Interesting link from A candidate for President of AMHA

[JWC sr.]

Folks, let me just say that while I think there are a lot of things that need changing, we can't lose sight of the fact that Amha does a lot of good thigs for us members. We tend sometimes to focus on the negatives and forget the good things. I know I have been guilty of that myself.

But with that said, the ad being allowed or not is the least of my personal concern on this subject. I like the other posters suggestion about just an information simple ad stating Barnes for President and a link to a web site. But even if that was not allowed for whatever reason of which there are a number I have been emailed about by others there are a lot of ways to get the word out in this day and age. Heck this forum is one of them.

Things that have been reported such as private EC meetings on non-time sensitive matters, decisions being made without the input of the BOD, lack of detailed minutes of any and all meetings for the members to look at and understand Etc. Etc. are much more important to me then the ad being allowed or not.

The BOD members of my area are people that I respect and think have the best interest of AMHA at heart. I am sure they will not agree on everyting, but that is okay. I think as dedicated people they will work thru that given the oppurtunity. The same can be said for most of the rest of the BOD also.

But if they are shut out then they do not have the chance to give the input that I hoped they would be able to when I voted for most of them anyway. Again a strong involved BOD is something that needs to be implemented as versus the current system of strong EC that lends itself to at the very best not availing itself of the experience and intelligence on the BOD.

Also let me pipe in on the office ladies. In all the years we have dealt with them, we have never encountered anyone working in the office that was not helpful and willing to work thru any problem that might arise in any situation. True we treat them with common courtesy and respect, completely realizing that most problems are of our own making, but even then it is sometimes frustrating to have to work thru those type problems, but we have always manged to do so.

I hope if this thread does nothing else it is to encourage as many folks as can to attend the annual meeting and vote on all the important matters at hand. That would be a great result, no matter the outcome and will have been well worth all of our time to be involved in this thread.

Thanks to everyone voicing your opinions. I know of at least 4 of the BOD that are watching this thread and hopefully they will get a better idea of where everyone is coming from.

 

[wildoak]

This is digressing, as these threads often do, from a discussion about Gary's right to advertise his candidacy into an AMHA bash. I second what John just said about the AMHA office - they have never been anything but polite and helpful to me, even at times when their working situation must have been difficult. AMHA certainly has some problems, every breed association I know of does, and they need to be addressed. As to all the BOD and members who attend being wealthy, it simply ain't so.

Certainly some are, which isn't a bad thing by any means as that wealth was probably earned by the same drive & intelligence that can be applied to our association, but there are lots of folks who have to plan & pinch pennies to be involved. Not everyone can, no reason to feel guilty if you can't, but remember it's an effort for most. I've only been once, when it was in Texas - time, money, family and watching mares/feeding horses always seem to intervene but this year I may make the trip.

As to the MHW ad status, I kind of agree that it should remain a promotional magazine for our horses and as such, not the appropriate format for this kind of discussion. I have no problem with a simple ad stating candidacy as mentioned, with a link to website...in fact I think that's a good idea. Or have a candidate's forum on the AMHA website, complete with discussion. Lots of ways it can be handled.

Jan

 

[mdegner]

When I first saw this thread started yesterday, I thought oh no, here we go. . . the annual bloodletting begins. I'm happy to see this has not devolved into emotional mudslinging but rather a thoughtful discussion of ideas and suggestions which, if implemented, could increase members sense of participation and pride in the AMHA.

I think there should be a mechanism for candidates to present their platform and ideas to the membership at large. In this day and age, it seems like such a simple, easy problem to solve whether its as Marlee suggested, utilizing the membership lists for a broad mailing, or a section of the website/magazine set aside for candidates to communicate their goals and agenda. Obviously, if the magazine/website is used, editorial rules and guidelines would need to be developed and enforced to ensure appropriate communication.

I also think there should be a method for members to participate more broadly in the issues and decisions impacting the organization. I don't know how but it seems to me the AMHA is full of smart, innovative and dedicated people who could figure this out.

Though I don't always agree with the decisions or direction of the AMHA, I am grateful for the hundreds of hours--mostly unpaid--put in by people on behalf of the members and the breed. Whether its the type of driving improvements Gary has "driven" (no pun intended) or committee members work, or the time and money spent by the AMHA officers making the difficult and often unpopular decisions, I appreciate their efforts on behalf of the miniature horse. Kudos to all.

