LB members who wanted the vote....

[Charley]

Thank you Jody.

 

[Jill]

I no longer read or post to LB as a rule, but someone had mentioned this thread to me so I came to take a look.For any rule change to be discussed or considered at a June meeting, it had to be submitted by the END of the annual meeting in February.

The process is in the rule book, it was spelled out very nicely in the recent Miniature Horse World as well.

So, for the final attempt by me to get you to understand the process, here goes.

1). Write up your proposal EXACTLY as you want it to read in the rule book using the forms provided by AMHA. Note on the form where in the rule book it is to be put.

2) Mail your proposal to the AMHA office BEFORE the 2009 Annual meeting or hand deliver it at the meeting BEFORE the end of that meeting.

3) Make sure your contact information is on the form, and be available for questions by phone if the committees need to talk to you.

4) The committees will receive your proposal at the June 2009 meeting for them to consider and will make a recomendation for it to go to the membership or not (rules and regs only, all by-law proposals go to the membership). If not, they will give their reasons. They cannot change wording in proposals unless it is a simple correction that does not change the intent of the proposal. This is where a lot of rule change proposals die, they are not enforceable, not legal, submitted to the wrong part of the rulebook and nobody can get in touch with the person proposing the change to get their ok for a correction/change. If it fails, it is sent back to the submitter with the reasons. If it passes, it is taken to the membership for a vote at the 2010 annual meeting to be put into the rulebook starting in 2011.

See, that's what gets me about some of these threads. "We" get partial information and everyone jumps to conclusions, rants about the registries, gets bent out of shape, etc. When if the entire situation was known, the perception of "what happened" would probably be completely different. I appreciate your clarifying this and other things previously, Jody.

 

[Mona]

See, that's what gets me about some of these threads. "We" get partial information and everyone jumps to conclusions, rants about the registries, gets bent out of shape, etc. When if the entire situation was known, the perception of "what happened" would probably be completely different. I appreciate your clarifying this and other things previously, Jody.

Well Jill, maybe it's the PARTIAL information that you WANT to read/hear that makes your decisions for you. Yes, we are VERY aware of the rules as set out in the rulebook. We have been studying them like never before, and we KNOW how they read, BUT, those procedural rules as written in the AMHA Rulebook are often NOT followed by the directors and EC themselves!!! So you see, they have set precedent in doing so, by not following the rules, so all we ask is the same chnce. So you go ahead, and you say what you think we are trying to hide.

 

[LisaF.]

Thank you Mona I agree 100%

Also, as far as contacting our directors - I have three directors - I have contacted on several occasions. I have yet to receive one e-mail from any of the three.

When I did send out over 30 e-mails - to our AMHA President, Directors, etc. - If I remember right I received 4 replies ( could have been 5) out of 30 sent out. Again, out of my region #5 I did not get one reply.

So, if we can't go to the meetings, we can't get a reply from our directors, what are we suppose to do ? Rules are being changed - and some of them are changed without out going by the rule book - Again that leaves me to think - What do we do?

I also agree with McBunz - when us nobody's that don't show - start to leave AMHA - Where will AMHA or the AMHA shows be then? We pay are memberships, we pay for our paperwork, etc.

I would think more of you would be upset with the computer money going down the drain - than the one's that don't show.

Correct me if I am wrong, I haven't heard of AMHR losing $350,000.00 for a computer system that doesn't work.

I am sorry, I got off subject but some people seem to be thinking some of us our picking on AMHA - In my opinion we are not. It is just so many things lately is NOT going right with AMHA - This is my opinion on it anyway.

 

[Jill]

Sorry, I didn't mean to have an opinion

I guess if I were trying to do something I anticipated some resistance towards, I would do it by the rules so there wouldn't be as much likelihood of it not being viable.

As Dennis Miller might say "of course, that's just my opinion -- I could be wrong."

 

[tagalong]

Well Jill, maybe it's the PARTIAL information that you WANT to read/hear that makes your decisions for you. Yes, we are VERY aware of the rules as set out in the rulebook. We have been studying them like never before, and we KNOW how they read, BUT, those procedural rules as written in the AMHA Rulebook are often NOT followed by the directors and EC themselves!!! So you see, they have set precedent in doing so, by not following the rules, so all we ask is the same chnce. So you go ahead, and you say what you think we are trying to hide.

Do you realize how that ^^^ sounds?

If one had followed the protocol as is explained in the rules that some are always yelling that people should follow - no exceptions - (well, except them, of course) - the rules and protocol that Jody outlined - then said proposal would have been in the system. So was any of that done? Or were the Is dotted and the Ts crossed not as per the rules that we are all supposed to follow as some of you always insist should always be the case..... so it is simply do as I say and not as I do? Please share the proposal if possible - and maybe we can all help tweak it if that is needed. It is about all of us, after all - not just the same few - some of who feel they and only they must save all of our butts - and have said as much.... and pat themselves on the back for it. Over and over again.

