mini seats and 8 shetland seats or 16 open seats really do not see an influx of mini only people my guess is many would end up being open or Shetland seats by default but things have changed things are different and as a mini and pony owner I see nothing wrong with allowing the minis to have a voice on our board in fact with ensuring it -I guess I am not sure what the fear is like I said frankly I am pretty sure even if the seats became mini seats they would not all be filled.

It will work itself out one way or another and life will go on however I personally do not believe it will be a dead issue until fairness is brought to the Board in representing both ASPC and AMHR when it comes to seats - Do I honestly believe things will change drastically or all 8 mini seats (or even 16 mini seats would be filled) Nope no way But it is the gesture of fairness IMO but that is just my opinion and one I know many of you could care less about


----------



## dmk (Nov 10, 2010)

Ray I looked for you after the meeting and spoke to Vickie because I think you were not treated well in the meeting. I do not agree with some of the things you put into the by-laws presented, but I do appreciate your time. I spent a lot of my own time reading over the previous by-laws and all the information on the website in regard to the changes.

However, I will say....the task of rewriting the by-laws - IN MY OPINION - was to correct things that were in error...either by law or by verbage. But there were changes you made that were flat out CHANGES to our by-laws that should not have been presented at the same time. The statement was made we had to accept them as a whole or not accept them as a whole. Whether you meant that or not....I do not believe we could not amend them in the meeting. I would have asked you to remove the NEW part about board qualifications and term limits and revert back to the older version of requirements. Then I would have been fine with the new by-laws and so would probably many others. It was the fact that you DID change the by-laws...not ONLY bring them into line with legal issues. And there should have been something set up .... via projector or handouts for every single person in the room...old by-laws and and outline of the changes. It was too confusing and difficult to follow without those in writing in front of us. So, in defense, I can understand why many voted to table.

And fyi to everyone that says it was a committee of one, IF I had been on a committee and was never contacted I think I would have picked up the phone and called the chairperson as well as my own directors and asked what the heck was going on and why was I not involved. I would have been loud and clear to the fact I intended to be included or told I was not welcome which would have been a different story. That is, if I had knowledge that my name was on that committee.


----------



## RayVik (Nov 10, 2010)

muffntuf said:


> Lisa, he did not contact the committee, he even said that at the General Membership meeting. My area BOD did not talk to him until Congress - that's almost a year of no contact between them. So please don't go there. I personally called all but one committee member to ask them about their thoughts and they had no idea he was working on this, even though they were on the committee.


I grow weary of this he said she said..and that I did or did not do this or that...I will not post the emails I have from my committee members nor will I post the emails from our corporate lawyer...nor will I open up the committee section to the bylaws website for public review to see who commented therein ...But I WILL stand by the product put forward to this organization and I WILL state correctly that THOSE revised bylaws were tabled for review and they ARE on the minutes for consideration at the NEXT convention AS IS....The time for all the innuendo about how they came about is past...

what is so amazing is I see people continuing to attempt to discredit me and attempt to somehow misrepresent the process that has taken place without even a vague understanding of it yet they somehow seem to have all the knowledge directed toward discrediting me rather then reading and commenting on the document as presented and the merits therein. The efforts put forth to create this document is there for all to see and stands on its merits and will or will not be accepted by the process in place.

WE do not require our directors to have MBA's and Degrees in Law and be Licensed Vets yet we allow them to manage and direct our organization

WE not not require our committee members to have degrees in there respective undertakings

We dont require of members to maintain knowledge of our inter workings and legal requirements.

We do allow and accept the efforts of those who choose to put forth effort and time to help this organization for the collective good of the whole ...except... for a few and except for certain specific cases...IT appears that this is one of those "exceptions" by some of those "few"


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Nov 10, 2010)

Michelle I agree the disrespect and attacks in that meeting was totally unacceptable but that said..

I do not want to give the impression this was a tense and mean atmosphere at Convention as it was not.

Yes there were differing opinions and yes the MAJORITY were respectful in disagreement and trust me those few making snide comments from the peanut gallery were noticed and not in a good waybut that is on them.

Even after tempers cooled a bit after that meeting things were back to normal in that no matter what side you were on most were adults and could leave it where it was and move on and enjoy eachothers company laugh and have a good time.