Finally, about 3.5 years ago, I walked into my first mini horse show in Sioux Fall SD, feeling ignorant and intimidated and uncomfortable. Talk about feeling like I showed up at a gunfight with a water pistol! Almost immediately, Jim Barenklau walked over, introduced himself and made me feel like it wasn't a mistake for me to be there. He's a humble, kind, gracious, welcoming gentleman in every sense of the word who works tirelessly at great personal expense to promote the miniature horse and those of us who own them. I know he's not the only one, but I'll never forget that experience. I just had to share that. . . Thanks, Mary Wilson

 

[rabbitsfizz]

After reading everything on Gary's website, I'm still really torn. He has some good points, but I'm not sure that our registry magazine is the proper venue for political disputes. Printing this ad could've started a pretty negative trend--imagine if everyone that had a gripe with the organization or even with specific members of the organization decided to start printing those gripes in the World. It's not going to make a very good impression on new members with no other knowledge of those issues, and it's not very unbiased since anyone that disagrees would then have to pay to have their own opinion heard. That said, I don't see a problem with him running a simple ad saying he's running for office that includes a link to his site--those kinds of ads are standard in any election. Does anyone know if any of the other major breed magazines have a precedent for political ads?

So do what we do with our air time for Party Political Broadcasts. Give an equal amount of free space to each candidate ( of course there should be guidelines, you do not just get to say what you want to say, ie be rude!!) on the understanding that that is the only space (in the magazine at least) that they will be given.

It should not be about being able to afford to run, or being able to afford to place a big shiny ad. It should be about the right person for the job!

PS I think, in this day and age, it is sheer lunacy to not have a postal vote. I am much nearer to absolutely everywhere in the UK than some people in the States are to their next door neighbour, yet the Shetland Pony Stud Book Society has had postal voting for years.

 

[mdegner]

One more thing, there is a reference earlier to 1 million in funds and I wanted to make sure people realize that didn't mean "available" funds. It's my understanding available funds are between 300-350K. Most of you probably already knew that but, just in case, I wanted to clarify. . .

 

[JWC sr.]

What I personally would like to see is to have each of the candidates for the officers and the EC declare in advance of the meeting and tell us all what they propose for the term of office that they are running for. Positive direction and forethought mean a lot more to me than belly aching about the system and how it needs to be changed with no specifics.

By being able to look at those specifics after the elections and before we voted the next time, we then could have a barometer of how well any given candidate has measured up to what they said they were going to do. I know that is a simplistic approach but sometimes it is best to employ the KISS principle in matters such as these.

Rhetoric and vague buzz phases always get us into trouble, when we buy into them in any political arena be it on a local, state, federal or registry platform.

Some of the things I personally would love to see addressed and dealt with in a manner that reflected the MAJORITY of the members of the registry’s wishes are as follows:

NOTE: I am not saying I am for or against the following issues, These are just areas that need to be looked at from my perspective. LOL

1. Adherence to by-laws, rules and regulations as they are written for the registry and interpreted by a parliamentarian or atty.

2. Voting on officers and EC by the general membership by electronic or mail in ballot.

3. Hiring of a true full time competent office manager for the home office.

4. Publication and verbatim of minutes of all EC and/or BOD meetings.

5. Hardship rules and procedures.

6. Judging/Stewards/Show Managers credentials – How they are issued and a code of ethics for the judges, stewards and show managers.

7. Approval by the EC and/or BOD of all expenditures in excess of a certain amount, whatever that amount is set at.

8.Ways to cheapen up things within the registry to encourage participation on a grass roots level. Possible reduction of fees charged by the registry and also by the local clubs for all areas.

9.Qualification process for horses to attend the World Show.

10. An international committee that works on issues such as enforcement of rules and practices, that govern the overseas membership, plus ways to give them a voice in the registry and the matters that pertain to them.

That is enough for now, what are your ideas for what needs to be looked at?

By the way on a side note, the service that the BOD and EC provide is an expensive on for each of them both from a mental overhead and financial perspective. I personally appreciate each and everyone of them for that commitment!!!!!!

 

[sfmini]

I thought I would take the opportunity to address each one of these issues:

1. Adherence to by-laws, rules and regulations as they are written for the registry and interpreted by a parliamentarian or atty.