Just a reminder - in the past some of those alleged violations of procedural rules have not been a violation at all. Jody and others who were in attendance quoted the rules pertaining to whatever "violation" was the issue.... and it was above board and done as per the rules. Contrary to what some insisted. Contrary to what they often insist is the norm.

I am sorry, I got off subject but some people seem to be thinking some of us our picking on AMHA - In my opinion we are not. It is just so many things lately is NOT going right with AMHA - This is my opinion on it anyway.

Lisa - with all due respect - there will always be something that you decide is wrong with AMHA - you ignore anything else. You usually do not like any answers you get. You do not insist that AMHR share the information that you have demanded of AMHA... you do not get irate about any AMHR decisions that have not had input from all the members etc. ...you do not get outraged about measuriing inadequacies in AMHR. There only seems to be one target here - when there is much to be worked on with both registries. Some are so focussed on "outing" anything and everything that they perceive to be wrong with AMHA - that AMHR could declare a height change of 2" as per the decision of the board - and the anti-AMHA crusaders would not bat an eye.

I am not saying you should not speak up and share your concerns but you must also respect the concerns and opinions of those of us who can take a step back and see both sides of an issue and the problems in both registries... that is not always the case.

Where did you get the statistics that less than 5% of AMHA members show? Please share the link - I am curious because I would have guessed that it was more than 5%... and I would like to read it for myself. Thanks!

 

[Jill]

Reading harder what Mary Lou, Mona and Lisa are saying -- for the record, I do not think any posters here are actively trying to "hide" something. I just think some facts are presented here and on other threads and people react without seeing the entire story. People state the situation from their perspective which is not usually the full and entire story (and this goes for everything, not just this political stuff). I do not think it's out of an INTENTION to hide things or mislead.

When I'm doing something that involves business (which I think this could equate to, as far as the process that one must go through), I just never assume I will be granted the same exceptions favored on the "pets". Why would I when I am trying to get something done that I feel may not be showered with instant acceptance? In my experience, those situations do require doing it by the book so as not to have it turned away without an honest chance. This way of doing stuff isn't something I came by because things always sailed through on easy street from day one.

I understand -- it's not fair. No, of course not when exceptions seem to be made for a few at the whims of a few. But when "you" see the way something truly IS, stop acting like it's how it SHOULD BE.

 

[McBunz]

My personal proposal was sent to a director on 02/03/08/ 5:02 P.M.

He agreed to tweak and present it.. It didn't happen..

When I e-mailed as asked why.. He said it wasn't the right general meeting..

Well I don't plan on living forever..

So much for that..

 

[McBunz]

And yes.... I saved the e-mails...

 

[McBunz]

As for the C.A.R.E. proposal...

Since this rule proposal was not made at the annual meeting in 2008, the only way to get a proposal to go to the membership to vote for mail/internet ballot in 2009 was to ask the Board to make this proposal. That was the only option the rules allow. The rules were followed in exactly the correct manner. What is so wrong with following all the rules, including asking the Board to make a proposal that would give the members a chance to take part in the decisions of AMHA.

This was done....

 

[Neil]

My personal proposal was sent to a director on 02/03/08/ 5:02 P.M.He agreed to tweak and present it.. It didn't happen..

When I e-mailed as asked why.. He said it wasn't the right general meeting..

Well I don't plan on living forever..

So much for that..

May I ask why you sent your personal proposal to a director to be brought up at a meeting rather than submitting it to the Bylaws Committee and let them handle it as a Bylaw change proposal or ammendment

 

[McBunz]

Because a director is suppose to know how to get the job done correctly..and I admittedly am a nobody...

 

[tagalong]

I am sorry but this is just not true.. Jody's post repeated the process in the rulebook to propose a change, but she did not post the actions the Board has taken to pass various rules without following the correct procedure.

You know - I do not keep copious notes about every infraction - or even perceived infraction - the way some of you do. However - there have been times in the past when some of you were POed about some rule that was being broken and some procedure not followed in some meeting - and Jody or someone who was there and actually involved said that was not the case. As I recall - it happened more than once. More than twice. I expect Jody may remember some of that as well. Whatever - I guess I better take notes from now on.

So no - I did not pull that out of thin air.

Just sharing my views and concerns... which it feels like C.A.R.E. does not care about.

If McBunz's proposal was presented in the correct way - at the appropriate time and in the right format... then the director involved would need to explain what the issue was. If it was not done as spelled out - then stating that you do not have to follow the rules that you expect others to follow rings a bit false. Do not fall into the do as I say and not as I do chasm - be the example of how things should be done - how you demand they be done...

 

[bingo]

If I remember correctly the current president of AMHA has already written that procedure was not followed simply put by not having a impact statement.

This part is fact so no need to bicker about procedure being followed and others not knowing or telling the truth about it - it has already been presented as fact by someone who knows the AMHA president.

