A Plausible Solution to AMHA's problems

[user 488]

Carol
Please don't read me as antagonistic.......

Gary, please! I am not reading you as anything. You have to admit that you did ask me why the CARE group was not posting. So I just made an assumption that you thought I might have said something to them and I just wanted you to know that it wasn't me. I know you don't know me but when I have something to say I have no trouble just flat out saying it.....

 

[McBunz]

Having the "(professionals" on the grievance committee seems to me to be a conflict of interests.. much like having them being judges..

It would soon be right back to one hand washes the other.. You have already said that they are in a feeding frienzy to acquire any

available clients..and the shows are their bread and butter.. Where does that leave the grievance committee. No you would certainly

not get any support from me on that one..

 

[bingo]

Well the reality seems to be if no one wants to support a committee or group who has access to BOD meetings and goings on (a grievence committe so to speak) the I do not think anyone will see the changes C.A.R.E. or anyone else is looking for.

Without those on the inside wanting to do what is right and willing to stand up to everyone to ensure it is we can all want change but I don't forsee it happening.

 

[horses mouth]

Having the "(professionals" on the grievance committee seems to me to be a conflict of interests.. much like having them being judges.. It would soon be right back to one hand washes the other.. You have already said that they are in a feeding frienzy to acquire any

available clients..and the shows are their bread and butter.. Where does that leave the grievance committee. No you would certainly

not get any support from me on that one..

Professionals..............

ie; anyone who derives income from AMHA

like trainers, breeders, judges, farriers, office employees, eqine dentists.....................

Mcbunz

My wife is a judge and a darn fair, unbiased well respected one who does not play into the politics and shenanigans that you seem to THINK permeate our industry. Do not go there.

 

[kaykay]

I have read all these AMHA posts but rarely posted. The reason why is because I stopped being a member and registering any horses with them a couple years ago. It was a hard decision but I felt I had to do it.

I keep reading because I feel like maybe I will see things getting better and become a member again. Sadly I now feel that things are getting worse.

Divided none of you stand a chance of making any changes. Together is the only way you can make an impact.

So I hate to read and see that someone willing to step up to the plate like Gary is now being shoved aside. I just dont understand it? At this point Im not sure Garys committee is the answer but its worth finding out more and listening to what he has to say before disregarding it totally. (just an fyi I do not know gary but do like that he is willing to post his opinion and listen to what others have said)

Everything has to start somewhere and anything worth doing may take years to do. So even if it takes a couple years if its worth doing then do it! Change never comes quickly and starting now verses waiting another couple years is the best answer. This un happiness and unrest within AMHA has already been going on for years because no one will take action. If people had banded together years ago we wouldnt be having this conversation.

This in my opinion is why we dont see any changes because everyone divides and gives up instead of following through.

 

[McBunz]

I was thinking the trainers and pro handlers as the "(professionals" No I don't think all fall into the rut, but it still seems a conflict of interests to be

handling client horses and also judging.. It is out there as a possible and even maybe probable favortisim. If the AMHA is going to be cleaned up

it must fare to all and appear fare to all.. every aspect including judging..

 

[horses mouth]

I was thinking the trainers and pro handlers as the "(professionals" No I don't think all fall into the rut, but it still seems a conflict of interests to behandling client horses and also judging.. It is out there as a possible and even maybe probable favortisim. If the AMHA is going to be cleaned up

it must fare to all and appear fare to all.. every aspect including judging..

Mcbunz

I have never met you and only know of you from what little I have seen you type here, your name, age and location are also not readily available. You might seem more "freindly" to me if I knew more about you and please take the time to email me if you are truly interested in what I am trying to accomplish. Then I can call you and get a better feel for our exchanges.

The AMHA rulebook is very clear about "conflict of interest" and we (my wife the judge for like 14 years and I) use it as a minimum. Please take the time to refresh your knowledge of the AMHA rules located here:

http://www.amha.org/index.asp?KeyName=811

Integrity is something someone either has or doesn't have. It cannot be legislated. That being said, the only way to enforce this type of an issue is to have either an ethics committee or a Grievance committee (hence my plan). Most successful large businesses (ie; corporations) emply the same internal measures and even "arbitrate" in house.

