AMHA Meeting

[Margo_C-T]

Wow...72(at most, wonder if all of those actually voted?)making these kinds of decisions for the entire membership...?!

If there were ever an even-more-compelling reason to figure out a way to allow voting by EVERY QUALIFIED member, this seems to me to be it.

I will add, I think it is short-sighted in every way to deny hardship to horses already registered in AMHR. Isn't inspection/measurment/etc.already a requirement of the current hardship, so as to not allow 'just anything', even if already registered in 'the other' registry, in...some degree of quality control, so to speak?Isn't it time the two registries realize that it is most likely to benefit BOTH if they can be more cooperative w/ each other?? (Believe me, I am not a huge 'follower/fan' of EITHER registry, at this point; believe both could 'do better'.)

Flame away if you must; I have tough old hide.

Margo

 

[targetsmom]

I keep thinking that if Lil Beginnings can figure out how to run a "poll" that counts votes only once for each registered member, then it shouldn't be THAT hard for AMHA to figure out a way for members to vote on-line. The Pinto Association doesn't use it for voting, but each member uses their membership number and a password to log into a data base of show points and registration information.

 

[Mona]

Targetsmom, you are absolutely right!! There are definitely ways that can and do work, but it just doesn't seem to matter what anyone comes up with...there is ALWAYS a "reason" that it won't work. Quite frankly, I think it's hogwash, and they just don't WANT it to work.

 

[muffntuf]

There are secure ways to do a vote - using a member number on a secure site such as Monkey Survey (Monkey Survey is free but you can also pay a fee to have a secure survey that keeps track of a unique ID) - but to implement something like that for an organization takes time and planning, testing to make sure everything works as it should.

Resources that most equine organizations do not have right now.

Just food for thought.

 

[REO]

There are definitely ways that can and do work, but it just doesn't seem to matter what anyone comes up with...there is ALWAYS a "reason" that it won't work. Quite frankly, I think it's hogwash, and they just don't WANT it to work.

I agree with you Mona, especially your last sentence!

 

[sfmini]

No, there isn't a soul who has yet made a viable proposal to the BOD and membership with a SOLUTION that is cost effective, absolutely secure, and here is the kicker, can prevent someone from 'buying' votes. Yes, sorry it did happen, people used to pay for memberships for others, fly them in to the meetings, and control the vote. Before stronger rules were in place, those people could drag their buddies out of bed in the middle of the night and pass new rules and change others while the rest were blissfully asleep.

The ringers, well that can still happen now, sad to say but at least the ringers have to be physically present for all of the discussion and voting.

There is not a person on the BOD who is against it, but there is not a person on the BOD that is going to make the proposal by taking the time and effort to come up with a solution.

I say this every darn year and am ignored every darn year, just flamed at by the people who want to continue to b*tch about it but refuse to own the solution and proposal. I should really just make a file of my comments and copy/paste every year.

You don't like how it is, but it is what it is. I have told you guys endlessly how to fix this, and you endlessly flame at me and nothing changes. Maybe you don't really want change? I don't know. You wear me out on this topic. You can gripe until the cows come home about how you think it should be, but it isn't going to change anything until YOU get your act together and do something rather than just endlessly complain.

Not even going to bother with a flame suit, I really don't care about the reaction any more.

 

[andi]

I for one am very torn about the whole membership voting, not just those who attend the meeting. For example, it concerns me that this forum seems to hold the opposite opinion on the hardshipping issue than the members who attended the meeting. At the meeting about 5 out of 60 were against, while this forum sounds the other way around. I would think statisticaly the sampling of our membership at the meeting should have a closer ratio to the sampling of members on this forum. The possible reasons for this discrepency concern me.

Some possibilties;

The convo's going on at the meeting are making people change their minds.

The people who invest in going to the meeting are more focused on the financial aspect of the decision. But I guess the opposite could be said, the members with enough "extra income" to go to the meeting dont appreciate the financial aspect.

Also the number of active "satisified" members would be higher at the meeting than on this board, actually many voicing there opinion on here may not even be members or "admirers".

I guess my point is be careful jumping to the conclusion that this Message Boards "straw poll" is any more telling of the members opinions than the group of members at the meeting.

 

[REO]

We are all ordinary (well most of us) people without the necessary technical writing skills to put forth the proper wording to get something right enough to maybe pass.

I think it would be very helpful if there was a place where all the non-correct enough to pass proposals were put with notes under them saying why they were not correct enough to work.

It's more helpful to show us how to do it properly rather than to just say nope not good enough, sorry.

Just because I don't know how to write up something well enough to submit doesn't mean I can't voice my thoughts or feelings on something. I don't see expressing thoughts as b*tching.

