Rule Change Proposals

[iowa]

Because the other PMC youth are using horses they have worked with all year and own. They are not going to a show and being handed a horse minutes before the class. This year there were several people showing horses in PMC that they had never seen until that day/show. Is that fair to the PMC youth that shows their own horse and works their butt off all year to be beat by someone being handed a horse a couple hours before the class?

That is exactly the same reason I think a horse that is handled by an amateur should not be shown by a professional at the same show. (I know the amateur must own the horse already) But then the amateur has not worked with their horse all year, but handed a lead rope to be shown in an amateur class! Is that fair to the amateur who worked and trained their own horse to show in the same division. I know AMHA has the AOTE division and I would love to see AMHR do the same thing.

 

[iowa]

I also want to point out to everyone that the bylaw rewrite is also coming up for vote again at Convention. Last years rewrite was tabled. The BOD did rewrite some portions of the rewrite (ugh) and will also be submitting that one. So probably the old tabled one will be voted down and this one presented. My issue is that even the one that was tweaked is not at all appropriate. Please read it carefully and vote it down or let your director know how you feel. There are so many typing errors in it that its shocking to me this would even be presented to members as is. Also there are paragraphs that are very poorly worded and impossible to decipher their intent.

Thank goodness they are going to rewrite it! I was looking for a rule and had to go through all the suppliments to try to find the latest update. Very annoying.

 

[kaykay]

Thank goodness they are going to rewrite it! I was looking for a rule and had to go through all the suppliments to try to find the latest update. Very annoying.

I think you are referring to the actual rule book. And yes it despertly needs to be rewritten and all the supplements put in. They did appoint a rule book committee to redo the rule book and make sure nothing is missing. But I suspect that is going to take a very long time. In the past things would get passed at convention and then be forgot in the rule book etc. I have said for years we need to reprint it in its entirety. But years ago someone at the office ordered a HUGE amount of printed rule books so they dont want to reprint until those are gone. I say learn from your mistakes and move forward and just reprint the dang thing. Most organizations reprint theirs every year!

But that is not what I am talking about.

Because ASPC/AMHR is a non profit it has to be run by its own set of Bylaws. Last year Ray Tobin did a rewrite of the bylaws which were tabled. The BOD did another rewrite at the spring meeting and it will be presented at convention to replace the old bylaws. Please please read it and vote no or let your director know how you feel. The bylaws are what runs our organization and they are too important to rush through. These bylaws affect every single member. Be sure you know what its about!

I have tried for years to get support for an ASPC/AMHR AOTE or novice ammy program but I hit a brick wall every time. I would not even qualify for it so it is not for me. But I do believe it would encourage new people to get out and show. But everyone says we cant add more classes.

 

[kaykay]

This "Mumbo Jumbo" was included into the bylaws ( on advice of our legal consul) to address a specific problem which is created by and due to other sections of our rules and bylaw which require certain actions by "a member in good standing" without defining a member in good standing we are open to potential legal issues given certain circumstances. A member not paying their due for extreme periods is not the intent of a member in good standing thus it was defined and made specific.

So our club attorney wrote it? Or did she say it needed to be re-written? Huge difference. I would not call 90 days an "extreme period of time"

Here it is copied from the bylaw revision

Section 2.8 Termination of Membership.

The membership of each member of the Corporation will terminate upon the member's death, resignation, expulsion, or failure to pay dues as next described. Unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors, each member's membership will immediately terminate if his or her membership dues have not been paid within ninety-one (91) days after such member's dues were due. Members terminated as a result of expulsion may not renew their membership in the Corporation without obtaining the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the directors. Members terminated as a result of non-payment of dues may reactivate their membership in the Corporation within two years after such termination by the payment of all current and past due membership dues. Members terminated as a result of resignation or for non-payment of dues in excess of two years may renew their membership only by re-application for membership in the Corporation. Any member may resign by filing a written resignation with the Director of Operations, but such resignation shall not relieve the member so resigning of the obligation to pay any dues, assessments or other charges theretofore accrued and unpaid.