I do not always agree with decisions and realize the world does not go according to Lisa but I love to go and see everyone without the mad rush of getting horses ready for a class and to just have a good time- laugh and share stories and it is something I look forward to every year

Despite a few major differences of opinion I do feel our registry is on the right track, going thru some growing pains and with the dedication we have will be ok


----------



## dmk (Nov 10, 2010)

Well I agree Lisa. Most people handled everything with a little class. There is nothing wrong with having different opinions because otherwise we wouldn't need a BOD or meetings, etc. This is how the process works. I may disagree, but I always try to see the other's reasons and I thought for the most part it went great. Not nearly as bad as many expected. Next year will have an agenda once again and it is our duty as members to come prepared for what we hope to accomplish.


----------



## Belinda (Nov 10, 2010)

I personally would like to *THANK *Ray for following thru with the task that was assigned him.!! 



 I can not even begin to know or tell you folks the countless hours Ray put into , trying to bring our by -laws current with today's world , There are many things that need updated , as in allowing us to do business by email or Fax allowing us to have mail in voting etc... the list goes on .. And yes there were some things that people disagreed with Term Limits , Shetland seat vs. open seats !! 





 

 I must say as being a Committee Chair myself , I can not count the times that People on my committee never have responded or acknowledged the work I ask of them ,, And what happens then they are replaced the next year by someone that is willing to work.. I do not stop working on the task given to the committee because some on the committee choose to not work, I as the Chair have the responsibility to carry out that task , Just as Ray did ,,, AND I like Ray will not name the ones I know personally that have talked with him and put in their effort as a By Laws committee member , but just know there were some on that committee that did put forth a effort and those that were non-workers !!!!!!

 

 I hope when we print these that* EVERYONE *that is concerned will take the time to read and UNDERSTAND the changes and come to the 2011 Convention and Vote ,because there we will Vote on these changes ..... And once again Ray thank you for all You and Vickie do for the Youth of the AMHR/ ASPC both local and on the National level


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Nov 10, 2010)

> again Ray thank you for all You and Vickie do for the Youth of the AMHR/ ASPC both local and on the National level



I know as a mom of a youth who shows I have thanked you but I can not thank you enough for all you do for our kids and please know it is very much appreciated not just by me but by my daughter and many other kids as well!


----------



## LaVern (Nov 10, 2010)

The issue as to what stipulations you have to have to become a director is not as big of a deal to me as to wondering why our lawyer isn't the one who keeps us informed as to, if we are in compliance with any newly changed laws. I don't care if you have to be a descendant of George Washington or if you have to owned twenty ponies as much as whether it is legal to have that in our By Laws.

Seems to me that we should be paying for legal advise rather than legal litigation, I think it would be cheaper.


----------



## kmh (Nov 10, 2010)

"the Journal will be and is taking applications for a new editor"

 

I am glad to see something is FINALLY being done about the issues with the Journal. This has been unexcuseable the last few months. If I were an advertiser paying those kind of fees and having the Journal arrive much later AFTER the dated event (auctions, shows, sales, etc.) is long over, I would certainly be very upset and ask for a refund. 

We would have liked to attend a few of the horse sales IF we had known about them BEFORE the sales were over! 

 

Let's hope this get resolved very soon for everyone's benefit. 

 

Steph


----------



## RayVik (Nov 10, 2010)

Just to give a little idea of what revising the bylaws involves

take the simple example of this organization accepting the use of email as a form of notification...it is a choice of this organization not a legal requirement...so just at the very small level where or how does this "choice" come about....

understanding the bylaws can say as much or little as we want them to but each one is a choice and a open choice in many cases so and although a bit of a stretch they legally could say something like all notices must be on red paper...but the choice of color is a choice so some may want blue, some green, some yellow.... So what some may of considered as rewriting was much more involved and complicated they just simply changing a few words....

For those that think it is simple or that it requires no understanding of anything more then grammar I would offer they become involved in future processes regarding such undertakings and see for themselves what is required...I challenge anyone here to post a single section of our bylaws and show that a choice does not exist...the mere fact the section exist is in itself a choice....


