Future Rule Changes AMHA/AMHR

[Boinky]

I thought so too...

 

[Neil]

This shouldn't be very hard:

1. publish proposed changes in the magazine (which they already do)--maybe have a 6 mos for discussion.

2. also, put them on the website, you have all the other info there--why not important club proposals

3. members elect to internet vote (sign in with a password--no harder than signing into the stud book!)

4. individual votes should count for each club member

5. have a minimum % of membership voting for anythig to pass, ie if you have 1000 members, 60% of total membership has to have put input by voting for anything to pass.

6. have a forum for members on the website so that members can voice their opinioins and have discussions with their fellow members and directors (they do it for online auctions, asking the seller/proposers questions) with the answers and questions so everyone can see

Just a few comments.

1. You are right, the proposed changes are published in the World. They are published in the December issue which give members over two months to read them and make a decission prior to the Convention. Some member on this forum already talk about how slow it is to get things done with the current AMHA processes. An extra four months would only make the processes go slower.

What isn't covered in changes presented in the World are topics that come up for a vote out of Committee meeting held at the Convention just prior to the General Membership Meeting and topics that come up under new business. Can any Directors on this forum correct me.

2. They have alway been listed on the AMHA website. I don't know what happened this year. If they were there I didn't see them. So I got my World out to understand the proposals while I watched the meeting.

3. Although this sounds good in theory I can see a problem with it. Each voting member at the Convention votes with a numbered pad. When a proposal comes up for a vote the members are called for a show of pads. If it is a clear majority the yay/nay vote is accepted. It it is not clear if a proposal passes each member has to write their vote on a specified number sheet from the pad, the votes are turned in and counted. Most voting does not require more than a show of pads. If the votes at the meeting had to be combined with those voting from home then those voting at the meeting would have to cast thier votes by hand and be counted. This would drag the meeting out longer. The current General Membership Meeting is scheduled for a day and a half, probaby 12 hours. The additional vote counting could add to the length of the meeting not to mention the cost of the extra time which could probably add a day to the Conference.

4. I don't have a problem with this but there are a lot of logistics to be worked.

5. Does anyone know how many AMHA members there are. I doubt that they would ever get 60% of the total membership to agree on anything much vote on anything.

At this years Convention the AMHA offered members an opportunity to watch the General Membership part of the meeting. Earlier this week I ran a poll on this forum to see how many people watch. Of those that responded only 36 members on this fourm said that they watched. Although those of us that watched enjoyed it 36 people out of how many thousand members ( wish I knew the number) is just not very many.

5. I have thought that an AMHA forum would be a good idea but only to discuss AMHA business topics.

Much of what is being discussed here adds extra workload to an already overworked AMHA staff. Members of this forum are always talking about the cost of doing businesss with AMHA and how slow they can sometimes be. Do we want higher costs and/or slower service.

 

[Neil]

I was one of the no votes. If my ballot was sent when my membership was due it would have been sent probably sometime in March which would have been after the February voting. My membership is due for renewal in April.

I thought ALL renewals are due at the same time...in January?

Look at your membership card for the Expiration Date. Mine says 4/30/2009. I always renew it in January when I renew my Amateur Card

 

[McBunz]

For interests sake how many AMHA Members and AMHR Members read this forum.. Mona or Mary Lou.. How about a pole on this?

1. AMHA

2. AMHR

3. Both

Neil... I am sure most members of both clubs trust our directors to handle

the day to day running of the clubs, but when important changes are to be

made all members should have a voice.. I really don't care how it is done.

On line voting, a ballot or individual votes collected by our appointed directors

and honestly presented as such at the national meeting.. I imagine that 90%

of the membership could find the use of a computer at a school or somewhere

if they do not own one.

 

[Neil]

A $25. banner ad on LB would of worked.. (heck, I would of done it for FREE) or even a free ad on the Sale Board..

At least let many, many people know about it...

Mare Stare is known for watching mares and heavy promoted auction sales.. not IMPORTANT MEETINGS about how our horses will be measured for now on..

Under my rock now..

I am not really sure what you are saying here unless it was for the AMHA to advertize their General Membership Meeting on L'il Beginnings.