The year Lisa (my wife) judged the World show we did not train or show any horses. She also left the grounds (Will Rogers) after her contract was complete (she judged the 1st half, youth and amateur). It set us back the next year but it was the right thing to do. By the way, there was a World judge present at Western Regionals this year for all to see, because (the excuse) the World was 62 days away (the rule says you must stay away for 60 days)!

Regards

Gary Barnes

 

[McBunz]

McBunz.....Adrien Christensen 61 yr. old female and member of C.A.R.E.

What else would you need to know..??????? Correspondence to C.A.R.E.

can be sent to Mona. This way our whole group has a chance to see it.

 

[bingo]

I guess I don't see how making Gary the enemy here will help anyone. I do not know him at all* wouldn't know him if I tripped over him in fact.* Does he have his own agenda with a grievance committee as has been implied? Perhaps he does even if it is not your agenda the bottom line is you have someone who has been involved, has been to Exec. BOD meetings, has seen the inner going on's of the registry giving you ideas and suggestions and frankly seemingly one of the few with that knowledge willing to talk to you.

You might not agree with his reasoning or agenda ( I am assuming there is one) but by dismissing him-his contacts, and knowledge of the real workings behind the scenes you would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[McBunz]

Bingo I am not dismissing anyone.. I asked that Gary lay out his plan...

and stated where I saw a conflict of interest..

 

[Mona]

Gary, the C.A.R.E group always researches every issue before we take a stand. We are aware that the grievance committee you are promoting would be very much like the ethics committee in the past. This ethics committee was disbanded by the Board several years ago because a member threatened to sue AMHA because of the interference of the ethics committee into his personal affairs. This law suit could have caused AMHA a lot of money, and at that time AMHA was in a better financial situation than it is today. In fact, our research leads us to believe that only two law suits have ever been filed against AMHA. Both lawsuits were filed by members because of the violations of rules by the Board of Directors. AMHA lost both lawsuits and did settle out of court for a fee paid to the members.

Here are some of the reasons we do not believe a grievance committee would be an advantage to AMHA.

1. At this time AMHA does not have the financial backing to cover lawsuits that might occur from a grievance committee actions. Even if the association won the suit, attorneys fees are very expensive.

2. If there were a grievance committee in place at this time, knowing the rules as you do, you know the committee would have to file charges against the Board of Directors for the various rules they have violated.

3. The Board of Directors have made it impossible to file charges against any member for rule violations due to their own disregard for following the rules.

4. The rules and bylaws give the power to the Board of Directors to manage the assets and affairs of the association. Do you think the Board will allow a grievance committee to operate without their decision on all grievances to be settled?

5. It would be a conflict of interest for any member of the Board of Directors to serve on the grievance committee, because any appeal from this committee would have to go to the Board for a final decision. The committees today are all dominated by members of the Board. There are 45 directors serving on the 21 committees AMHA has today.

6. As for professionals serving on the grievance committee, we could end up with a committee very similar to the Licsened Officials Committee. On this committee that licenses all AMHA judges, many of the committee members are AMHA judges. Do some research and find out how many of these members in the past have gotten their own judges license while serving as members of this committee. Also since the eight members of this committee are the only members that are allowed to choose the judges for the World Show, research and find out how many of these members have voted for themselves and have judged the World Show, and how many times some have judged. It is interesting.

7. It would be very hard if at all possible to find the right people to serve on this committee.

Our group is not against your working to form such a grievance committee, we just want you to understand our concerns as to why this committee would not be successful. The first step to settle grievances, would be for the membership to insist, by whatever means it takes, that the Board enforce all rules and bylaws that the membership has approved for the management of AMHA.

Respectfully submitted on behalf od C.A.R.E.

 

[horses mouth]

Thank you, Bingo, LisaF, KayKay and the others!