That is currently happening, unless you can give me a concrete example of something to the contrary. AMHA has a law firm on retainer and Jim has been giving them a workout to make sure all is legal.

2. Voting on officers and EC by the general membership by electronic or mail in ballot.

No, that hasn't happened, but I have yet to see the needed rule changes submitted that could accomplish that. The previous attempt was voted down, but nothing has been re-submitted to my knowledge. That is up to the membership to submit. Correction, there is a proposal submitted by Mona Stone, in page 151 of the magazine.

3. Hiring of a true full time competent office manager for the home office.

They are discussing that right now at the meeting.

4. Publication and verbatim of minutes of all EC and/or BOD meetings.

That has been discussed, but we would have to hire a court reporter for a LOT of money and no member has submitted any kind of rule change to make it be so in spite of cost.

5. Hardship rules and procedures.

I am afraid I am missing something here. It is in the rule book, so what is missing? It would have to become a standing rule anyway since it would be a non issue if someone were to submit an official change to the rulebook. However, if you come up with something that could be added to the website, we should be able to get that set up.

6. Judging/Stewards/Show Managers credentials – How they are issued and a code of ethics for the judges, stewards and show managers.

There is for judges, we don't have stewards, and minimal for show managers, but we would be happy to see a draft write up from the membership.

7. Approval by the EC and/or BOD of all expenditures in excess of a certain amount, whatever that amount is set at.

Already in place. There are always two signatures on every check, one from the accountant, and one by one of the managers, and they are audited monthly. All expenditures must be documented. There has been no problem since this process was instituted a few years ago. See page 23 of your rulebook.

8.Ways to cheapen up things within the registry to encourage participation on a grass roots level. Possible reduction of fees charged by the registry and also by the local clubs for all areas.

AMHA cannot dictate fees charge by local shows, and we have been cutting corners where there are almost no corners left to cut. One proposal by a BOD member was to eliminate the webcast of the meeting, thankfully was voted down, but that is a huge expense.

9.Qualification process for horses to attend the World Show.

That is in the rulebook, exceptions were posted on the web, unlike in past years under past presidents where there was that undocumented hardship process. That has been public and actually loosened up under the current president.

10. An international committee that works on issues such as enforcement of rules and practices, that govern the overseas membership, plus ways to give them a voice in the registry and the matters that pertain to them.

Jim just returned from meeting with the European clubs and that is part of his report. They want to be able to elect their own directors, and to be heard more. So, stay tuned for many improvements in that area. Again, Jim is the first president to go overseas and actually listen to their wishes with the intent of improving things

Anything else?

No need to comment about the money since that has been clarified already.

 

[wpsellwood]

Thank you Jody for addressing the issues. Im glad you that you come on here and help explain things to everyone.

I know this isnt part of the topic exactly, buuuttt having a steward for the shows is a great expense and I for one hope it doesnt come to that. It really kills us for the amhr shows around here trying to get them off the ground. Just remember that before voting to have them.

 

[sfmini]

You are welcome.

The cost is what has stopped us in our tracks, it would really hurt the shows because fees would have to be increased. There has been talk of having one at the Championship and World shows as those are so big that someone acting as steward would be a huge help as the show managers are so stretched out.

Plus there would be the cost of putting together an entire program, training, testing, monitoring, new sets of rules.... Disaster in this economy (that is only my opinion and nobody else's).

 

[minimomNC]

Don't you have to pay someone to measure horses at every show? Including local shows? If there is a paid person to do measuring at any show, then that person should be certified to do the job. The same way judges are certified to do their job. This way if there is an issue with measuring, a person can be held accountable. Because no matter who gets what horse measured in at any show and knowing its to big, is not the guilty person, its the person holding the stick and putting it on the horse, so seems to me that is the one person that should have to be held to a higher level. This is the person putting 35" horses into 34" & under classes.

 

[sfmini]

Yes we use people who are certified measurers, at local shows it is sometimes the show manager. That person would not have time to be a steward, especially at the chamionship and world shows, and the training for them is strictly for measuring.

 

[JWC sr.]

Jody,

good to see you in here, I appreciate the response. I have heard privately from a couple of other people (BOD members) and encouraged them to come into the forum as some of them have a different take on some of your answers. It would be interesting to hear honest discussion on the issues.