----------



## LaVern (Nov 10, 2010)

Ray Vik-- Yikes-


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 10, 2010)

I have kept my mouth shut during this discussion in order to see what others were thinking and what direction the discussion was going to take. The following are the comments I can make about it that might clarify where I saw things from in any case:

1. Ray worked a long time (which I appreciate)on making the presentation that he was attempting to make and never got a chance to present it fully. That to me was a shame as we have now placed ourselves as a collective organization in a compromised position where we may not be in compliance with Ill. law and that may reach up and bite us at some point in the near future. That is not acceptable to me.

2. I will admit that it was indeed very tedious to sit and listen to the partial presentation at best, that however is the nature of these type beasts. I personally had reviewed the proposed changes over the last number of months thru the web site set up for that purpose, notices of that web site have been posted here on this forum and a number of others that I also frequent and were available for anyone interested in what was being done. Be the committee members or regular members. So to me not being informed of the proposed changes is not a valid excuse.

3. Members of that committee should have been involved if they were indeed trying to do the job ask of them by the BOD and there was no lack of opportunity to do so. I was involved (in voting on the web site and reviewing the proposed changes there also)and was not a member of the committee.

4. No matter where you come down on any or all of the changes, it is our responsibility as members to do what we individually can to make sure we guide this organization as best we can. So many times I hear the complaints that the BOD makes this or that decision without regard to what the membership wants. Now when we got the chance to voice an opinion, we vacillated as versus making a decision in an open forum, where informative discussion would have a great way to air positions and detailed interaction in order to make a difference. Personally if the BOD has to make some changes in order for the organization without an input for the members, so be it and we got what we in essence ask for.

5. All in all the convention was for me a positive experience and I encourage everyone to try and go to any that you can go to. The committee meetings were the most informative meetings I have sat in in a long time. The work a lot of the committee members put in was evident and a real positive in every way. The judges seminar/clinic was a highlight for me also. Marvin and his group did an awesome job.

6. I sincerely appreciate the job Larry Parnell did as our president and I think Pat (the new prez) and his executive committee are going to do an awesome job also. I liked the way Pat ( he is indeed very passionate about the registry) handled himself during all the negotiations and minor problems that happened during the convention.

Thanks to Belinda, Larry, the office and all the other behind the scenes workers that put this thing on, it was a good experience to say the least. See everone in Oregon next year!!


----------



## kaykay (Nov 10, 2010)

I wasnt even going to post as I almost lost a mare today which kinda puts all this stuff into perspective. Im in this for the love of the horses/ponies whatever you want to call them. It comes from my heart not an agenda or to make money or anything else.

I just want to say there were a lot of concerning things in this rewrite besides just seats and terms. Many were upset over section 2.7 which reads as follows:

Any member may be suspended or expelled from them membership with or without cause upon the affirmative vote of at least 3/4 of all the directors if, in the discretion of the Board of Directors as indicated by such a vote, such suspension or expulsion would be in the best interest of the Corporation.

So that doesnt worry anyone? You could be expelled with or without cause? I do not think this is better than the current bylaw which lists specific reasons why a member could be expelled. (cheating on papers etc) The current bylaw also address's what a member can do if they are given notice of expulsion, such as a hearing before the board etc. The new bylaw does not.

As said previously you either had to vote it ALL in or NONE of it in.


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 10, 2010)

Kay,

I have to respectfully disagree, the vote could have and should have been on a line item basis. Whatever gave you the thought that is was an all or nothing is incorrect. In fact according to our by-laws each had to be voted on independently, unless the membership voted to accept all of them as written, which would not have allowed for the discussion I would have loved to have heard. Like you I was against the change you spoke of and several others including term limits.

Personally I do not want to limit our ability as members to have good representation when we find it, no matter if the have served before or not. (when you find someone with the time and money to be involved, I hope we can ride that horse as long as we can, LOL) But then again I was the one vote against limiting them on the forum. So I more than likely would have seen that pass. Which would have been fine if that is the way the membership wanted it.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 10, 2010)

I dont think so John? Bruce asked him at the very beginning and he said you either had to vote to accept it all or none of it.

Maybe Ray can chime in? That is what had so many concerned.