I DO have an agenda as I have said before; When I married Lisa (7 yrs. ago) we decided to throw all our eggs into the basket we all know as AMHA. The things that are going on (rule violations, infighting, lack of direction, etc.) affect us directly as we derive ALL of our income from this chosen profession. This is NOT a hobby or part time commitment for us. It should not be an amateur, trainer or breeder biased organization. As I have said before the articles of incorporation tell us why AMHA exists and the State of Texas granted a non profit status for the corporation to operate and defines the reasons.

Respectfully

Gary Barnes

 

[Mona]

And now on a personal note from me...

Gary, I did not ask, nor expect you to come to the forum to "report". All I meant was that since yuou had my email address, and since we discussed things on the phone, I would have thought you might let me know that you had brought things up. Also, I am a little confused, as you said that you talked to directors and promoted our cause to repeal the base of the withers rule before it went to the Board for a vote on Sunday morning. That would have been June 15. On Saturday, June 14, Jody Hoch had already posted here on LB that the Board had voted to repeal the base of the withers rule and that the base of the withers rule had been rescinded by the Board.

KayKay and Bingo, we (C.A.R.E.) is not totally dismissing all that Gary says/does. We (personally) are just not all convinced that having the committee will be any better or serve the members any better than the way things are being handled now. We are not telling or expecting others not to agree or disagree with what Gary chooses to do, we at this time, are not willing to step forward and support it, but urely welcome any others of you that want to. Also Bingo, we too have plenty of information from those that have been seated on the Board and that have attended many meetings, so no, we are not totally clueless as to the inner workings of the Association.

 

[Mona]

What can we do - to make sure the Board enforces all the rules and bylaws?

And THAT my dear, is the question of the century! One MANY of us would like to know the answer to!

 

[horses mouth]

Gary, the C.A.R.E group always researches every issue before we take a stand. We are aware that the grievance committee you are promoting would be very much like the ethics committee in the past. This ethics committee was disbanded by the Board several years ago because a member threatened to sue AMHA because of the interference of the ethics committee into his personal affairs. This law suit could have caused AMHA a lot of money, and at that time AMHA was in a better financial situation than it is today. In fact, our research leads us to believe that only two law suits have ever been filed against AMHA. Both lawsuits were filed by members because of the violations of rules by the Board of Directors. AMHA lost both lawsuits and did settle out of court for a fee paid to the members.
Here are some of the reasons we do not believe a grievance committee would be an advantage to AMHA.

1. At this time AMHA does not have the financial backing to cover lawsuits that might occur from a grievance committee actions. Even if the association won the suit, attorneys fees are very expensive.

2. If there were a grievance committee in place at this time, knowing the rules as you do, you know the committee would have to file charges against the Board of Directors for the various rules they have violated.

3. The Board of Directors have made it impossible to file charges against any member for rule violations due to their own disregard for following the rules.

4. The rules and bylaws give the power to the Board of Directors to manage the assets and affairs of the association. Do you think the Board will allow a grievance committee to operate without their decision on all grievances to be settled?

5. It would be a conflict of interest for any member of the Board of Directors to serve on the grievance committee, because any appeal from this committee would have to go to the Board for a final decision. The committees today are all dominated by members of the Board. There are 45 directors serving on the 21 committees AMHA has today.

6. As for professionals serving on the grievance committee, we could end up with a committee very similar to the Licsened Officials Committee. On this committee that licenses all AMHA judges, many of the committee members are AMHA judges. Do some research and find out how many of these members in the past have gotten their own judges license while serving as members of this committee. Also since the eight members of this committee are the only members that are allowed to choose the judges for the World Show, research and find out how many of these members have voted for themselves and have judged the World Show, and how many times some have judged. It is interesting.

7. It would be very hard if at all possible to find the right people to serve on this committee.

Our group is not against your working to form such a grievance committee, we just want you to understand our concerns as to why this committee would not be successful. The first step to settle grievances, would be for the membership to insist, by whatever means it takes, that the Board enforce all rules and bylaws that the membership has approved for the management of AMHA.

Respectfully submitted on behalf od C.A.R.E.