But with that said, again let me say I appreciate your involvement, and dedication to the registry. Without folks like you that give of your time and energy it would be a sad situation for sure.

 

[sfmini]

I have gotten very shy about posting here, been just burned at the stake, but I don't seem to learn.

I would be more than happy for those directors too shy to post to email, call, or even send their comments through a third party. Would love to hear what I have wrong, as I have proven in the past I will admit when I am wrong and post retractions, and apologize.

If I don't hear anything, well, that speaks for itself now doesn't it.

 

[Ronnie]

Again, Jim is the first president to go overseas and actually listen to their wishes with the intent of improving things[/b]

Sorry but that one is not correct. I went in 2003 along with the LOC chair and a couple of judges and other committee members for the same purpose.

 

[mistyrose]

Ok Jody you asked for it.

Just two things I saw that weren't precisely correct. The hardship procedure was removed from the rulebook. I believe the procedure should have remained in print for the membership until it was no longer available to the members. New members have nothing to refer to and hardship is still in effect though 2013. Obviously the office and the rest of the board did not agree with me. This was what threw me off so much in the Feb mtg. I went to refer to the procedure and it was gone and I didn't have the old rulebook with me. Bylaws had also not been told the procedure was being removed. Currently you will need a copy of the rulebook of 2008 or older to read the procedure. Being a standard rule isn't enough because they are not available for members to refer to. Also a new person would have no clue of what they needed to do.

Second Jim is not the first president to visit Europe and listen to the members over there. I don't think anyone can say they didn't have the intent to improve things since it is impossible to really know another persons intent.

 

[Becky]

Libby, I just checked the rule book online and the hardship info is still there? Rule 193. I don't know about the 2010 rulebook. Haven't seen that one yet.

 

[sfmini]

Ronnie, I do know other presidents have gone overseas, you included. I worded that sentence badly, but didn't want to have a negative cast on past presidents so it came out wrong.

To date, very little has been done to improve the AMHA world for the international folks. We have had this international committee that makes reports at every annual meeting, but no action is ever taken and those international members are getting very frustrated. What they are asking for is to have a voice and to be heard and for some flexibility for them to fit with their existing culture.

I really hope this time we as a board and the membership work together to improve international relations and give them that voice.

I don't know if you were at the annual meeting when Wayne Hipsley spoke, but he was dead on target and we need to make use of the information he has given us as well as the information that Jim will be presenting. Let's make the international committee be held accountable for specific tasks and finally get something done.

 

[Ronnie]

Ronnie, I do know other presidents have gone overseas, you included. I worded that sentence badly, but didn't want to have a negative cast on past presidents so it came out wrong.To date, very little has been done to improve the AMHA world for the international folks. We have had this international committee that makes reports at every annual meeting, but no action is ever taken and those international members are getting very frustrated. What they are asking for is to have a voice and to be heard and for some flexibility for them to fit with their existing culture.

I really hope this time we as a board and the membership work together to improve international relations and give them that voice.

I don't know if you were at the annual meeting when Wayne Hipsley spoke, but he was dead on target and we need to make use of the information he has given us as well as the information that Jim will be presenting. Let's make the international committee be held accountable for specific tasks and finally get something done.

Jody,

First off, thank you and the other directors for all you do. I know first hand that it is mostly a thankless and often frustrating job. I also like to see you posting on this forum which allows a lot of people to give opinions and hear about issues and information they may not otherwise have access to.

As for doing something about the concerns of our international members, I agree wholeheartedly. We seem to always get committee reports and valuable information from outside sources and we typically thank them for their efforts and reports but then fail to act on the recommendations. As for holding the committee accountable, there is something to be said for that but it ultimately falls (or should) to the B.O.D. to take action on the committee’s recommendations. Wayne Hipsley has provided valuable information to us in the past. He was hired in 2000 (or it may have been 1999) to do a study on the miniature horse industry and AMHA’s role and future. He provided us a very good report with some sound advice and recommendations which we thanked him for but due to discussion, rediscussion, impact studies, funding studies, office opinions, more discussions, tabling, etc. etc…we never really acted on any of it. Wayne was also part of the international miniature horse council we attended in Belgium in 2003 where we gained a lot of insight but again failed to really do much (since I was president at that time a lot of that falls in my lap). I have known Jim Barenklau for a long time and have always believed him to be a good, sincere person and I am sure he went to Europe with the best of intentions and I truly hope we can make some good positive steps based on what he learned. I hope that it does not get lost in the bureaucracy of our system were we seem to make nice reports, presentations and speeches but wind up going home still right where we were. Our committees always make some good recommendation that we all agree is good but we don’t act on it either out of lack of agreement or reluctances to change or try something different. A good example would be Frank Lupton’s long range planning committee’s 2009 report. Here is the link to that report if anyone wants to read it.