On 2/18/08 Alison sent the AMHA Mini News to the membership. The first item on the mailing was about the Convention and provided the web address for the link to Marestare where members not at the meeting could watch the General Membership Meeting. I always read Alisons mailings for the latest AMHA news.

 

[kaykay]

You also need to take into account how many could not watch the video. I tried but could not get it to work. I used ot always be able to view mare stare but the last auction they had I couldnt get it to work either. And I do think like Mary Lou said if more people had known more would have watched

 

[Becky]

I believe that any AMHA member that is active in the organization would have been well aware the meeting was being broadcast. The information was published prior to the meeting in several locations.

 

[Warpony]

You also need to take into account how many could not watch the video. I tried but could not get it to work. I used ot always be able to view mare stare but the last auction they had I couldnt get it to work either. And I do think like Mary Lou said if more people had known more would have watched

some of us also have pitiful internet connections and simply can't view these things online because all we get is a garbled slide show if we can get anything at all... not to mention the many mini horse people I know around here who do not even HAVE internet. I do not think that the number of people who actually watched the meeting is a fair representation of how many people would have liked to have been able to watch.

 

[Minimor]

That's exactly right--there are many, like me, that have dial up internet that does not allow for watching web casts of sales or meetings, and particularly not if that dial up access is combined with an older computer that probably couldn't handle the web casts even with a highspeed connection....again, like mine!...and I know that I'm not the only one that still has an older computer.

There were also people that actually had to be at work during the meeting, and they happen to work at jobs where they are not able to watch anything on line--they aren't even working in a job where they are using computers...

 

[sfmini]

I also posted about the webcast on this very forum.

Sadly, because of the low turnout I have fears that we won't be allowed to do it again next year but I will push for it.

Those of you who were able to watch and appreciated the effort and expense would sure help in the effort if you would email thank yous to the AMHA president Mike Want at [email protected]

Neil, rule changes on the spot are extremely rare and must be proclaimed an emergency because the situation is urgent and could be a legal or safety issue. The board voting to revisit the protest rule was one such situation as the verbiage of allowing protests up to two hours after the class was going to cause some very sticky issues. How for instance are you going to keep horses on the grounds two hours after their last class? What do you do if the protest stands? Rerun classes? How, since horses could be gone? It was decided that more work needed done in order for the new rule to have any kind of teeth.

 

[Mona]

I was one of the no votes. If my ballot was sent when my membership was due it would have been sent probably sometime in March which would have been after the February voting. My membership is due for renewal in April.

I thought ALL renewals are due at the same time...in January?

Look at your membership card for the Expiration Date. Mine says 4/30/2009. I always renew it in January when I renew my Amateur Card

WOW, I never knew that! I always thought it was due in January of each year! OH! Thanks!

As for...

5. I have thought that an AMHA forum would be a good idea but only to discuss AMHA business topics.

I remember back when AMHA had their last major "breakdown", we were told then that the AMHA was going to have a forum for AMHA discussion, and they even set one up, but they said they had to "tweak" it, and to the best of my knowledge, that never happened, and it is a real shame, because I feel some very important topics could be addressed there before hand. With people posting both "for" and "against" posts, we would hear both sides and the reasoning behind it and make our decisions on how we feel after that. Then this statement about people having to attend the meetings to hear arguements for and against a certain proposal can be packed away, because quite frankly, it seems to be getting a little old! We are adults and can make our decisions as we see fit.

 

[Mona]

AMHA forum

How would you like to be a moderator for an AMHA or AMHR Forum? NOT ME!! If you think it gets bad here on LB Forums, can you imagine it if they had one.. I suspct it would end up being a big complaint Forum!

Well it was AMHA that MADE/OFFERED their forum! And apparently they are still talking about/looking into it. As for being a moderator for it...well, we are basically that already here, aren't we!

People can discuss things without getting out of line. Yes, people would use it to complain, BUT, that is GOOD, because maybe then the BOD would see that the general membership DO have concerns, and DO want their concerns heard even if they cannot or will not attend the meetings!

 

[Dona]

AMHA forum

How would you like to be a moderator for an AMHA or AMHR Forum? NOT ME!! If you think it gets bad here on LB Forums, can you imagine it if they had one.. I suspct it would end up being a big complaint Forum!

Well it was AMHA that MADE/OFFERED their forum! And apparently they are still talking about/looking into it. As for being a moderator for it...well, we are basically that already here, aren't we!

