AMHR Convention News (Unofficial)

[kaykay]

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.]

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]

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]

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~]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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.]

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.