Kay


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Nov 10, 2010)

Personally I wish the registry could uphold some type of punishment to those unresponsible breeders out there that are cheating on papers or buyers. It does give the miniature horse a bad name and honestly I'm sure many people are afraid to buy any horses because of the dishonesty that does go around. It's all very sad, and I wish their is something that can be done.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Nov 10, 2010)

I believe had there been a motion to vote on each thing individually we could have done it that way which is why I was upset it was tabled. I feel we should have been very clear first and listened to what was being said but oh well what is done is done and these same by laws will be on the floor for voting in 2011 so I hope everyone reads up on them and asks questions so we are clear and ready to vote


----------



## dmk (Nov 10, 2010)

We had to vote on the by-laws in their entirety as accepted or not but we could have made changes and then voted.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 10, 2010)

Michelle that is what I and many others heard when Bruce asked. It was all or nothing.

I can only imagine how many hours it would have taken to vote them down and then go back thru each one and change them and vote again. We were already running late and the BOD meeting was scheduled for 3 pm. I dont think there is any way all of that could have been done.

Also if we had changed them yet again it would really need to be looked at by an attorney before being voted on.

I was told by several directors that this will be worked on again before convention. I suspect this will come back up, be voted down and then the new revision submitted for vote. But for sure I do not know exactly how it will be done.

Hopefully before the next one all members will get the revisions in advance of convention


----------



## RayVik (Nov 10, 2010)

Regarding the rights of members for expulsion, additional rights are addressed in Article X of the Articles of Incorporation.

To the extent of the language "with or without cause" the purpose is to serve a means of addressing situations whereby an act or action not specifically addressed can be dealt with by our organization for example the recent incident at AMHA World Show where a horses mane was cut off...in our present bylaws the wording is "any other conduct derogatory to the best interests of the Corporation" this new wording protects the organization in that should we decide a member has acted in a manner which would be derogatory to the interest of the organization but the wording in the revised bylaws prevents or protects us should this occur as we do not have the additional burden of proof the action was derogatory although it might other wise be offensive AND NOT specially addressed.

As to the concept of voting on the different sections the proper manner to conduct this process was to adopt these revised bylaws as written and the to offer an amendment to them once adopted..the reason being is you cannot mix and match old and new. Basically because like a book these revised bylaws have sections which are interconnected in such a way that you must take the whole and modify it rather the take the modifications and make the whole.

I find it very interesting that we have directors who are inferring that the will of this membership will be questioned in that this membership voted only to table these for the purpose of reviewing and we now learn though the efforts Kay has put forth that there are those that will propose to change what the membership has only sought to understand.... perhaps we should inquire why such an undermining of our rights is being attempted....Thank you Kay for these making us aware this is occurring.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Nov 10, 2010)

I was there also and Bruce asked if we were voting on it in it's entirety or separate. The answer was voting on it's entirety. I did not hear anything about voting on them separately. Only in it's entirety. I did not hear anything about any directors interfering. Not one bit! It was a membership meeting and the members voted what they did. With a vote of 96 to 23 that speaks volumes! The members did not want it as presented. End of story. What the members did want was for all members to have the opportunity to view the proposal and have a voice. How can that be a bad thing? Ray, I am sure you can agree with that. You said your sole purpose was to do well by the members. So how is this not right? I know you worked hard on the proposals and people gave you kudos for your hard work.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 10, 2010)

> To the extent of the language "with or without cause" the purpose is to serve a means of addressing situations whereby an act or action not specifically addressed can be dealt with by our organization for example the recent incident at AMHA World Show where a horses mane was cut off...in our present bylaws the wording is "any other conduct derogatory to the best interests of the Corporation" this new wording protects the organization in that should we decide a member has acted in a manner which would be derogatory to the interest of the organization but the wording in the revised bylaws prevents or protects us should this occur as we do not have the additional burden of proof the action was derogatory although it might other wise be offensive AND NOT specially addressed.


The problem is Ray this is way too vague and could have many different interpretation's. You had told me previously part of the reason you were working on the bylaws was for just that reason. To say a member can be expelled without even having a hearing and "with or without cause" is just crazy to me.



> I find it very interesting that we have directors who are inferring that the will of this membership will be questioned in that this membership voted only to table these for the purpose of reviewing and we now learn though the efforts Kay has put forth that there are those that will propose to change what the membership has only sought to understand.... perhaps we should inquire why such an undermining of our rights is being attempted....Thank you Kay for these making us aware this is occurring.