http://www.amha.org/pdf/memb/Long%20Range%...20Report007.pdf

There is a lot of thinking out of the box in that report and some of it may not work but it does give a lot of good information and should inspire some efforts to capitalize on some of the opportunities presented. We trend towards being short sighted and concentrate to much on what will it do for me, or what will it do financially this year and not enough on what will it do for the AMHA as a whole (not just a few) or what impact will it have 5 -10 years down the road (not just the immediate budget).

Wow! That got a little long didn’t it, but you know I tend to be a little mouthy.

Ronnie

 

[JWC sr.]

You know I just love it when we get folks with information in here on the forum.

When it comes to the registry, there are so many folks that are "Out of the Loop" so to speak that honestly are interested and would feel much more comfortable about sending in all the membership, transfer, temp - perm etc. etc. fees that members do everyday.

If they only knew what was really going on behind the scenes of the registry and how hard it is to get anything done efficently and properly within our current structure.

The job the folks in the office and on the BOD is not an easy one and personally I appreciate as I have said before, all the work they put in. That goes for both past and present folks.

THANKS

 

[JWC sr.]

Not quite sure how I became the official poster on some of this stuff, but here it is anyway as I recieved it today from Mr. Barnes

John

John

I appreciate your questions to me and have answered them accordingly. Please feel free to post this wherever necessary. I only ask that you direct any concerns to me personally. People can email to: [email protected] Call me at: (817) 219-2966 or visit my website at: http://minidrivinghorses.com

Thanks!

Gary

John Cherry of Cherryville Farm sent me the following questions (my answers in black):

What I personally would like to see is to have each of the candidates for the officers and the EC declare in advance of the meeting and tell us all what they propose for the term of office that they are running for. Positive direction and forethought mean a lot more to me than belly aching about the system and how it needs to be changed with no specifics. This is extremely important and has been overlooked for as long as I can remember. Currently all attempts to do this have been blocked (the email list is denied, advertising in our magazine is denied, magazine editorial for this purpose is denied) we do have a new bylaw that will allow a bio (open to interpretation) to be posted on the website "by two months before" but no "ruling" as to when they will allow those to be put up.

By being able to look at those specifics after the elections and before we voted the next time, we then could have a barometer of how well any given candidate has measured up to what they said they were going to do. I know that is a simplistic approach but sometimes it is best to employ the KISS principle in matters such as these.

Rhetoric and vague buzz phases always get us into trouble, when we buy into them in any political arena be it on a local, state, federal or registry platform. I have been informed that some directors take issue or take out of context my statement that says, "Currently we have over a MILLION dollars spread out in different financial institutions in multiple FDIC limit accounts.". This statement was verified to be true at the time of writing by our Treasurer. At the December BOD meeting we were provided more data and after all obligations (show expense, futurity payout, etcteras) we have $599,369 in unrestricted operating cash (meaning can be used) with $340,000 of that money as working capital. So roughly $260,000 is applied to paying next years bills. I believe that the BOD should attempt to honor our Articles of Incorporation and designate a legitimate amount of our members money to effectively market our industry, the AMHA miniature horse, via advertising campaigns. Our marketing committee was given approximately $10,000 for 2009. Based on our income and expenses this is a paltry sum. I believe, as many of our members do, that we should have media advertising for our World show in the Fort Worth/Parker County area.