People can discuss things without getting out of line. Yes, people would use it to complain, BUT, that is GOOD, because maybe then the BOD would see that the general membership DO have concerns, and DO want their concerns heard even if they cannot or will not attend the meetings!

[SIZE=18pt] I second that Mona!

[/SIZE]

 

[sfmini]

A forum is being discussed by the new computer committee, so stay tuned.

There was one before, but things got out of hand. Imagine that!

 

[Buckskin gal]

Yea, imagine that! LOL Just want to add a thank you Jody for being so good at informing and answering questions and always polite and kind about it. You do so very much good all for the membershp of AMHA.

Mary

A forum is being discussed by the new computer committee, so stay tuned.

There was one before, but things got out of hand. Imagine that!

 

[McBunz]

If the powers that be want to allow larger horses into the AMHA propose a change the height requirements.

Measure at the withers with the horses standing square and the handler at least an arms length away from

the horse while it is being measured.. Its not the height that bothers me so much as the cheating. People

entering these shows pay good money to enter, travel and rooms to stay.. and their horse should be

honestly evaluated in its proper class..

And NO this is not for my benefit. I do not show and have no intentions of doing so, but I do

believe in fare play and a voice for all members.. And I would really like to know WHERE to measure

my horses for registration...

 

[Neil]

Perhaps I was not clear enough... sorry.. I always have a hard time saying what I really want in print..

What I was trying to say is not many people knew about the meeting being broadcast.

I feel EVERY AMHA member should of known about the measurement proposal that was going to take place... this was just too important to treat as if it was a new show rule being proposed..

jmho

No problem. I think I got the jist of what you were saying.

As I said in another posting Alison sent out an emailing to the membership providing the link to the broadcast prior to the Convention. If AMHA members on this forum are not recieving Alison's email you should contact Alison to get on her emailing list. You can find her email address in both the World and on the AMHA web page. I would tell you what they are but think you would be better off finding them on your own and understanding where this kind of information is found on the AMHA web page and in the World. It is kind of a feeding the masses fish or teaching them how to fish kind of thing.

At the Dec '07 Board Teleconference meeting the subject of having a web cast of the February General Membership meeting was discussed.

http://www.amha.org/pdf/memb/final%2012-9-...0minutes%20.pdf

See page 4 of 4.

Annual Meeting Web Cast

Dave Miller will contact Quintin to discuss plans to provide members a web cast of the 2008 Annual Meeting.

As for "know about the measurement proposal that was going to take place..." hopefully this will help.

In the Dec '06 issue of the World the proposed ByLaws and Rules changes were all spelled out. On page 134 in the upper left corner the rule is spelled out in detail. When the rule change came up for a vote at the Feb '07 General Membership meeting it was noted that the rule change had been incorrectly presented in the Dec '06 World and was withdrawn.

The following is a quote from the 2007 Board of Directors Meeting/2007 Annual Meeting page 14 of 34 which can be found at:

http://www.amha.org/pdf/memb/2007%20annual...g%20minutes.pdf

GR-020-E

Change as follows:

E. The height verification of the Miniature Horse shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance from the base of the last hairs of the mane to the ground with the front two (2) legs vertical and in line with or parallel to the measuring device, and the back of the hocks in a vertical line with the horse’s buttocks. The last hairs of the mane refers to the last coarse (longer) hair of the horse’s mane. Any softer body hair, left longer so as to be considered as an extension of the mane, should be differentiated from mane hair and should not be included as part of the mane Horses to be measured at the base of the withers when measuring. The horse’s head and neck shall be in a natural position. The animal must stand squarely on all four (4) feet. No height allowance will be made for excessive foot. After the horse is set up for measuring by the handler, said handler may not touch the horse, i.e. stretching the head up forward, moving the feet; touching the back or pressing down on any part of the back until the measurer removes the measuring stick. 2nd paragraph remains the same.

Amendment withdrawn. The above rule was not published in the correct form before the Annual Meeting; therefore it is withdrawn and will be re-submitted for the June 2007 meeting.

The proposed change was revamped at the June '07 meeting in Texas.