Section 2.7- Suspension. Expulsion and Disciplinary Action

Any member may be suspended or expelled from membership with or without cause upon the affirmative vote of at least three fourths (3/4) of all the directors if, in the discretion of the Board of Directors as indicated by such vote, such suspension or expulsion would be in the best interests of the Corporation. In connection with any proposed expulsion of a member, a member shall have any additional relief provided in the Articles of Incorporation referring to expulsion.

Nothing in these Bylaws shall be construed as granting to any member a continued membership or expectation of membership in the Corporation.

Not withstanding the provisions of this Section, a member may receive disciplinary action, including but not limited to a suspension of membership privileges for a period of time pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Corporation

Any member may be suspended or expelled from membership with or without cause

Really?? With or without cause?? So anyone can be expelled just because a vote of the BOD says so?

The problem is the same as last year. Members have to pass the whole thing or fail the whole thing. Like I said previously it should fail if for no other reason the amount of typing errors.

If we are going to rewrite the bylaws lets do it right and hire an atty well versed in equine and non profit law in Illinois. Its worth the money to do it right.

 

[Minimor]

I would say that the By-Law amendments should fail just on the basis of that membership clause!

Members terminated as a result of expulsion may not renew their membership in the Corporation without obtaining the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the directors. Members terminated as a result of non-payment of dues may reactivate their membership in the Corporation within two years after such termination by the payment of all current and past due membership dues.

Hmm. So you get some person who was a member in 2011, but come 2012 he realizes that he really cannot afford a membership for the 2012 year--times are tough, he has no foals to register, he's not showing, so he can do without the membership and use his $65 for something else. But in 2013 he decides he wants to pay a membership again, and is all set to join ASPC again. But wait--he cannot pay just $65 to get a 2013 membership? Really? He also has to pay the 2012 membership fee that he couldn't afford, didn't want and didn't need? He's likely to say nope, don't think so, I simply won't bother to be a member of that club any more. And I don't blame him a bit. This is a good way to scare away membership money.

 

[ohmt]

I do NOT like that at all. 2 years ago my grandmother was in the hospital for 3 months because she got a rare form of pneumonia caused by a bacteria worse than MRSA. I highly doubt her priority was to make sure her membership was paid during her hospital stay (it happened in December so all horse papers were sent in very late). She has been paying the registries since the 1980's.....so if she did not make the 91 days while she was sick and then wanted to get her membership back she'd have to get the vote of 2/3 of the directors? Really? I hope I am misunderstanding because it just sounds ridiculous.

 

[kaykay]

Minimor I so agree. Memberships are already down so why we would discourage memberships instead of encourage them is beyond me.

lets face it having memberships due right at the holidays sucks for most of us. I get that it is what it is but it does make it even harder.

 

[RayVik]

I do NOT like that at all. 2 years ago my grandmother was in the hospital for 3 months because she got a rare form of pneumonia caused by a bacteria worse than MRSA. I highly doubt her priority was to make sure her membership was paid during her hospital stay (it happened in December so all horse papers were sent in very late). She has been paying the registries since the 1980's.....so if she did not make the 91 days while she was sick and then wanted to get her membership back she'd have to get the vote of 2/3 of the directors? Really? I hope I am misunderstanding because it just sounds ridiculous.

I am sorry to hear about your grandmothers illness...unfortunately with our PRESENT bylaws your Grandmother would technically required to do just that after lapse of her membership not in 91 days but after the first day...and before someone says that is never enforced I will say that is yet another reason to have our bylaws brought up to date before it does become a issue.

Your situation is an example of why the new revised bylaw would work for her benefit....if for example she needed to conduct registry business for events that took place while she was ill but had not paid her dues she could do so by her renewal and would be considered a member in good standing for that purpose.

As to the example of the individual who was unable to pay the dues because of hard times I would only say I certainly would hope they did not have any illness with their animals and/or feed did not increase or had a bad hay year because if their financial situation if so grave that the $65 due will cause such a hardship I shutter to think what and how their animals would be treated.

 

[ohmt]

Thank you RayVik! She is doing well now and I wasn't looking for sympathy, it was more of just an example of when things come up that prevent the payment of membership dues. I will definitely be looking into the revised and current bylaws a little more thoroughly.