Ray that is not at all what I said and frankly I am too tired and stressed to defend myself. Anything I put at this point will be twisted. Again it wasnt just "Kay" I believe there were almost one hundred people that voted. I have a very sick mare and have had a really stressful day. Really brings into perspective to me what is important. At the end of the day for me its not all about the show ring and politics, its about the love of a horse and an association.

Kay


----------



## dmk (Nov 10, 2010)

Just because those by-laws were presented does not mean that we could not say NO we will not put that in or change that wording and THEN vote on what we said as a whole. That is what I meant when saying vote on them as a whole. We could have put other wording in place of what Ray had in the meeting in some places. No one had any right above or beyond any other member to present a set of by-laws. Ray was doing it at the request of the President or whomever, but if you come with a set of by-laws and ask the membership can vote on them...so we can vote NO on Ray's set next year and present a whole new set of by-laws written by a new committee or individual who so chooses to present. Get it on the agenda and it will be presented.


----------



## RayVik (Nov 10, 2010)

dmk said:


> Just because those by-laws were presented does not mean that we could not say NO we will not put that in or change that wording and THEN vote on what we said as a whole. That is what I meant when saying vote on them as a whole. We could have put other wording in place of what Ray had in the meeting in some places. No one had any right above or beyond any other member to present a set of by-laws. Ray was doing it at the request of the President or whomever, but if you come with a set of by-laws and ask the membership can vote on them...so we can vote NO on Ray's set next year and present a whole new set of by-laws written by a new committee or individual who so chooses to present. Get it on the agenda and it will be presented.



You are 100 % correct....that is exactly how it is suppose to work


----------



## horsefeather (Nov 10, 2010)

Well, I also heard it was all or nothing. We didn't have a paper in our package, so it was a complete surprise to us (not the 'in' group). Guess I won't have to worry about it as there is no way we can make it to Portland for convention next year. I still DO NOT understand how we can vote for anything in the U.S. but can't vote by mail, computer, or whatever when it comes to ASPC/AMHR. This association needs to come out of the dark ages. I think it is SO unfair that a room full of people can vote for, and make important decisions for thousands of others who aren't or can't be there!! Where oh where is the democracy in that??

Pam


----------



## muffntuf (Nov 10, 2010)

It was not in the welcome package, and I don't know if Ray intended it to be in it or not, but it wasn't. It was up at the sign table the morning of the General Membership meeting. That's when I found it.

Needless to say, dmk, I thought about what you said, yes we could have voted it down, but there was no motion to do so. There was no motion to take it piece by piece and frankly when it was discussed it was an all or nothing vote which was implied and came across to the membership.

Could it have been differently, certainly, hind sight.

Does the presentation need to occur differently going forward - yes. It is tabled for now, but tabled pending the lawyer's findings on the original ratification of the 2003-2004 Articles.

In any case it leaves the membership a year to be educated, involved and making an informed decision.


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 10, 2010)

I guess I must have been talking to someone or something as Kay and Fran are correct in saying that the entire package was presented for an up or down vote.

But with that said there was nothing stopping us from amending the proposed changes on an individual basis prior to a vote with a vote on each change as it was being made as an amendment.

Hopefully it does not comeback to bite us in the rear end and these items can be addressed at the next convention.

Also the proposed changes were on the check in table when I checked in on Wed. which is when I got a copy of the hand out. I then went to the by-law web site to make sure they accurately reflected what I had looked at for several weeks, which they did.

Nuff said on my part, I enjoyed seeing everyone there. And hope to see even more of you at the Portland site.

So sorry to hear about your mare Kay!


----------



## CLC Stables (Nov 10, 2010)

HorseFeather,

I am a member of AQHA also, and I do not get to vote by mail for them. So we are NOT the only one that doesn't.

Unless I am just not getting my info for AQHA and that would be a first.


----------



## dannigirl (Nov 10, 2010)

Since those of us that were not at convention have not even gotten a copy of the proposed by-law changes, it would be hard for anyone other than the 100 or so members that were at convention to even understand what is going on. I don't know how it could work, but I feel that something as important as by-law changes that will effect every single member of ASPC/AMHR/ASPR should be sent to every member for review so that, at the very least, we can talk to our directors so they will know how we feel about them. I honestly don't think that decisions of this magnatude should be made by the few that have the time and money to attend convention. Those of us that had to remain at home, for whatever reason, should have a voice also--in a vote--either by mail or on the internet somehow.


