Update on Rule Measuring work...

[Mona]

THE LATEST UPDATE ON OUR LETTER TO THE BOARD

There has been no answer from the Board. We are still waiting.

The letter concerning the new base of the withers rule was sent by UPS to the President, and an email copy sent to him as well. An email was then sent to all the Directors including the Honorary Directors.

We thought you all should know that at the top of the letter we asked each director to extend us the courtesy of an email reply that they had received our letter. Not much to ask. Just a few seconds of time and a few clicks of the computer. After waiting two full weeks we are disappointed to have to report that only eleven of the Directors gave us the courtesy of a reply, fifteen chose to ignore us. Only two of the five officers chose to reply to us. Only four of the twelve Honorary Directors replied.

This is a HUGE concern to us, because members are always being told to "Contact Your Directors", for any concerns you have. We did, and so far over half of our Directors did not even give us the courtesy of a reply after receiving our letter.

THANK YOU to those that did!

 

[rabbitsfizz]

Disappointing, I know but I cannot say I am surprised....they are probably so unused to this sort of activity on the part of the members that they are still trying to work out hoe to respond!!

Sorry, sarcasm...Bad(awards self smack on hand)

Thank you for doing all this Mona it is very much appreciated.

 

[Songcatcher]

The glass is nearly half full.

 

[Suzie]

Thank you Mona for all your hard work in working with this. I know how much time and energy it has taken and it is appreciated!

I find it concerning that they did not take the time to acknowledge they received the letter too. That is a very, very small courtesy to extend. No one expected a detailed reply. Just a "thank you for your interest" would have been enough. Like Rabbit, I suspect they are taken aback by the letter itself. From the get-go I have had the feeling they just assumed it was a done deal and the membership would just roll over and accept it. Perhaps this is more than they expected.

Again, thanks for the update!

 

[Betty B]

Wow nothing like communication. Not hard to see the hand writing on the wall is it.

 

[hhpminis]

Mona

First of all, thank you for spear heading this.

I would like to make one statement as to one director though. One of our directors in Washington is going through losing his Dad and it has been a tough row to hoe for him this last month. I know unfortunately too well how this can throw your life into a tailspin.

I am not making excuses for the Directors, I just wanted you to know that Dave is facing some hard life lessons right now and to please give him, at this time, a little slack.

Lets hope we hear from several of the others soon. If nothing else, at least an acknowledgment that they received the letter would be nice.

 

[AppyLover2]

Seems to me that by not responding or acknowledging receipt of your letter it will be very easy for them, in the future, to claim ignorance of the whole issue of the members thinking that maybe, just maybe, their opinions would matter.

Another thought.....I recommend a public acknowledgement BY NAME of those who DID acknowledge receipt; then those people who are so inclined could just use the process of elimination to answer the other question.

 

[user 488]

If nothing else, at least an acknowledgment that they received the letter would be nice.

That's it in a nutshell.

All AMHA members hear about is contacting their directors. Well, if it all falls on a deaf ear what good is it? Sorry but to not get some type of response is not only rude but it's totally unprofessional. No excuses for this at all and I can tell you first hand this type of stuff would never fly with other associations. Seems to me like they just want you to forget about this and go away.

 

[Mona]

Thanks everyone for your continued support through this. Lisa, no, it is not to late. We are encourageing others to sign the petition in support. It will be available online for a couple months yet. The addy is http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/amha_measuring/index.html so yes, PLEASE, anyone that has not yet signed, and still wishes to do so, can do so there.

I strongly advise those of you wondering if your directors replied or not, to email them directly and ask them, and if they dod not, ask WHY! I do have the list that have, and have not, so anyone wanting to know can email me privately at [email protected] to ask of a specific name. I prefer you contact your director(s) directly, but I will answer you, that is for sure!

Also Annette, yes, as busy as Dave Miller is with his family obligations, he did take/make the time to send the reply.

(so no excuse for the others that did not!)