 

[kaykay]

Ray I have told you and posted over and over they do need to be re-written. But that doesn't mean members have to quickly accept whatever is put before them. Replacing bad bylaws with bad bylaws is self defeating and very costly to the ASPC/AMHR.

As to the example of the individual who was unable to pay the dues because of hard times I would only say I certainly would hope they did not have any illness with their animals and/or feed did not increase or had a bad hay year because if their financial situation if so grave that the $65 due will cause such a hardship I shutter to think what and how their animals would be treated.

I am sure you meant shudder, but anyway I digress. For sure to some 65.00 is not a big amount of money. Because someone pays their membership fee late does not equal mistreated horses. That is a huge leap. Heck I have been to two million plus dollar farms that had horses starving or refused vet care. Its actually a matter of priorities. Or some may simply forget because people are just busy.

 

[Minimor]

Oh definitely, in itself $65 isn't very much money at all, and maybe there are those who simply cannot imagine ever having to quibble over such a pittance--but there are people who see no point in wasting $65 on a membership that will do them absolutely no good in this particular year. Just because they choose to eliminate club memberships to save a few bucks one year hardly means they're starving their animals. I maintain that passing this particular by-law (and then enforcing it) will hurt memberships to some extent. And does our BOD really need to be looking at requests for membership re-instatement and then voting yay or nay for each one? And is it likely that the BOD is going to vote no to a request for re-instatement for any member that waits over 91 days to renew their membership? I should hope not, because voting no will only reduce member numbers and registration revenue. After all, how many people are going to stick with the club and pay non-member fees to register and transfer horses after they get turned down on their request for a reactivation of their membership?

 

[RayVik]

It is not my intend to debate rather to inform…if your mind is made up I am not trying to change it but for the purpose of clarity…our EXISTING bylaws state that the BOD must reinstate you even after 1 day of late payment. The revised version only requires BOD reinstatement for expelled members to be reinstated. Further the 91 days for late payment only exist in the bylaw to allow those paying late to define a good standing status ( not BOD reinstatement) after this period their status is changed and basically put on hold pending their payment of their dues. The 2 years allows for situations such as above whereby a person having hardtimes or otherwise not paying their dues to have a means of updating or otherwise taking care of business that might need attention but was overlook during the period of non-payment. This deals with many issues in our rules and bylaws requiring members to be in “good standing”. It in many ways follows the same philosophy we have for registration of animals for example in the case of filing a late stallion report. Contrary to what you may believe this particular bylaw actually extends and benefits members and their status over and above what now exist.

I understand things have not and are not necessarily done according to our existing bylaws and in large part that is why they need revision…I can only speculate that over time problems have came up and overlooking what is written in our existing rules and bylaws has occurred and complicacy with the status quo has evolved. That places both the membership and the organization in a precarious position when some action is ultimately challenged based on the written rule or bylaws. We change and revise rules on an annual bases however our bylaw have not gotten such attention and that is why the revision was needed and exist for consideration. It is my opinion that for the most part very few people have ever read or understood what our existing bylaws actually say or mean and because focus has been brought to them now with the revision(s) people are only reading the revision and fail to realize what our existing bylaws say. This in part because so many things have gone unchallenged for so long. This seems to be is the case with this particular bylaw regarding some members lack of understanding of both what exist and what is revised when in reality the revision is for clarity and definition not a new concept or reduction members rights.

If you take the time to read both our existing and the revisions you will find 95% of both address the same matters with the revisions being brought up to date given a need for clarification and refinement as suggested, all were reviewed and approved by our legal consul. The additional 5% include areas which are new or changes which include things like protocol and authority for the general membership meeting which does not exist in our existing bylaws whatsoever…guidelines for close sessions during BOD meeting…director seat and term limits depending on which revision you choose. Just like rules OUR bylaws are dynamic and not static and what is good or correct or desired or intended today may not be the same as tomorrow or yesterday thus the reason we can change or modify them. In the case of bylaws the membership can and does have authority to make the definitive change in absents of the BOD but only at the annual meeting. Frankly I do not understand how a generic label of “bad” can be used to define a revision of what exist and if grammar or typos are the reason I encourage everyone to read what exist now and compare that with the two proposed revisions. If philosophy or intent is the issue and the legalese is disturbing then you must consider if we wish to protect the organization and/or membership as suggested/reviewed by legal consul or do we wish to take our chances with what we hope is correct language.