The revised proposed change was again printed in the Dec ’07 issue of the World on page 174 upper left corner. You will also note that there were two proposed rule changes. One for the highest point of the withers and one for the base of the withers. With two options, the membership could have voted them both down and stayed with the last hair of the mane but they chose the second option which was the base of the withers.

I guess what I am trying to say in a long winded way was that this rule change shouldn’t have come as a surprise to the membership. It has been discussed and in the works for way over a year and has been well documented on the AMHA web site and in the World. People that felt strongly about this issue have had a chance to speak up and do something about this for over a year. In the end you ended up with three options, highest point of the withers, base of the withers or no on those two and stay with last hair of the mane. Members need to stand up and take a little ownership for your actions/lack of actions. As someone that has worked in the measuring area at Worlds for the last three years I frankly don’t care where they measure the horse. Someone will always have a problem with the way it is done or the results. There should be a lot of people on this forum that are happy with the results. Their taller horses can now be shown in shorter classes. I can think of one person that must be dancin’ in the streets.

 

[Kim]

For risk of sounding like a broken record, as I have mentioned this before on two other threads, the membership was NOT informed about the measuring change issue by any avenue other than MHW. What you have quoted, Neil, is a proposed Show Rules change to the method of measuring. The two proposed Show Rules changes (top of withers and bottom of withers) were voted down by the Show Rules committee and therefore did not go to the members to vote on at the 2008 Annual Meeting. This information was on the website in BOD minutes, and was readily accessible to all members who read the website for their AMHA news.

There was also a proposed bylaw measuring change proposal, and the bylaw change is what was voted on and passed at the recent Annual Meeting. This bylaw change proposal is what was not readily available information - the proposed bylaw change was only published in the MHW, which as many have said on these threads, lifetime members do not get, unless they pay extra. Jody was so kind as to check with Quintin, and confirmed that the bylaw change proposal to measuring was NOT published on the website. Nor was it in the email Mini News, as I went through all past 2006 and 2007 issues and there was never anything in there about a measuring bylaw change. So what my and others' problem is is that members without MHW access had no way of learning about the proposed bylaw change. From all appearances, it looked like no change was in the works, as it appeared from BOD minutes that the measuring change rule had been kyboshed.

Perhaps I was not clear enough... sorry.. I always have a hard time saying what I really want in print..

What I was trying to say is not many people knew about the meeting being broadcast.

I feel EVERY AMHA member should of known about the measurement proposal that was going to take place... this was just too important to treat as if it was a new show rule being proposed..

jmho

No problem. I think I got the jist of what you were saying.

As I said in another posting Alison sent out an emailing to the membership providing the link to the broadcast prior to the Convention. If AMHA members on this forum are not recieving Alison's email you should contact Alison to get on her emailing list. You can find her email address in both the World and on the AMHA web page. I would tell you what they are but think you would be better off finding them on your own and understanding where this kind of information is found on the AMHA web page and in the World. It is kind of a feeding the masses fish or teaching them how to fish kind of thing.

At the Dec '07 Board Teleconference meeting the subject of having a web cast of the February General Membership meeting was discussed.

http://www.amha.org/pdf/memb/final%2012-9-...0minutes%20.pdf

See page 4 of 4.

Annual Meeting Web Cast

Dave Miller will contact Quintin to discuss plans to provide members a web cast of the 2008 Annual Meeting.

As for "know about the measurement proposal that was going to take place..." hopefully this will help.

In the Dec '06 issue of the World the proposed ByLaws and Rules changes were all spelled out. On page 134 in the upper left corner the rule is spelled out in detail. When the rule change came up for a vote at the Feb '07 General Membership meeting it was noted that the rule change had been incorrectly presented in the Dec '06 World and was withdrawn.

The following is a quote from the 2007 Board of Directors Meeting/2007 Annual Meeting page 14 of 34 which can be found at:

http://www.amha.org/pdf/memb/2007%20annual...g%20minutes.pdf

GR-020-E

Change as follows:

E. The height verification of the Miniature Horse shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance from the base of the last hairs of the mane to the ground with the front two (2) legs vertical and in line with or parallel to the measuring device, and the back of the hocks in a vertical line with the horse’s buttocks. The last hairs of the mane refers to the last coarse (longer) hair of the horse’s mane. Any softer body hair, left longer so as to be considered as an extension of the mane, should be differentiated from mane hair and should not be included as part of the mane Horses to be measured at the base of the withers when measuring. The horse’s head and neck shall be in a natural position. The animal must stand squarely on all four (4) feet. No height allowance will be made for excessive foot. After the horse is set up for measuring by the handler, said handler may not touch the horse, i.e. stretching the head up forward, moving the feet; touching the back or pressing down on any part of the back until the measurer removes the measuring stick. 2nd paragraph remains the same.