I've seen many people come here saying what they'd like to try to change and ask for help & ideas, and not get that help. It's very daunting to try to do it by yourself.

I'm always shy to post my thoughts "out loud" here but there ya are!

*I've* always appreciated you Jody!

 

[sfmini]

Thank you Robin.

One year I offered (even though I do not agree with the remote vote) to help people who could come up with a proposal, give guidance, advice, follow the discussions in the meetings and report back. You know what I heard? Nothing, nada, crickets.

What has to be done is to go through the entire rule book and submit rule change proposals for every rule and bylaw that needs to be changed to allow it. The proposer also must have a solid, inexpensive, secure proposal of how to handle the voting.

James, you are right, I have gone to meetings with what I thought was a solid decision on how I was going to vote and completely changed my mind after talking to others who have a different point of view and a different impact on their lives.

The discussion is so important.

 

[REO]

You tried Jody

 

[Little Hooves]

Attendance was very low at this meeting. I think we counted off 59 on Saturday.

I believe I may have been the only one there who did vote for it, lol! Nothing like swimming upstream.

I'm working on a proposed rule change for next year's meeting. It will be about AMHR horses again, only more detailed to cover everyone's concerns. Since you attended, maybe you can enlighten me on what the majority thought!

I plan to attend the next meeting in Reno for 2013 - will you be going? Could use your vote for my proposal next year

Of course, I also plan to take a caravan of people with me since Reno is actually in driving distance!

 

[sfmini]

Brenda, since you haven't submitted your proposal, it cannot be voted on for two years now. All proposals that are to be voted on next year had to be submitted by the close of the annual meeting in order to make it to vote for next year. Don't let that stop you, go ahead and submit, it will go to committees to be worked on in June, make sure your contact information is on the form and be available for the meeting either physically or by phone (this is the June meeting in Dallas)so that you can clarify anything or approve any minor changes that would make it passable. It will be reviewed again by the committee during the annual meeting, then be brought up for vote the following year.

The flowchart detailing how rule changes are processed is published in every rulebook.

 

[garyo]

I'm working on a proposed rule change for next year's meeting. It will be about AMHR horses again, only more detailed to cover everyone's concerns. Since you attended, maybe you can enlighten me on what the majority thought!

I plan to attend the next meeting in Reno for 2013 - will you be going? Could use your vote for my proposal next year

Of course, I also plan to take a caravan of people with me since Reno is actually in driving distance!

One thing that will need to be addressed in the new proposal is the issue of hard shipping horses outside of North America. At this time only horses in North America qualify to be hard shipped. The proposal that we voted on this year did not address that point and could have opened up the possibility of horses in Europe being hard shipped. I, personally, was surprised at the over whelming defeat of the proposal and do not think that a new one will do any better. The vast majority of those voting made it crystal clear that they wanted a closed registry and I don't see that changing.

I also do not see any kind of "off site" voting being allowed anytime in the near future.

Gary

 

[sfmini]

Hardshipping out of the US will never fly, It was closed down earlier than the books because these are the AMERICAN miniature horse. I would be careful about adding that to your proposal.

 

[garyo]

Hardshipping out of the US will never fly, It was closed down earlier than the books because these are the AMERICAN miniature horse. I would be careful about adding that to your proposal.

That was my point!

The previous proposed rule change, as written, did not specifically address the hard shiping of horses out of North America which, if passed, could have opened up hard shipping of horses around the world. One must be careful when writing a rule change that it addresses all other rules that would be affected by the proposed change. I heard more then once that if the proposal had passed then the association would be opening itself up to hard shipping horses from outside of North America.

I was not suggesting that it be added to her proposal, but as a word of caution, to address the fact that the new proposal is for hard shipping of horses in North America only.

Gary

 

[StarRidgeAcres]

Hardshipping out of the US will never fly, It was closed down earlier than the books because these are the AMERICAN miniature horse. I would be careful about adding that to your proposal.

Well, aren't we a proud bunch?

Maybe I'm misreading your comment, but are you saying that just because the horse resides outside of the US, it's not an "American" miniature horse? Shouldn't it be allowed in if its parents are "American" miniature horses? I'm confused.

Or is your point that we wouldn't/couldn't know its parentage if it's being hardshipped? I guess I'm thinking of circumstances I've personally encountered where the hardshipping is due to paperwork issues and not because the parentage is unknown.

 

[Songcatcher]

I am neither supporting or opposing hardshipping, inside or outside North America. I just want to say that I would not consider the UK arrogant for not allowing the hardshipping of horses in the U.S. into BMHS (assuming they don't).