1. Adherence to by-laws, rules and regulations as they are written for the registry and interpreted by a parliamentarian or atty. The EC insists that they ARE adhering to the Articles, Rules and Bylaws. I have proof they are NOT. I have presented this proof in meetings (closed session) and they still deny. I would like to offer this for your consideration; Our Bylaws are very specific about amendment of rules (see page 27 of the rulebook). Our Bylaws also give the Corporate Power (page 10) to make these changes, first to our Board of Directors, then final revision or amendment to the members. But notice must be given to the membership 60 days in advance of our meeting in the magazine or by "official correspondence", sixty (60) days prior to that meeting. What this means is that the BOD (not the EC) can make changes to our rules (to be revised or amended by the members at the next meeting) but they have to print the notice and/or send it two months before the meeting to the members so the members, who are concerned (includes affected committees), can be available to voice their opinion in the OPEN meeting. I'm not sure this has ever been done and if so only by accident. For the December 5th & 6th meeting this was not done and I asked the Parliamentarian to read this bylaw and act on it. The Ec had prepared a number of rule changes to be voted on by the BOD and only the ones argued to be "housekeeping" were allowed.

2. Voting on officers and EC by the general membership by electronic or mail in ballot. While I have already stated my support for this, I would like to ask why some directors feel that this is the responsibilty of the members? I understand that rule submissions can be made by all members including directors. I am told by many members that they feel some will find excuses to hinder any attempt. The current proposal does not appear to have ANY suggestion or support by any committee or office staff. Why is that so? I would like to reiterate that this could be easily implemented for much less than the published reports with the available technology we have.

3. Hiring of a true full time competent office manager for the home office. I am all for this and slow steps have been made in this direction. We adopted a job description and voted to move forward with interviews at the December meeting.

4. Publication and verbatim of minutes of all EC and/or BOD meetings. The EC feels that they are accomplishing this. I argued that reporting minutes and reporting actions are NOT THE SAME. The EC minutes are only provided to the BOD members. The loophole here is that if the EC does not report their actions then the BOD never gets a chance to ratify, revise or amend them. See Article VIII © page 19 of the rule book.

5. Hardship rules and procedures. Well, we have now gone back to the interpretation that if your horse did not measure into the show, it can't be protested. The feeling is the protest rule only applies to horses that are "in" the show. The problem is that "damage" has already been done by the interpretation used at the 2009 World show (by this I mean that members are upset).

6. Judging/Stewards/Show Managers credentials – How they are issued and a code of ethics for the judges, stewards and show managers. I asked (at the June meeting); who is responsible for enforcement if our show managers do not follow our rules. I was told by the EC that there was no one. Recently the LOC made a statement that they would include ethics in their judging seminars. At the World and Championship show we have a dedicated gate staff. At the Championship show that person could be employed to also be a Steward. We need to delve into the hows, wheres and whys. These are all member concerns that I would like to address. If you have input please contact me.

7. Approval by the EC and/or BOD of all expenditures in excess of a certain amount, whatever that amount is set at. This has been addressed. A few years ago a hierarchy was set up and it has worked well. I hear rumors from members but do not think there is a current problem with finances. Hopefully having oversight with a new hire in the office will help quell the members concerns.

8.Ways to cheapen up things within the registry to encourage participation on a grass roots level. Possible reduction of fees charged by the registry and also by the local clubs for all areas. I agree with the concept of "reduced charges". I believe that the AMHA run shows are a "customer service" and need only to break even. AMHA fees for membership and registration are not out of line in the equine industry. I worked on and implemented the "coupon" for reinstatement of papers this year (and this was done to help defer costs). The driving force behind the costs at the "local level" is the number of judges hired per event (AMHA usually four) along with rising costs to rent facilities which are suitable. The clubs need to encourage involvement from their members. Suitable solutions should follow.

9.Qualification process for horses to attend the World Show. We have relaxed these rules for years. My only concern here is that the local shows need the qualification rule in order to have the necessary attendance. This could be affecting and influencing your concerns stated above.

10. An international committee that works on issues such as enforcement of rules and practices, that govern the overseas membership, plus ways to give them a voice in the registry and the matters that pertain to them. The International committee is active. Suggesting these items to them for their report back to us would be a good suggestion. AMHA needs to publish the intricacies of U.S. versus each countries requirements so that our membership would visualize the gains (from both sides) that this program could offer. There are some real legislative issues hindering our U.S. rules abroad. This is a work in progress and most recently we are considering a rule book section for International policies. The next step is to obtain a workable means to allow them to elect their own directors.

That is enough for now, what are your ideas for what needs to be looked at?

By the way on a side note, the service that the BOD and EC provide is an expensive on for each of them both from a mental overhead and financial perspective. I personally appreciate each and everyone of them for that commitment!!!!!! Thanks John!