Mona

First; Although AMHA has been sued you have overlooked an important fact:

The insurance company settled for an "undisclosed amount" for AMHA and with the approval of the EC. AMHA did not pay assocation funds to the plaintiff(s).

Second; As one who knows how rule changes can and are accomplished (I have served on show rules in the past) and one who has discussed this plan and what needs to be done in order to implement it ( I talked to Susan Arnold, past chair of Rules and Regs just a couple of days ago). I can assure you that this is not the impossibility that you have decided it to be.

Third; This will require effort, cohesiveness, and volunteerism. I had hoped that WE could find some of this here, but sadly I feel that the attacks and negativity are exactly why this forum has such a hard time garnering the replies of many of the people that they ask for answers.

Do not think (gawd it seems like I have said this before) that I am trying to demand that AMHA create this committee. Nothing like this would ever be accomplished by depending on our officials to do it and for good reason; we have committees and we expect them to do the research and make the recommendations. It doesn't always work but that's the hand we have to play. There will have to be rules changed that would change the flow of authority. This would have to be a "standing" committee and would need to be included in the rule book as such with guidelines that would set who and how the members would be "assigned" (elected, interviewed or whatever). But the FIRST STEP would be to START.

Whether or not you agree. Whether or not this forum has a single member willing to help. I still was able to get the word out. That, I hope has helped to get the ball rolling and NO, I did not do this for any other agenda than my stated purpose.

JWCjr is an example of what I was trying to accomplish and maybe just maybe the seed to try to get this kind of info out to the members of AMHA has also been planted. I can only assume that the reason we do not get told what is happening and why is to KEEP CONTROL (but it is probably defended as an excuse to keep dissention down). IMHO, I think this causes the dissention.

Oh, by the way, has anyone told you that the "new" protest rule has been overturned? I was told the day after the BOD teleconference that took place on Thursday, August the 8th. Do you think that will start a firestorm?

Regards

Gary Barnes

 

[horses mouth]

And now on a personal note from me...
Gary, I did not ask, nor expect you to come to the forum to "report". All I meant was that since yuou had my email address, and since we discussed things on the phone, I would have thought you might let me know that you had brought things up. Also, I am a little confused, as you said that you talked to directors and promoted our cause to repeal the base of the withers rule before it went to the Board for a vote on Sunday morning. That would have been June 15. On Saturday, June 14, Jody Hoch had already posted here on LB that the Board had voted to repeal the base of the withers rule and that the base of the withers rule had been rescinded by the Board.

KayKay and Bingo, we (C.A.R.E.) is not totally dismissing all that Gary says/does. We (personally) are just not all convinced that having the committee will be any better or serve the members any better than the way things are being handled now. We are not telling or expecting others not to agree or disagree with what Gary chooses to do, we at this time, are not willing to step forward and support it, but urely welcome any others of you that want to. Also Bingo, we too have plenty of information from those that have been seated on the Board and that have attended many meetings, so no, we are not totally clueless as to the inner workings of the Association.

Saturday or Sunday..............I confused the days (believe me I got very little sleep driving 2 hours each way every day to the meeting).

Mona?

You seem very dismissive (a thank you for attempting to help our cause would seem more appropriate) and almost combative over the afore mentioned question, which was just an attempt to get the parties that are concerned with AMHA and the "problem with following the rules" to participate in a WAY to enforce the rules.

 

[McBunz]

I have read all these AMHA posts but rarely posted. The reason why is because I stopped being a member and registering any horses with them a couple years ago. It was a hard decision but I felt I had to do it.
I keep reading because I feel like maybe I will see things getting better and become a member again. Sadly I now feel that things are getting worse.

Divided none of you stand a chance of making any changes. Together is the only way you can make an impact.

So I hate to read and see that someone willing to step up to the plate like Gary is now being shoved aside. I just dont understand it? At this point Im not sure Garys committee is the answer but its worth finding out more and listening to what he has to say before disregarding it totally. (just an fyi I do not know gary but do like that he is willing to post his opinion and listen to what others have said)

Everything has to start somewhere and anything worth doing may take years to do. So even if it takes a couple years if its worth doing then do it! Change never comes quickly and starting now verses waiting another couple years is the best answer. This un happiness and unrest within AMHA has already been going on for years because no one will take action. If people had banded together years ago we wouldnt be having this conversation.

