Saturday AMHA General Membership Meeting

[JWC sr.]

Like you Margo, we were around when the rule went from 3 - 5 and remember all the discord that went with the rule change. Additionally, I also agree with you that the rational of pulling an already registered horses papers when they go over 34" is a little silly.

I compare that to if a horse is a registered appy. and comes out with no spots then the registry pulling the papers. In the Appy. world they call that an outcrop, but the horses keeps its papers as such.

In my humble opinion there needs to be a breeding stock only place for the oversized horses to be put. It would eliminate the lying about the size of the already registered horses that are used as brood mares etc. and would also generate registry fees for the registry.

By the way we have not been in it as long as Vern was, but we have been at it for over 20 years now and indeed some horses do grow after three years old and it seems to run in lineage for us anyway. For example with our stallion's Cherryville's Rio De Oro's babies always shoot up in the first year and then are at whatever height they are going to be as adults by the time they are about 2 1/2years old, La Vista Farms Roses First babies seem to grow all the way till three to five years old, WF Pattons See Me Shine's babies seem to grow untill they are 4 - 5 years old and Silver Plates Baccara Luxor's babies are finished as a norm by the age of 3. So as someone earlier in the thread said it all depends on the individual horse, nutrition etc. etc.

As far as the rule changes not being in accord with the present rules of AMHA, it all comes down to the clause in the rules that states the E-board is capable and has been recently exercizing the ability to declare it an emergency and in the best interest of registry. Till that one clause is changed or at least modified immediate implementation of rule changes will continue, no matter who is in charge of the E-board. Which is fine with me if that is what everyone wants, but we need to as a registry be honest and move forward with a set of rules we intend to live by without deviation. I also think that to that clause that is being used so often now days, there needs to be some kind of perameters where the long range and short range impact of the proposed rule change is looked at from a financial and direction of the registry point of view by someone in charge.

Cindy and I are also both life time members of AMHA and proud to be.

My two cents worth and with that and about 2.00 you might get a good cup of coffee. LOL

 

[Versatility Farm & Training]

One of my biggest concerns with changing the permanent registration from 5-3 starting immediately is the cost to the owners. This now means breeders have to take 3 years worth of foal crops permanent in one year! I cant speak for everyone, but I think this may result in more horses not being permanently registered because people can't afford to take 3 years worth at one time. I know I can't afford to take 3 years worth permanent AND register this year's foal crop. I plan each year and budget for how many horses I will need to take permanent, and how many I will need to register, I had not budgeted for 3 years worth this year, and I am just a small scale breeding program, I can't imagine what the larger farms will have to shell out! The fees may seem small, but they add up quick, especially if you have a stallion or two.

I spoke to one of my regional directors to ask them to clarify the rule passed for me to make sure I was clear on it. Every 3,4 & 5 year old must be taken permanent this year. There will be no late fees for the 4 & 5 year olds obviously, but they must be done. When I told her that I can't afford to do 3 years worth all at once, because I had not budgeted for it, she said the board will be having a conference call soon and she would bring up my delima. So I encourage any of you who are also in my situation to contact your regional director and let them know. If enough of us bring this up, something may be done about it. It may not be that this change is retracted, but maybe fees will be reduced for this year only, or some way to help us be able to afford this change imposed on us.

 

[Relic]

Well l sure hope there's some leeway on not having to do them all for this year. l have 18 to take perm plus this springs foals which should be around 8. Very pricey with the dollar down...l sure hope they tell us soon instead of all these different opinions l've heard this week as to whats what..

 

[JWC sr.]

I understand your dilemma and can understand how for some folks this could be a problem. This is a perfect example of a situation where with a major rule change such as this, the impact of the rule change both from a financial and direction standpoint needs to be looked at. Prior to implementation!!!

For us we already are working on the paper work for our horses and will bring them all permanent shortly. But I would hope that the Board will allow for some type of grace period for those that cannot afford to do this. Maybe something like a waiver of late fees to bring the horses permanent for the two years that are involved. Something like that would make sense to me anyway and would not impact some folks as hard as it could.

I hope some of our new directors are reading this.

 

[minimomNC]

I understood that there would be a two year period to bring horses permanent, that would be the time line for this years 3 year olds to have been brought permanent at 5 years. I never heard that they all had to be done this year, only that it would start as of March 1.

 

[Margo_C-T]

John, I appreciate your thoughtful post. I agree about lineage being a factor, also. Back in 'older' days, it seems there were some who would actually deprive their young stock of proper nutrition, aiming to 'stunt' their growth so they'd be smaller; if/when such horses began receiving good nutrition, they'd also began 'catching up' on their growth, often to the surprise and dismay of (usually)novice owners. Hopefully, THAT isn't being done nowadays; however, there will ALWAYS be differences in growth rate among individual animals.

