Results of AMHA Meeting

[C.A.R.E.]

It was found during the special Teleconference meeting this morning, that the new standing rule that was passed last weekend at the Annual Meeting was infact, in conflict with the bylaws of AMHA, and will therefore be rescinded, and the rule will be implemented on January 1, 2010, as it should have been.

A committee of 3 has been formed to do an impact statement, to determine the detrimental costs/outcome of changing the permanent registration from 5 years to 3 years. It is expected that the committee will report back to the Board/EC with their findings at the June 2009 meeting.

It was also mentioned that they will be researching the issuance of coupons to help offset unexpected fees during these economic hardship times.

We at C.A.R.E. would like to THANK and CONGRATULATE the new President, Jim Barenklau, and the rest of the EC and BOD for working hard to regain the trust of the members, in ensuring the rules and bylaws of our association are followed. We are very grateful to all of you and so very proud to see this positive innitiative being shown by the current EC/BOD! May this continue for many years to come!

HIP, HIP, HOORAY!

KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK AMHA!!!

[SIZE=14pt][/SIZE]

 

[Charlotte]

We at C.A.R.E. would like to THANK and CONGRATULATE the new President, Jim Barenklau, and the rest of the EC and BOD for working hard to regain the trust of the members, in ensuring the rules and bylaws of our association are followed.

Mona, I think it's wrong for an organization which describes itself as very small to attempt to give the impression that it speaks for 11,000 some members.

I have been a member of AMHA since....1991 I believe was the year I joined. An active member. Always member of one or more AMHA affiliated clubs. Attending and exhibiting in 5 or more AMHA shows per year in areas of the country ranging from Wisconsin, MN, Il, FL, TX, OK, KS, MO...maybe more states, including District Championships, Regional and National/World Championships. At those club meetings and shows I visit with many AMHA members. I have never found there to be a large number of members distrusting the governing body of AMHA.

If you are active in AMHA also I have to assume you are aware of the processes whereby changes are made and decisions are reached. You know what a hard working group of volunteers there is and has been working on keeping AMHA the successful organization that it is. To insinuate that AMHA members as a whole don't trust their elected officials is wrong.

Charlotte

 

[normajeanbaker]

So if I am understanding this right, I now can not hardship my horses in until they are 5 years old again? Very dissapointing. I had 3 ready to hardship in after March 1 and show AMHA with them this year. We had $1500 ready to give the registry for hardshipping this year so we can do the AMHA shows up here in New England with 3 extra horses. Now, not only is AMHA losing out on $1500, the local AMHA shows are losing out on us bringing 3 extra horses as well. 3 horses doesnt sound like alot, but it ads up over the summer in entry fee's. I wanted to do AMHA this year with my string, and I am not sure I'll bother hardshipping now if I have to wait. I think it's too bad a small group of people speak for the whole membership.

I think it's too bad a compromise cant be reached and hardshipping allowed at 3 and you need to be brought permanent at 5 like it has been.

Jen

 

[minimomNC]

Normajeanbaker, you can hardship them next Jan 2. I am really sorry you won't get to show your horses this year, I'm sure you would have had alot of fun and the shows would have loved the added entries. I had mine ready to go, I was thrilled that I could get all of mine permanent this year. Now instead of getting the two years to take 3 & 4 year olds permanent with no late fees, you will have to take 3 & 4 year olds permanent next year or pay late fees. The added time of starting March 1, 2009 was the only time it was stipulated that no late fees would be charged. So instead of having until 2011 you will now have to do it in 2010. And that will include any 2 year olds from this year that will be 3 next year. So where does it come out better to not have the extra time?

 

[Reble]

I only had 2 that could of went permanent.

I guess just AMHR will get my money this year and will do the others when AMHA decides.

I just wish they would not pass things that are questionable.

 

[Irish Hills Farm]

Whelp, that just sucks!

Oh well, I will wait until next year to hardship my two ASPC/AMHR horses into AMHA if I must. Had the hardshipping / being brought permanent went through for this year, AMHA not only would've received money from me for the hardshipping but for a stallion report for this year and foal registrations on foals that would've been born next year.

 

[normajeanbaker]

Normajeanbaker, you can hardship them next Jan 2. I am really sorry you won't get to show your horses this year, I'm sure you would have had alot of fun and the shows would have loved the added entries. I had mine ready to go, I was thrilled that I could get all of mine permanent this year. Now instead of getting the two years to take 3 & 4 year olds permanent with no late fees, you will have to take 3 & 4 year olds permanent next year or pay late fees. The added time of starting March 1, 2009 was the only time it was stipulated that no late fees would be charged. So instead of having until 2011 you will now have to do it in 2010. And that will include any 2 year olds from this year that will be 3 next year. So where does it come out better to not have the extra time?

I still have AMHR I can do with them, as well as the local shows, but having a trailer full of 5 horses to bring to the AMHA shows sounded better then just bringing the 2 here who have AMHA papers. We were doing all AMHR here, but the AMHR shows are slowly dwindling here in New England, so we were VERY excited to be able to hardship 2 mare and a gelding this year as 4 year olds, and start doing more AMHA shows, as there are oodles offered in New England. I was also excited to see i could bring my now 3 year old permanent this year as well. It would be nice that she could have gone permanent through both registries the same year so her paperwork was all done and finished at the same time. I have heard everyones sides on why the hardshipping/permanent age should or should not be changed, but I was 100% for the change....or, atleast being able to hardship at 3, even if it was with temporary papers until they hit 5. By changing it back to how it was, AMHA has lost out on $1500 from us in 2009.

Jen

 

[Shaladar]

I think it's too bad a compromise cant be reached and hardshipping allowed at 3 and you need to be brought permanent at 5 like it has been. Jen

I don't think that will happen as long as there is a very small group of people waiting to pounce on every breath that AMHA takes.

