Charlotte,
We don't describe ourselves as very small, C.A.R.E. is actually very small in number, but very large considering our active experience, legal advisement, and knowledge of the AMHA rules. The support of our group is growing in numbers as members learn what we are trying to do in working for the best interest of all AMHA's 11,000 members. No, maybe all 11,000 don't agree with what C.A.R.E. stands for, but it IS in the best interest of all those members that Association Rules and Bylaws are followed, and plain and simple, that is all that we ask.
When the members attending the Annual Meeting vote to approve rules and bylaws to be followed in the management of their Association, they have the right to insist that the directors follow these rules. In the past few years rules have been ignored and amendments have been allowed to be made that were not well thought and caused a lot of confusion and distrust within the membership.
You say since you became a member of AMHA in 1991, and with your travel while showing horses and attending club activities, you have never found a large number of members that are distrusting of the governing body of AMHA. Let me remind you of the 1993 Annual Meeting when the Board of Directors was "called on the carpet" so to speak, for distrust of their management.
Eleven of them resigned at that meeting.
What about early 2004 when the Board was again not watching the Executive Secretary and AMHA almost went bankrupt? Many members we talk to are very afraid that AMHA is again headed in a direction of repeating the same mistakes.
Everyone, including C.A.R.E. appreciates the work of the volunteers that serve as directors, but why is it so much to ask that the Directors just follow the rules, and to think before they act. That is all we ask.
We do not make any statements that are not fact and cannot be backed up with minutes of meetings or the rule book. Our report on the decision made in today's Board meeting came from the President, and he gave his permission to pass it on to members. In doing so we hoped to stop so much worry and confusion concerning the new change to permanently register horses and hardship horses at three years instead of five years old, and exactly when this bylaw would go into effect. C.A.R.E. is NOT against the change in the rule that allows hardshipping at 3 years of age, and changes the permanent registration from 5 years to 3 years, all we asked is that the rules and bylaws were followed in implementing the changes...that's all.
From the positive response we have received from many members today, that is exactly what has happened.
To those of you upset with CARE for being responsible in stopping your efforts in getting your horses hardshipped, brought permanent, or shown at a younger age this year, do not blame us. If the rules had been followed, that option never would have been made available. It has not been stopped, only brought back to the proper implementation date of January 1, 2010. As Mona stated on this Forum, on the day of the Annual Meeting, she had sent a message to have this looked into before the meeting ended, and if it had been done and corrected at that time, this entire situation would have been avoided.
minimomNC, your question of,
"So where does it come out better to not have the extra time?" can easily be answered...it comes out better, because the Rules and Bylaws of our Association have now been followed, and following these rules and bylaws makes for a better association.
Shaladar, there would be no need to lighten up, or even make mention of things, if rules are being followed. It seems when the members have not objected to the wrongdoings of those in command, rules are broken, and no one is ever held accountable. Then it happens more and more often, because each time it is swept under the carpet and kept quiet about. No, CARE does not have a web site.
normajeanbaker, it is really a sad situation that there are only "a few in every group or breed" that find it important enough to feel the rules and bylaws of their breed or group are followed.
Songcatcher, The members of CARE are not ashamed to give their "real names", nor do we hide behind a forum name. We are the people that signed the letters to the Board written last year asking that the "base of the withers rule" be rescinded and sent back to the membership for further consideration. Our reasoning was that the rule was passed without going through the required procedure for AMHA rule changes and could be cause AMHA a lot of problems.
Vicki, CARE never tried to take the credit to begin with, we just congratulated AMHA for their good work.
The members of C.A.R.E. have never been a secret. They were announced to the Board of Directors and on this forum when we formed in March, 2008, they are:
Mona Stone
Margo Cox Townsend
Nikki Faubus
Diane Wolcott
Adrien Christensen
We just don't understand why some people feel the need to turn a congratulatory, complimentary post into a negative post.
Thank you to those of you that have put your faith and trust in CARE, and have expressed it through posts on this forum, and through emails and private messages. All the support you are showing is greatly appreciated, and proves that there are MANY members of AMHA that really DO CARE!