For clarity and understanding and to demonstrate the complexity of our bylaws I will address the section mentioned above regarding expelling member with or without cause This a point of law not a statement of circumstance. It is no different then saying members cannot exceed the speed limit…because it is a point of law in order to protect both the membership and the organization our bylaws can establish a procedure or protocol by which the process might occur. Our existing bylaws requires a majority vote of the BOD with an optional vote of ¾ vote of the members at our annual meeting as per our Articles of Incorporation. This revised bylaw simply states what is the “LAW” and establishes that 3/4 vote of the BOD is required for the process and maintains the option of membership voting to expel a member.. For reference this situation came about recently with a Supreme court ruling involving the “Boy Scouts of America” establishing the ability of private corporations to pick and choose their membership. It was/is addressed in our existing bylaws and it was simply brought up to date ( revised) rather then excluded but either way it is the same in its legality, Not a matter of liking or not liking it …is the law and was addressed for prudence . Things are not always as they seem!

Shot the messenger if you like but because we say or don’t say something in our bylaws does mean it supersedes law.

Final comments on having any a attorney revise our bylaws and it may seem like one in the same but it is not and that is who will their client be “the organization” or the “members”….depending on which side of the fence you are on a question, for example, as simple as do you want quality members or quantity of members could influence certain aspects of how a bylaw is written regarding membership rights so if you’re a individual you see things one way but if you’re the organization you see things another…a very deep concept but it you think about it you will see it has significant impact on some things and how they might be written and it WILL impact how an attorney will attempt to revise any changes….This and other philosophic questions will dictate a final product regardless of who or whom attempts any revisions.

I close in saying I am sure many are tired of the banter and debate regarding OUR bylaws… I will be happy to try to explain specific questions if asked about what a bylaws means and will forgo any debate as to merit…life is much too short and everyone is entitled to their opinion and I will leave it at that because in the scheme of things opposing votes cancel each other anyway.

 

[Sandee]

It is not my intend to debate rather to inform…… I will be happy to try to explain specific questions if asked about what a bylaws means and will forgo any debate as to merit…life is much too short and everyone is entitled to their opinion and I will leave it at that because in the scheme of things opposing votes cancel each other anyway.

Please explain to me that what someone else said is WRONG. If a person were to not pay their dues one year and then the following year would want to "rejoin", would they pay for the present year or for 2 years? (in my opinion - for what it's worth) They should just have to pay for the present year like anyone else joining the organization.

 

[midnight star stables]

PROPOSED ASPC/AMHR RULE CHANGE

Section XII Part I Paragraph I.4 PG 321

Add or Delete: Change + Add

RULE CHANGE: Show facilities: area shows must be held under a covered facility

with lights and with adequate number and size of stalls designed and safe for equine. A

facility that is not covered may be considered only if no acceptable covered facility is

proposed.

Effective Date: 01/01/2012

Committees Referred:

I disagree with this one, as 1/2 the shows in Ontario are out doors with no options for stalls or arena. Even though it is always rainy, windy and cold at the outdoor shows, I would hate to loose more shows. JMO.

Section XII Part 4 PG 328 & 329

Add or Delete: Add: Section XII Part 4I

RULE CHANGE: No Hall of Fame points will be given to a horse in any halter or

performance class or performance stake/championship class where there is no

competition.

Effective Date: 01/01/2012

Committees Referred: Modern, Modern Pleasure, ASPR, Classic, Foundation, AMHR

I disagree too. Some smaller HOF's would never be reached; ex. Draft harness, Park harness.

 

[kaykay]

It is not my intend to debate rather to inform

This was my intent in making this post. To be sure members are aware of what is happening and what will affect them for many years.

I will never understand how suggesting that an attorney experienced in Illinois non profit law help rewrite our bylaws is a bad thing?

While we have a lot of members with many talents, I would rather spend the money to be sure it is done correctly.