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 11, 2010)

here is the link to the by laws web site that was posted here on Lil Beginnings some time ago. As far as voting by mail or email. It is specifically addressed in our by laws how we are allowed to vote and that was not changed at convention.

http://www.bylawscommittee.com/


----------



## muffntuf (Nov 11, 2010)

But with that said there was nothing stopping us from amending the proposed changes on an individual basis prior to a vote with a vote on each change as it was being made as an amendment.

John we could have had it amended right there, but I believe we would have to check the legality of them before we could vote on them.

The last I looked on the bylaw website was the weekend before Convention. Most of the changes were not on the ByLaw website that was in the hand outs.


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 11, 2010)

Have you recuperated yet by the way. That was a fun party wasn't it. LOL











I must be looking at something different than what you are. Mine matches with a couple of exceptions.

In any case what is done is done and we need to move on to the many positive things that went on. Folks that were not there need to know that those positives were many and the association was well served by most of the actions that were taken at the convention from where I stand.





Again, I sure enjoyed my five days there. The drive home was a killer but better than a plane ride for me, I hate those durn things now days.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 11, 2010)

> As to the concept of voting on the different sections the proper manner to conduct this process was to adopt these revised bylaws as written and the to offer an amendment to them once adopted..the reason being is you cannot mix and match old and new.


So what Ray is saying is you vote the whole thing in and then go back and fix them. Im sorry thats just not a good way to do it, and there is no possible way all of that could have got done in the 2 hours we had left (if we didnt take lunch) It would be really dangerous to vote them in as is and then fix them later. If the point was to fix them why would we have to immediately fix the fixed bylaws






Like dannigirl I felt these sweeping changes should have been mailed to every member of our association. This stuff is way too important and affects every member.

I feel so strongly after attending convention that we need to start using Parliamentary rule/Roberts Rules of Order. This would stop a lot of the fighting, lack of organization, lack of accurate agendas etc.

Like John said whats done is done and we all just need to move forward. I think the new board will do a great job and the future is bright. I met such awesome people, laughed until my cheeks hurt and stayed up until I couldnt keep my eyes open LOL

I would rather discuss how to get back all the members we lost and promote horses





Kay


----------



## RayVik (Nov 11, 2010)

Not FIX but change them IF that is the desire of those present and voting..its each members right to offer motions but the vote is what does it...If you think about it if the people vote them in then they or at least the majority accept them...it could go on forever yes but at some point everyone must realize what they are now and what they will be if accepted is change...they are dynamic but common sense must prevail and although everyone cannot agree on everything we must have something and we must start someplace...FIX is what we do by revising the existing bylaws change is what we do for the future


----------



## Minimor (Nov 11, 2010)

Do you think we just fell off the turnip truck? I personally think it would be a huge mistake to vote in in favor of revised by-laws that we don't agree with and have those by-laws in place for the next year while people come up with new wording to "fix" those by-laws at the following convention. That is the wrong way to go about it. Each by-law should be voted on separately, if we don't like it the way it's worded we should either come up with a wording we do like or vote it down until the wording is changed to something acceptable to the majority of us. Telling us to vote it in the way it is and we can 'fix' it later is much like the witch handing Snow White the poisoned apple and saying "eat it dear, it won't hurt you"

I think that instead of tabling this proposal it would have been better to let it go to a vote and then voted down--and then with discussion on which of the by-law proposals were the issue the committee could work on rewording those specific proposals.

These proposed by-law changes should have been sent out to all members. Sure, we here had the opportunity to look at the website & read the proposals there, but there are still members who do not have computers and who do not have internet access, and those members are completely in the dark about these proposals. I did read the proposals on the website, but for something like this I much prefer to have an actual printed version that I can read and re-read when I please--with dial up internet and a very old, slow computer it's just a hassle to go to the website if I want to re-read something...and printing with this computer? Forget it, it just doesn't work.


----------



## Songcatcher (Nov 11, 2010)

kaykay said:


> It would be really dangerous to vote them in as is and then fix them later.


OK, I know this is off topic, but just to lighten the mood a bit, would someone please tell this to congress? :arg!


----------



## Sandee (Nov 11, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> OK, I know this is off topic, but just to lighten the mood a bit, would someone please tell this to congress? :arg!


----------

