Mona
Well-Known Member
Minimor, I know this will be long, but please stay with me while I try to explain.
Yes, the CARE group did support the efforts to repeal, or postpone the implementation of the members vote concerning the change to measuring our horses at the base of the withers. It was the opinion of our group and 255 AMHA members that supported our efforts either by signatures on a petition to show support or by personal contact from members. Some of these members attended the annual meeting and felt the rule was not clear, did not contain any method of implementation, and a lot of confusion was evident before the vote was taken. Sixty nine members voted to pass this bylaw change that would change a 30 year old method of measuring our horses.
When we began to research how this rule was presented to the membership for a vote we found that the required procedures for rule amendments were not followed. We found many problems that AMHA would face because of these oversights that could cost thousands of dollars. The AMHA rules allow for the Board to make changes and overturn votes in extreme emergency circumstances, and 255 members felt if there was ever an emergency situation this was it.
We wrote letters to all Directors asking questions about the procedure that was followed with this rule. We stated our concerns, and listed 14 issues that would cause major problems. We asked the Board to use their power, NOT TO OVERTURN this rule but to use their power to repeal it or to postpone implementation. The president answered our questions in a letter that was posted on the Lil Beginnings website. He stated the following about the base of the withers measurement rule.
1. He stated that the office did not do an impact statement and there was not one given. there was no financial impact statement done. These are requirements in the flow chart for amending rules.
2. He said no formal training pre or post had been planned to the people that would be approved to measure at all shows.
3. His answer to our concerns that many members had, were that they could not find where the exact spot to measure was, " I agree and have spoken with two miniature oriented vets who cannot conclusively identify the bottom of the withers."
4. He also said that AMHA has not conducted, authorized, or supported any private research on measuring at the bottom or top of the withers.
If you would like to read the entire letter and the president's answers to our questions to check our facts, you can do a search here on L'il Beginnings for it.
At the June 14, 2008, Board meeting the Board did discuss the many problems and risk to the AMHA and voted to repeal the bylaw. (See page 11 and 12 of the minutes of this meeting on the amha.org website, if you have any doubts of our facts.) The minutes stated that this can be deemed necessary concerning management and activities of this Association. It can be repealed and subject to revision or amendment by the members at the next annual meeting (2009), as long as it it published sixty days in advance as per our rulebook.
These minutes also stated: "The reason for this is that there is a defined point in our history of measuring at the last hair of the mane and this rule changes all of our history and it also changes our future of AMHA because it causes a registration nightmare for previously measured horses and opens up a different group of horses that have been previously measured at a historical location. For the future of AMHA, this Board needs to take action.
Note: Article XI, Section 4 will be voted on by the membership during the 2009 Annual Meeting. If the Membership votes to implement this rule as written, it will be effective January 1, 2010." So the facts are, that this bylaw as NOT OVERTURNED by the efforts of CARE, it was repealed until the membership has an opportunity to consider all the problems and vote at the next Annual meeting whether to implement the rule or not.
Mimimor, your comment, "It just gets a little too complicated (read that "two faced" if you want the less polite version) for me to be impressed by where the group is going with all of this. This thread does not lend credibility to the CARE group." Please explain what is "two faced", and what did our group do in this issue that is not credible? It is not okay for the Board to overturn the members vote if CARE wants it. We never asked that the members vote be overturned. Hope you can understand the facts now, if not check them out. Also hope you can see that your statement, "If watch dogs complain too much about things which turn out to be in accurate, they lose credibility," is not correct. What did our group say that is not accurate? Please tell us.
As to your statement about the director's answer that might be wrong about the new judging system rotating after each division, not each class, and the member that posted that the judges did rotate after each class, we don't know the answer. We don't know who is correct we just posted what the director said. However, that was not our issue with the World Show Judging System used in 2008. Our complaint was that it was another example of the Board violating the rules and changing a show rule that the membership had approved and used several years. This change did not go through the required procedures for show rule changes, and look what happened. The Board used the system once and again changed the rule without going through the proper procedures for changes. This rule change was made at the June 2007 Board, meeting. Proper procedure would have been to give sixty days notice before the 2008 Annual meeting and allow the members an opportunity to vote to change this rule or not. There was plenty of time, with seven months after the Annual Meeting before the World Show. What is wrong with following the rules?
Your comment, "I think the associations do need to follow the rules but it helps if whatch dogs make sure they have their facts absolutely 100% right." Our group works very hard for the memberships rights through rule enforcement, and we work very hard to get all our facts 100% right. We respectfully disagree with your statement and invite you to prove that any of our facts are not 100% right, and we will certainly correct any mistake we have made.
We asked for suggestions, and we appreciate any you might have for encouraging the enforcement of AMHA rules. Article IX, Section 7 © of the bylaws state that the President shall enforce these Bylaws and other rules and regulations of the Association. That is all we ask.