Now I am not saying that rules should be broken....but lighten up people

I was perfectly happy with the past EC, BOD and am sure I will be equally happy with the current one.

I have NEVER lost trust in the AMHA. Most of the people I know are happy with AMHA. I have been a member since 1995, I think.

Sue Cushing

 

[normajeanbaker]

I don't think that will happen as long as there is a very small group of people waiting to pounce on every breath that AMHA takes.
Now I am not saying that rules should be broken....but lighten up people

Couldnt agree more. But, doesnt matter what club you belong to....there are a small few in every group in every breed

I really think the new hardshipping age rule would have really benefited alot of people this year, along with the registry.

Jen

 

[Songcatcher]

I too want to go on record as having confidence in both the past and present BOD and EC. I get so tired of some people looking for every little thing they can to make an issue about. And then, they want to take credit for straightening out the board.

Please AMHA, do not consider a small group of individuals, who refuse to list their membership, to represent ALL of us.

 

[Miniv]

It was found during the special Teleconference meeting this morning, that the new standing rule that was passed last weekend at the Annual Meeting was infact, in conflict with the bylaws of AMHA, and will therefore be rescinded, and the rule will be implemented on January 1, 2010, as it should have been.
A committee of 3 has been formed to do an impact statement, to determine the detrimental costs/outcome of changing the permanent registration from 5 years to 3 years. It is expected that the committee will report back to the Board/EC with their findings at the June 2009 meeting.

[/b][/color][/size]

Hmmm....I'm so NOT surprised......Having been a Bylaws Committee member for two years, I truly questioned about the abrupt change they were announcing. Chose to keep my mouth shut and figured someone would discover this. For all *I* knew they had presented this "rule change" under "Rules and Regs" which wouldn't have required the waiting period.

Ma---

PS: Correction about the Rules and Regs comment.......Thinking on that.......even if they HAD gone through Rules and Regs, they STILL would have had to run it through Bylaws and had to go through the same steps. I'm sitting here wondering WHY someone tried to ram this through so quickly?

 

[horsehug]

Maryann,

With it sounding like lots of people were happy and making plans to go with the new rule, is there a way to do it the way you suggested (through Rules and Regs) at their next meeting?

I was okay with the permanent age either way but am just curious.

Susan O.

 

[Relic]

Good job C.A.R.E.

l have no problem and have always been happy with the AMHA have also been a member with them since there first year and with lMHR before that...

 

[Sue_C.]

Mona, I think it's wrong for an organization which describes itself as very small to attempt to give the impression that it speaks for 11,000 some members.

Funny you should mention that...that is EXACTLY why some of us are trying to get a rule change that will allow ALL members to vote on any and all rules...not just the few (100 or so) members who are able to make it to the meetings.

 

[Millstone Farm]

Thank you, C.A.R.E. -- I appreciate the efforts of your group.

Our rules are there for a reason and shouldn't be broken.

I liken it to being "a little pregnant."

 

[McBunz]

I too want to go on record as having confidence in both the past and present BOD and EC. I get so tired of some people looking for every little thing they can to make an issue about. And then, they want to take credit for straightening out the board.

Please AMHA, do not consider a small group of individuals, who refuse to list their membership, to represent ALL of us.

[/quote

C.A.R.E has listed our membership a number of times.. We are not hiding anything..

 

[user 488]

I don't have Minis so I could care less if they went permanent at the age of 3 or 10.

IF anyone has been reading for comprehension I don't think CARE was against anything except following the rules. I never heard mention of the fact that they were against changing the age. CARE please correct me if I am wrong. If AMHA does not want to follow the rules then toss the rule book.

The other issue I had was....

I think it's wrong for an organization which describes itself as very small to attempt to give the impression that it speaks for 11,000 some members.

It is wrong for CARE to speak up and try to change things because they are small in number but yet it has been said over and over that basically about 100 members out of 11,000 vote because they go to the meeting? You don't call that a small number speaking for AMHA as a whole?

Sorry, that just isn't making much sense to me.

I don't think some of you are looking at the whole picture. If it was a rule that did not suit you then you would be upset.. Some want it BOTH WAYS...

Again, don't care what really happens but an organization should follow it's own rulebook.

 

[Tango]

I am a member of C.A.R.E. I watched the meeting on the webcast. If the parliamentarian had been doing her job in the first place, none of this would have even been an issue. I knew it was wrong when the proposal was made and couldn't believe the board AND THE SMALL GROUP OF MEMBERS present passed it! And that SMALL GROUP OF MEMBERS represented the 11,000 members of AMHA.

So I guess it's fitting that a smaller group of members helped to correct a mistake. A mistake that should not have been made in the first place.

What disturbs me on this thread is it would appear there are a few that would rather have AMHA break the rules just to suit their own purposes.

Nikki Faubus

 

[Shaladar]

I personally, (just me, I am not speaking for approx. 11,000 members)really have nothing against the organization C.A.R.E. . It doesn't hurt to have someone keeping an eye on things.

Now I suppose there are some very nice people involved, and maybe it is just the way that their spokesperson comes off that bothers me. Vigilante , comes to mind. They don't just "point out" something....they jump up and down screaming. See the Original post. Go back and read the thread that followed along with the AMHA meeting.

I do read for comprehension. Yes, I do believe that rules should be followed.

No I don't complain when new rules are voted on and passed that I don't care for. If I am not there to vote, then I have no reason to complain. Just tell me what they are so I can be sure and not violate them.

Yes I would love to be able to vote on issues without being present in person.

Does C.A.R.E have a web site?

Did I cover it all?

Sue

 

[Tango]

If "vigilante" is what comes to mind then the whole point has been entirely missed.......

Some people just don't get it