This in my opinion is why we dont see any changes because everyone divides and gives up instead of following through.

Kaykay - You are SO RIGHT - this needs to be pinned so we do not forget this. IMO

McBunz - You know I e-mailed you asking if you would help me or if I could help you in trying to get Internet Voting passed. At the time - I had found a thread where you were for it. At the time I did NOT realize CARE was already working on this. I did find out from Mona that they were. So, I offered my help to Mona and she gladly accepted.

Now, with an attitude like you just showed - I am not sure I will be supporting CARE any longer. I want to work with people that really CARE about ALL MEMBERS.

I think a simple e-mail back to me saying - please contact Mona - would not have been too much to ask. How can you talk about BOD, etc. - if you can't return a simple e-mail back to me as stated above.

Sorry I bothered you - It will not happen again!

The information I posted was for Gary who asked.... Not to you Lisa...

 

[horses mouth]

In fact, our research leads us to believe that only two law suits have ever been filed against AMHA. Both lawsuits were filed by members because of the violations of rules by the Board of Directors. AMHA lost both lawsuits and did settle out of court for a fee paid to the members.

First; Although AMHA has been sued you have overlooked an imortant fact:The insurance company settled for an "undisclosed amount" for AMHA and with the approval of the EC. AMHA did not pay assocation funds to the plaintiff(s).

Gary, does it matter that the insurance company paid on behalf of the Board? WHY should members have to sue THEIR OWN organization to get the rules followed? Look at the real problem. The Board LOST BOTH TIMES BECAUSE OF THEIR VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES. They AND the Attorney were warned by the judge to follow the rules. THEY DON'T.

Personally, I would HATE to be the AMHA's insurance company. How would you like to insure a group that repeatedly does the same things over and over, gets sued and LOSES and never seems to learn? How long will they continue to insure a group that ignores the rules they were incorporated under? At what point will the loss be too great?

Well, for many of the membership, the loss is already too great. Watch and monitor the clubs finances, show attendance, registrations, etc. Do you "hear" the quiet voice of the membership speaking out? I do.

Wil the message be heard?

Diane

I took your first reply to me in this thread as an attack, if I was wrong then I apologize.

This reply is taking the context of Mona's question/statement and my reply a bit out of context. The point Mona was making was that lawsuits cost AMHA money and the point I was inferring was that the lawsuit did not cost AMHA much. This is why I believe they have not learned a lesson. The insurance probably was cancelled or went up in premium. The attorney is on retainer........Why do you think the BOD passed a new rule that says a Director cannot hold office and be engaged in a lawsuit against the association? I wonder if some of the directors know things that they keep from the members!

The real kicker here is that AMHA has violated the rules a bunch and if a savvy attorney could convince the court that they are in violation of their articles of incorporation then it would be feasible to lose the "non profit" status and maybe even have a revocation of the corporation.........What do you think your miniature horse values would be then?

Regards

Gary Barnes

 

[Tango]

"The real kicker here is that AMHA has violated the rules a bunch and if a savvy attorney could convince the court that they are in violation of their articles of incorporation then it would be feasible to lose the "non profit" staus and maybe even have a revocation of the corporation.........What do you think your miniature horse values would be then?"

This is what C.A.R.E has been saying from the very beginning.

Nikki

 

[horses mouth]

I understood both yours and Mona's points.
My focus is on rules and the enforcement of rules.

Just didn't want that point getting lost anywhere.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Diane,

You asked a question of me in your quoted reply.........I was attempting to answer that question in my reply above.

I have a question for you. I bolded a line above in your quote. I have read our rule book many times, there are many rules but "the enforcement of rules" does not seem to be there, other than 133 Non-payment of obligation there are some disciplinary procedures but the impaneling board is assigned by the EC. How is it you expect enforcement to occur?