 

[Southern_Heart]

Mona

Thank you for all your hard work on this.

Maybe if they refuse to recognize or ignore the email then they think all this will just go away! OH!

Joyce

 

[sedeh]

Thanks Mona for keeping us updated! When I sent my private email of concern to the directors in my area they both did respond. Interestingly they were on opposite sides of the fence with their response though! I think it is important to know which directors are doing their job because the one vote we do get is electing them! I know when I get my election papers I often don't know the people very well and I have to base it on their experience with miniatures and what they say they're going to do! It would be nice to have a record of performance to base your vote on.

 

[Sue_C.]

I have sent two e-mails to mine, and received no answer.

 

[nootka]

Thank you, Mona!

If we can't stop this ridiculous rule from going through, then at least noone can say we did not try.

Liz

 

[sfmini]

Please realize that spam blockers may have diverted your emails to or from directors.

We all do have telephones and those numbers are published.

Below is Mike Want's email response to Mona dated 3/27/2008 so there was, in fact a response from AMHA and a response from Mona thanking Kristy for sending it. The first note from Mike was sent today and carbon copied the entire thing to the board.

Mona,

I received some information today stating I have not been in contact with you regarding the petition about measuring at the base of the withers

Per my email below, I attempted to discuss the issue with you on Thursday, March 27, 2008. I wanted to discuss the electronic signatures with you since our Legal Counsel states there is no provision for electronic signatures per our Bylaws.

You are following proper procedures, however AMHA requires original signatures. When you receive the proper number of original signatures, please forward this information to the AMHA National Office, Attn: Kristy Mackey, 5601 South Interstate 35W, Alvarado TX 76009. The completed petition will be presented to the Board of Directors during the June 13-14, 2008 Meeting.

If you would like to discuss the issue with me, please do not hesitate to call me at (deleted by Jody, not relevant to this).

P.S. Perhaps you can clear up the inaccuracies posted on Lil Beginnings.

Regards,

Mike Want

AMHA President

Kristy Mackey

AMHA Show Department Director

817.783.5600, ext 307

[email protected]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mona Stone - Last Chance Miniatures [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:39 PM

To: Kristy Mackey

Subject: Re: AMHA

Thank you Kristy. Mona

----- Original Message -----

From: Kristy Mackey

To: Mona Stone - Last Chance Miniatures

Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:20 PM

Subject: AMHA

Mona, I am sending this for Mike Want:

Mona,

I was recently informed of a petition on-line to rescind the vote passed during the Feb 2008 Annual Meeting to measure at the base of the withers. It is my understanding that you are helping with this petition.

Per our Bylaws, the membership may amend a Bylaw through a petition; however in checking with our legal counsel, he has advised me that there is no provision in the AMHA Constitution, Rules or Bylaws for electronic voting.

I would like to discuss this with you at your convenience. I am attending training today, but will be available this evening after 7:00 Pacific Standard Time. My number is: (deleted by Jody, not relevant to this).

I look forward to your call.

Mike Want

AMHA President

 

[Mona]

Jody, yes, this was in fact sent to me, and received by me. However, I feel if you want to start publishing actual email correspondence, to be fair to all parties involved, perhaps you should publish clarifying comments, as well as ALL correspondence in it's entirety both to and FROM me.

This is a copy of an email that I received from Mike Want BEFORE we ever sent our letter, addendum, and list of supporters to Mike Want, and the Directors etc. so no Jody, this was NOT in response to our letter we sent via UPS and the copies that I emailed to each Director. I never sent the package out until March 28, and it was signed for on Monday morning, March 31, so how anything before that can be considered a response to the letter I sent to him, is beyond me. That email he sent was in reference to his "hearing/being alerted" to the petition we had been asking for support on. It had nothing to do with being a response to the correspondence sent to him that received by him on March 31, obviously, since it, this email you have posted here, was dated March 27!