Again its not "all or nothing" We as members do not have to accept this revision. We can vote no and ask that it be done by a professional experienced in non profit law.

We all know that this association has a history of rushing to do something only to find out later it wasn't done correctly. Our current rule book is full of these examples.

Lets do this one right.

I disagree with this one, as 1/2 the shows in Ontario are out doors with no options for stalls or arena. Even though it is always rainy, windy and cold at the outdoor shows, I would hate to loose more shows. JMO.

But the rule says that you can hold it outside "if no acceptable facility is available"

This came up in my area as we have plenty of covered indoor arenas for our area shows yet this year it was held in Greenville outside. Ughhh I hate that. If you read the current rule it is very similiar but didn't have enough bite to it. Thus the area 2 national show got held outdoors when we had much better options.

 

[LaVern]

PROPOSED ASPC/AMHR RULE CHANGE

Section IX, Part 14; Section X, Part 32

Add or Delete: Delete: ASPC/AMHR FUTURITY GUIDELINES Fact Sheet as posted

on the website and/or distributed from the office

ADD:

In order for a horse/pony to be eligible for sustaining in the Futurity, all horses/ponies

must be registered with the ASPC/AMHR by December 31st of their foaling year. A

registration number must be on file with the office and listed in the Stud Books by

December 31st of the foaling year. Paperwork in the office by the close of December 31st

does not constitute a registration, and therefore the horse/pony is not eligible for the

Futurity Program.

All future sustaining fees will be due by March 1st and must include a registration number

to continue to be eligible for the Futurity. Any time a sustaining fee is not paid, that

horse/pony is no longer eligible for the Futurity.

Effective Date: January 1, 2012

Committees Referred to: Classic, Foundation, Modern, Modern Pleasure, Show Pony,

Miniature A/B, Rules Office, Futurity Program

I think this is probably a good idea, it must be a hard for them to keep track of late people like me. But, I make the registry lots of money as I am always late, and if this passes, I will probably just spend more on Christmas presents. and maybe a trip. Maybe, I'll just put in one or two instead of so many.

 

[kaykay]

I think this is probably a good idea, it must be a hard for them to keep track of late people like me. But, I make the registry lots of money as I am always late, and if this passes, I will probably just spend more on Christmas presents. and maybe a trip. Maybe, I'll just put in one or two instead of so many.

Keep in mind theses are just proposals. Many will not pass. Just depends on who is there voting

 

[hobbyhorse23]

I find myself truly regretting that a death in the family in late June caused me to miss the rule change proposal deadline. It's painful to watch these badly-written, completely anti-check proposals sabotage the "cause" of making them optional until people don't even want to discuss it anymore!

Any proposal to make checks illegal IMO is doomed to failure and as Flying Minis said, is not necessary. AMHR is not the ADS nor should it be. *sigh* Maybe next year....

As to the example of the individual who was unable to pay the dues because of hard times I would only say I certainly would hope they did not have any illness with their animals and/or feed did not increase or had a bad hay year because if their financial situation if so grave that the $65 due will cause such a hardship I shutter to think what and how their animals would be treated.

Oh definitely, in itself $65 isn't very much money at all, and maybe there are those who simply cannot imagine ever having to quibble over such a pittance--but there are people who see no point in wasting $65 on a membership that will do them absolutely no good in this particular year. Just because they choose to eliminate club memberships to save a few bucks one year hardly means they're starving their animals.

Exactly. I own two geldings which means I don't breed, don't sell, and once they're both in my name and brought permanent at three years of age a registry membership gets me absolutely nothing I care about unless I'm interested in showing. During a year off, why on earth should I throw away the cost of two farrier appts (four if you count both registries) for nothing? That's EIGHT MONTHS of healthy hooves for the same cost as a what's essentially a magazine subscription!

Gosh, guess I'd better let them go without care so I can have my shiny magazine.

The registry is shooting itself in the foot if it makes members pay for lapsed membership years in order to be in good standing.

Leia

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I would love to see the checks rule to be optional. But whoever keeps sending the same redicolous proposal where they are banning checks and martingales competely is crazy to think it will pass by members and I honestly don't know why the BOD keeps letting this proposal in to be voted for members. Thats why you need to give it some time and which is why I said if the checks appear tight they will be penalized. You have to find a starting point. You will never be able to ban checks, period. So stop trying. Optional, I can see that happen.