 

[LisaF.]

Tagalong - For your information ( I will admit - not all of my horses are on my website yet) Most of my horses are registered with AMHA. I am wanting to change my breeding program where all my horses are double registered. At this time most of them are AMHA ONLY so at this time I may be concentrating more on the rules of AMHA. I can tell you - I beleive a rule is a rule - I don't care which registry it is AMHA or AMHR. I have been keeping up more with AMHA and I need to start doing more research with AMHR - I will admit that. At the same time with most of my horses being AMHA this is where my attention is at this time.

Maybe you should be taking notes - I am NOT the one that posted the 5% showing - so I can not answer your question.

Neil - May I ask you? Is it not the directors job to give McBunz the curtesy of saying - this needs to be submitted to such and such commitee? Why was that not done?

Mary Lou - thank you for bringing up the Presidents letter and the facts in it. I read it along with I think most of the people on this board - including the ones that are accusing some of us as picking on AMHA for not following the rules.

McBunz - You are not a nobody - You are just as important as any member in the AMHA. I know how you feel, sometimes people on this board ( very few) make me feel like that. Then I start to think, we are members of AMHA also!

 

[Mona]

You know - I do not keep copious notes about every infraction - or even perceived infraction - the way some of you do. However - there have been times in the past when some of you were POed about some rule that was being broken and some procedure not followed in some meeting - and Jody or someone who was there and actually involved said that was not the case. As I recall - it happened more than once. More than twice. I expect Jody may remember some of that as well. Whatever - I guess I better take notes from now on.

So are you saying because Jody said it, it was correct, and we were not? All because Jody was at the meeting and we weren't?? I am sorry to burst your bubble, but I think Jody may even agree(or not) , that she has been wrong in the past, and yes, Mike Want, President of the AMHA even himself said proper procedure NOT followed!!

If McBunz's proposal was presented in the correct way - at the appropriate time and in the right format... then the director involved would need to explain what the issue was. If it was not done as spelled out - then stating that you do not have to follow the rules that you expect others to follow rings a bit false. Do not fall into the do as I say and not as I do chasm - be the example of how things should be done - how you demand they be done...

Perhaps YOU would like to explain to us exactly what was done incorrectly and why?? Something more solid than saying it was done incorrectly?? Why do you say that? Because "someone" else said it was done incorrectly, or because you know for fact it was? If due to fact, please spell it out for us, as I would love to hear what was incorrect about the way it was done??

 

[Neil]

Neil - May I ask you? Is it not the directors job to give McBunz the curtesy of saying - this needs to be submitted to such and such commitee? Why was that not done?

Sure you can ask but it escapes me why you would ask me. I am not a director and I certainly can not speak for them.

I am, however, a member and as a member I have always had a latest copy of the Official Rule Book. I always kept in the folder I carried it with me to shows along with all of my horse and entiies information. I am now a member of several committees so I carry it a binder with any committee work. I never know when I will need to look up a rule or procedure.

As members I feel that the CARE group should have made sure they had copies of the Rule Book or atleast made sure they read it online on the AMHA web page. At some point members need to stand up and take responsibility for themselves and stop relying on others and blaming others for their short commings.

 

[Mona]

As members I feel that the CARE group should have made sure they had copies of the Rule Book or atleast made sure they read it online on the AMHA web page. At some point members need to stand up and take responsibility for themselves and stop relying on others and blaming others for their short commings.

Care to explain?? We have read the book, and sorry, but I really would like to know what our "shortcomings" are? Because we are finding problems within our Association, that means WE have shortcomings??? I think NOT!

 

[LisaF.]

May I ask why you sent your personal proposal to a director to be brought up at a meeting rather than submitting it to the Bylaws Committee and let them handle it as a Bylaw change proposal or ammendment

Neil - I still can't figure out the quote so I just done a fast copy and paste.

I asked you because of the statement ( see above in bold) that you asked McBunz.

Neil, personally I don't think all of us keep a binder with us. I would still like to know your answer to why the director did not tell McBunz the correct way to do it? If what you are saying is the correct way. I don't have my rule book in front of me.

We have Directors for a reason don't we? I think it would not be too far out of line or too much of an inconvenience for this director to tell McBunz the correct way, do you? I mean aren't we suppose to help each other?

I realize you don't know WHY the director did not do this. I guess I am asking you - don't you feel the director should have?

 

[Neil]

As members I feel that the CARE group should have made sure they had copies of the Rule Book or atleast made sure they read it online on the AMHA web page. At some point members need to stand up and take responsibility for themselves and stop relying on others and blaming others for their short commings.

Care to explain?? We have read the book, and sorry, but I really would like to know what our "shortcomings" are? Because we are finding problems within our Association, that means WE have shortcomings??? I think NOT!

Let me word it another way, "blaming the shortcomings of others."

The "their" was refering to "others" and not CARE. Sorry.