Amendment withdrawn. The above rule was not published in the correct form before the Annual Meeting; therefore it is withdrawn and will be re-submitted for the June 2007 meeting.

The proposed change was revamped at the June '07 meeting in Texas.

The revised proposed change was again printed in the Dec ’07 issue of the World on page 174 upper left corner. You will also note that there were two proposed rule changes. One for the highest point of the withers and one for the base of the withers. With two options, the membership could have voted them both down and stayed with the last hair of the mane but they chose the second option which was the base of the withers.

I guess what I am trying to say in a long winded way was that this rule change shouldn’t have come as a surprise to the membership. It has been discussed and in the works for way over a year and has been well documented on the AMHA web site and in the World. People that felt strongly about this issue have had a chance to speak up and do something about this for over a year. In the end you ended up with three options, highest point of the withers, base of the withers or no on those two and stay with last hair of the mane. Members need to stand up and take a little ownership for your actions/lack of actions. As someone that has worked in the measuring area at Worlds for the last three years I frankly don’t care where they measure the horse. Someone will always have a problem with the way it is done or the results. There should be a lot of people on this forum that are happy with the results. Their taller horses can now be shown in shorter classes. I can think of one person that must be dancin’ in the streets.

 

[Tommy]

We seem to have a lot of duplicate discussion on several threads/lists on the same topic, like this one saying the same thing just under different titles which seems to do no more than keep this HEATED with different twists.

I just want to reiterate a suggestion again; we (AMHA members) can request that the bylaw proposals that are in the December issues of MHW be part of the news letter that members can sign up for at the website.

It should not be that big of a deal and just a matter of requesting the same.

"Let it be written so let it be done." Yes the King and I had some good quotes.

Thanks Beanie (my wife Dawn) for always being behind me.

Tommy

 

[Neil]

For risk of sounding like a broken record, as I have mentioned this before on two other threads, the membership was NOT informed about the measuring change issue by any avenue other than MHW. What you have quoted, Neil, is a proposed Show Rules change to the method of measuring. The two proposed Show Rules changes (top of withers and bottom of withers) were voted down by the Show Rules committee and therefore did not go to the members to vote on at the 2008 Annual Meeting. This information was on the website in BOD minutes, and was readily accessible to all members who read the website for their AMHA news.

There was also a proposed bylaw measuring change proposal, and the bylaw change is what was voted on and passed at the recent Annual Meeting. This bylaw change proposal is what was not readily available information - the proposed bylaw change was only published in the MHW, which as many have said on these threads, lifetime members do not get, unless they pay extra. Jody was so kind as to check with Quintin, and confirmed that the bylaw change proposal to measuring was NOT published on the website. Nor was it in the email Mini News, as I went through all past 2006 and 2007 issues and there was never anything in there about a measuring bylaw change. So what my and others' problem is is that members without MHW access had no way of learning about the proposed bylaw change. From all appearances, it looked like no change was in the works, as it appeared from BOD minutes that the measuring change rule had been kyboshed.

My reason for quoting as much information as I did was to point out that there had been discussions on this topic for well over a year so it shouldn't have been a suprise to anyone. And, yes I knew that the two proposals had been voted down last June.

As for the proposed changes in the Dec '07 World I agree that they were listed as ByLaw changes but when you read further both ByLaw changes end by stating that there were places in the Show Rules that would also need to be changed.

The rule that passed, the second one #776, noted that the change needed to be made to GR-030-E. When you check that Show Rule out you see that there was a typo, it should have said GR-020-E. I believe that the typo was corrected prior to the voting.

So, when you read what was printed in the World it really was a Show Rules change.

I keep hearing that lifetime members don't receive the World unless they pay extra. Well hello, doesn't everyone have to pay extra for the World? I know that I have to pay for it. I subcribe to it for more that the pretty pictures. There is important information in it.