Yes, the CARE group did support the efforts to repeal, or postpone the implementation of the members vote concerning the change to measuring our horses at the base of the withers. It was the opinion of our group and 255 AMHA members that supported our efforts either by signatures on a petition to show support or by personal contact from members. Some of these members attended the annual meeting and felt the rule was not clear, did not contain any method of implementation, and a lot of confusion was evident before the vote was taken. Sixty nine members voted to pass this bylaw change that would change a 30 year old method of measuring our horses.
When we began to research how this rule was presented to the membership for a vote we found that the required procedures for rule amendments were not followed. We found many problems that AMHA would face because of these oversights that could cost thousands of dollars. The AMHA rules allow for the Board to make changes and overturn votes in extreme emergency circumstances, and 255 members felt if there was ever an emergency situation this was it.
We wrote letters to all Directors asking questions about the procedure that was followed with this rule. We stated our concerns, and listed 14 issues that would cause major problems. We asked the Board to use their power, NOT TO OVERTURN this rule but to use their power to repeal it or to postpone implementation. The president answered our questions in a letter that was posted on the Lil Beginnings website. He stated the following about the base of the withers measurement rule.
1. He stated that the office did not do an impact statement and there was not one given. there was no financial impact statement done. These are requirements in the flow chart for amending rules.
2. He said no formal training pre or post had been planned to the people that would be approved to measure at all shows.
3. His answer to our concerns that many members had, were that they could not find where the exact spot to measure was, " I agree and have spoken with two miniature oriented vets who cannot conclusively identify the bottom of the withers."
4. He also said that AMHA has not conducted, authorized, or supported any private research on measuring at the bottom or top of the withers.
If you would like to read the entire letter and the president's answers to our questions to check our facts, you can do a search here on L'il Beginnings for it.
At the June 14, 2008, Board meeting the Board did discuss the many problems and risk to the AMHA and voted to repeal the bylaw. (See page 11 and 12 of the minutes of this meeting on the amha.org website, if you have any doubts of our facts.) The minutes stated that this can be deemed necessary concerning management and activities of this Association. It can be repealed and subject to revision or amendment by the members at the next annual meeting (2009), as long as it it published sixty days in advance as per our rulebook.
These minutes also stated: "The reason for this is that there is a defined point in our history of measuring at the last hair of the mane and this rule changes all of our history and it also changes our future of AMHA because it causes a registration nightmare for previously measured horses and opens up a different group of horses that have been previously measured at a historical location. For the future of AMHA, this Board needs to take action.
Note: Article XI, Section 4 will be voted on by the membership during the 2009 Annual Meeting. If the Membership votes to implement this rule as written, it will be effective January 1, 2010." So the facts are, that this bylaw as NOT OVERTURNED by the efforts of CARE, it was repealed until the membership has an opportunity to consider all the problems and vote at the next Annual meeting whether to implement the rule or not.
Mimimor, your comment, "It just gets a little too complicated (read that "two faced" if you want the less polite version) for me to be impressed by where the group is going with all of this. This thread does not lend credibility to the CARE group." Please explain what is "two faced", and what did our group do in this issue that is not credible? It is not okay for the Board to overturn the members vote if CARE wants it. We never asked that the members vote be overturned. Hope you can understand the facts now, if not check them out. Also hope you can see that your statement, "If watch dogs complain too much about things which turn out to be in accurate, they lose credibility," is not correct. What did our group say that is not accurate? Please tell us.
As to your statement about the director's answer that might be wrong about the new judging system rotating after each division, not each class, and the member that posted that the judges did rotate after each class, we don't know the answer. We don't know who is correct we just posted what the director said. However, that was not our issue with the World Show Judging System used in 2008. Our complaint was that it was another example of the Board violating the rules and changing a show rule that the membership had approved and used several years. This change did not go through the required procedures for show rule changes, and look what happened. The Board used the system once and again changed the rule without going through the proper procedures for changes. This rule change was made at the June 2007 Board, meeting. Proper procedure would have been to give sixty days notice before the 2008 Annual meeting and allow the members an opportunity to vote to change this rule or not. There was plenty of time, with seven months after the Annual Meeting before the World Show. What is wrong with following the rules?
Your comment, "I think the associations do need to follow the rules but it helps if whatch dogs make sure they have their facts absolutely 100% right." Our group works very hard for the memberships rights through rule enforcement, and we work very hard to get all our facts 100% right. We respectfully disagree with your statement and invite you to prove that any of our facts are not 100% right, and we will certainly correct any mistake we have made.
We asked for suggestions, and we appreciate any you might have for encouraging the enforcement of AMHA rules. Article IX, Section 7 © of the bylaws state that the President shall enforce these Bylaws and other rules and regulations of the Association. That is all we ask.