As far as membership goes with this new by-law ruling is also redicolous. We are needing members as it is, this will only loose members.

 

[RayVik]

The purpose of the language the bylaw is not to in anyway penalize or otherwise change a situation whereby a member might not desire or not intend to pay there dues on a continuing basis. In the example given about a person owning 2 geldings and not showing and having no desire to conduct business with our organization except to register animals or other limited scope of business then all that person has to do is resign their membership at the conclusion of their business. Knowing that they would have no reason or desire to take advantage of any of the benefits offered on a continuing basis like the journal and knowing they have no interest in supporting or participating in matters of or affairs of the organization they can opt to stop this protection.

The benefits or reason this language is included is to protect or provide a member to take advantage of or otherwise protect their status of “ good standing ” in those cases where they might otherwise lose it.

For example:

If a member wished to run for director the must be a member in good standing for the 5 consecutive years proceeding their application. If that member had forgotten to pay their dues or perhaps just came upon hardtimes for a year and their membership lapsed under our present bylaws they would not be eligible. With the revision that person could simply pay the dues for the past year missed and their status would be retained or for example a director forgot to pay there dues they would immediately loss they their “good standing” status upon expiration and that is specified as reason for removal.

Another example: If the organization were to have some issue of importants come up and a special meeting was called or a vote on the matter was to be presented to the membership and a member that felt strongly about it and wished to vote or have input on this matter. If for whatever reason that member had not or was not able to pay their dues in a timely manner they would be excluded because of their “record date” which is 60 days. This bylaw protects that persons record date so in such a case they could pay up their dues and retain their status of good standing thus allowing them to have a voice.

This bylaw protects and prevents many shortcomings and issues that presently exist by defining the position of “ good standing” included in many areas of our rules and bylaws.

Inherit with its wording is a means to prevent problems for members or offer a benefit to their status of “good standing” it is also necessary that membership status be defined for liability and other issues in our bylaws. As I have said before I realize certain things have occurred and graces have been given and it is wonderful that we as an organization can do such things and I hope we continue to do so however from a prospective of legalities and prudence certain things should and must be formalized and our bylaws are a very important part of our organization. This section of our bylaws simply defines and protect both members and the organization with language which is lacking in our existing bylaws.

For the purpose of example consider the following:

You forget to renew your membership and you do not pay your dues until after they have expired….our present bylaws state a former member must be reinstated by the BOD. To my knowledge the BOD has not reinstated members who’s membership have lasped but renew at a later date. NOWHERE in our bylaws or rules does it define or offer any grace period for late renewal so even though we overlook this detail and allow it to happen without having been reinstated by the BOD you COULD be considered as a pending member ( following the rules and bylaws as presently written). If you show your animal and obtain enough points win Horse of the year and someone protest because even though you can show as a non member you cannot obtain points and because you were not reinstated by the BOD you are a pending member not a member technically…..I agree it has never happened or come up however consider all the issues that have recently come up regarding our rule and how the WRITTEN rules and bylaws are what is used to make those final decision when these thing have happened.

I fully understand many people have little reason to concern themselves with such details of our rules or bylaws until they are directly affected by them and because things are often done within our organization a certain way we believe that is how the rules or bylaws are written…this a example of where the system has broken down and needs correcting thus in the revised bylaws such matters are addressed and this bylaw is one example.

It is not in anyway intended to cause members to pay more or in anyway to inhibit new members or people who obtain membership for limited reasons from doing so. If anything it now allows a person to pay their dues late and retain a “free” grace period of 90 days to conduct business. It also allows even those “NEW” members who might join with the intent of only using the organization or belonging for a short period to optionally retain or recover status and benefits of fulltime membership without having to pay upfront.

As a footnote 90 days was selected to compensate or allow a provision for those needing to conduct business with the organization which would be effected by our variation of "dates" on certain issues that being Nov 1 VS Dec 31...90 days allows one month after the end of the calendar year to complete any business without the need to renew membership for an additional year