Also, when Mike Want did email me, yes, I returned his email and replied to it, and it was MORE than what you have posted here, so I would appreciate your being a little more fair...if you are going to post emails and stories, please do so in full! The email I sent back to Kristy was to confirm receipt of the letter she sent to me on behalf of Mike Want. Below is a copy of the letter I emailed directly to Mike Want, and did not go through Kristy at AMHA to do it! BUT, perhaps he never shared this with you all.

My letter to him read...

Mr Want,
I am in reciept of your email forwarded by Kristy Mackey today.

You will be receiving our correspondence in a couple of days, and I will be glad to speak to you after you have had time to read it. You can best reach me at home in the evenings, anytime after 5:00 pm your time. (Pacific) My phone number is 807-488-5705.

I will look forward to hearing from you.

Mona Stone

As for the Spam blockers, yes, I guess ANYTHING is POSSIBLE, however, when I sent the letters out by email to the President, vice president and directors, I sent every one of them out individually to ensure they were not going to be considered as spam due to having several email addresses in the "to" line. So, I feel very few IF ANY were filtered off, and even so, it was also sent to the President of AMHA whose obligation it is to share with all of you(BOD) all the corespondence such as this that is brought before the board, so again, it was adressed to all of you and again, with the request to confirm receipt of it.

 

[sfmini]

I posted the entire email that was sent to the board.

I left nothing out of what I received.

 

[bingo]

Obviously there is a miscommunication. The dates are simply not matching while he may have answered Mona it was not in response to the letter he got it was in response to hearing about the impending letter .

At least that is how it seems?

He surely is not psychic and could not have replied in email before he received the complete and total information from Mona.

 

[albahurst]

Just curious, I guess- who signed for the package on Monday, March 31?

Peggy

Edited- well, this is really not that important to know, I guess.

 

[Mona]

Yes Jody, that was the letter in it's entirety that he sent to the Board, because when I responded to him, I emailed him personally, at his home email address, rather than going through Kristy at AMHA, so maybe he can share that email with you too.

(although no need, since I already have)

You did give the courtesy of a response to our email. In fact, you said, "Got it, Mike forwarded it on to all the board." So we can rule out the idea that any director's email got caught up in spam blockers.

I think you and Mike are both confused about the intent of our letter. We stated that the intent of the letter and petition is to encourage the AMHA Board of Directors to repeal the newly ratified bylaw to measure horses at the base of the withers pending research and review of the subsequent ramifications that such a change will have on the Association and its members.

The bylaws gives the Board the power to repeal the bylaw. We also stated that if the Board should choose not to repeal the new measuring bylaw amendment, the undersigned members insist that the Board handle this new bylaw change in the in the same manner that they have set a precedent for when they tabled the implementation of the protest/measuring rule at the October 16, 2007, Board meeting to be rewritten and resubmitted to the members at the 2008 Annual Meeting while following the Associations rules.

In the letter we sent to Mike Want by UPS with a follow-up by email, as well as sent to all of you BOD, we did not ask nor did we state intent to propose a bylaw ammendment, so no petition is needed.

What is all the talk about legal counsel stating that our bylaws have no provisions for electronic signatures. Where does legal counsel find that in our bylaws? Where does it state in the bylaws that AMHA requires original signatures on a petition? What does Mike Want's statement mean that when we get the needed amount of signatures for our petition we should send it to the AMHA office and the Board will discuss it at the June Board meeting. What is he talking about? We are not required to have a petition with a needed number of original signatures for anything concerning our letter.

The petition with the names and members numbers listed was to show the board that there were many more members showing support for a repeal of the base of the withers measuring bylaw than the number of members at the Annual Meeting that passed it.

Hope this explains what is going on to everyone. I will be glad to answer questions about anything concerning our letter to the directors. I stand by what I posted earlier, 11 of 26 directors, and 4 of 12 Honorary Directors gave us the courtesy of a reply that they received our letter.

 

[Neil]

The glass is nearly half full.

I think that you are talking to many people that think that the glass nearly half empty.