I was away at a driving clinic with a GREAT ADS whip this past weekend, so did not see any of the meeting, but have read all of this thread, along with a detailed report from fellow members. It is my understanding that the action itself- that is, of changing the age of permanent registry from 5 to 3 years--was probably 'legal', but, according to my reading of Roberts Rules, using a 'standing rule' to put it almost IMMEDIATELY into effect, instead of at the start of the PROCEEDING(not 'preceeding'!) or FOLLOWING, year(as specified in the current AMHA Rules), contradicts the Bylaws, and should nullify the vote.

Personally, I think the whole idea of changing from 5 back to three years is a bad one; where is the well-thought-out rationale for so doing? I also have to again wonder--what about the 'unintended costs' to the AMHA...reprinting forms, reprogramming the already-aged and unable-to-cope computer system are just a couple of things that occur to me.....and especially on VERY short notice! And not to mention, the concerns already raised by individual members who will be affected!

Margo

 

[JMS Miniatures]

You know at first I was all for this changing to permenamet at 3 years of age but people are making some good remarks for against this. This reminds me of them changing the measurment to the base of the withers like last year. Just another band-aid for another bigger problem. I want to know what research has been done.

Perhaps people should write up a proposal and allow breeding stock for oversize minis. They do have plans by what year to become a breed, they need to have this. I think it will bring back alot of honesty. But of course the main concern is too have them 34" & under.

 

[Reble]

Just got off the phone with Pam at AMHA

They are having a meeting tonight about the permanent registration? change from 5 to 3 years.

They are thinking of starting it, January of next year? Since there is so much confusion.

Will let us know about life time membership which of those people have already paid this years fee.

If this will be minis from the $480.00 life time (25 years) this opportunity is March 1st - May 31st / 2009

Hope to know more tomorrow, someone is going to call me back.

 

[C.A.R.E.]

This was just posted in the other "active" AMHA thread, but it warrants repeating here.

There have been many good comments and questions posted here, unfortunately, no one seems to have all the answers, not even the BOD and EC of AMHA!

How long are the members expected to just sit by and watch while the Board ignores, violates, abuses or manipulates the rules any way they want to?

The bylaw that passed, that changes the hardship and permanent registration of horses from five years to three, was first approved to go to the Annual Meeting at the June/'08 board meeting, AND before it was even written! (see June '08 minutes as published on the amha.org site)

There were questions as to it being correct on the first day of the Feb.'09 Annual Meeting, so was held off, and was brought back to the meeting on Saturday. It was never mentioned if it got the two-thirds vote required to pass a bylaw, or if it was a majority vote. Can't be sure that it even passed legally. It was stated that 100 members were registered for the meeting on Friday, but only 79 were present and voting on Saturday just before the election of officers. Sad isn't it, that 40 members, a majority of those in attendance, could elect officers for 12,000 members??!!

If accepted as passed, it has no mention of any implementation in the bylaw. Article XIV (A) and ( C ) state that amendments passed at the Annual Meeting will go into effect on January 1, of the proceeding year. (which would be January 1, 2010.)

Article XIX of AMHA bylaws states that Robert's Rules of Order will govern the Association in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation, these Bylaws, and any special rules of order the Association may adopt.

The vice-president made a motion to pass a standing rule to start implementation of the bylaw in March 2009. Roberts Rules of Order states that no motion is in order if it is in conflict with the bylaws. If it is in conflict, the standing rule is Null and Void even if the vote is unanimous.

The whole purpose of waiting until January 1, of the proceeding year to put new rules and bylaws into effect, was to have 10 months to determine all issues involving implementation of the rules.

There was no emergency in passing a standing rule. Just because it was said that it would bring $50,000 into the association is not necessarily true. No one knows that. Sure, it may bring in the income, but in return, what will it cost AMHA to implement it? We can already see the confusion of people on this forum, wondering if they have to register their 3, 4, and 5 year old horses this year, and if so, the great expense they will have in doing so. What is the time frame to register? Will any late fees be waived? Have the directors determined how much it will cost to change the computer program to accept 3 year old hardship and permanently registered horses? Have they determined what it will cost to print new registration certificates, transfer forms and all other material that might be involved.

This is no way to handle an issue as serious as this change. Apparently the directors don't know the answer yet. They will have a teleconference call before they can answer questions, at yet more expense to the association. How about following the flow chart and getting all implementation issues worked out before a rule change is made, and then it would save the unnecessary expense of having to call a special teleconference?

It is time the members tell the Board to stop making hasty decisions. Follow the rules as they are written. Many mistakes were made last year doing this same type of hasty rule violations. We hope that with the new EC members, things will not be repeated in 2009!

 

[iowa]

As a new member of the AMHA it was perplexing to me that at shows, mature stallions, mares and geldings were in the class 3 and over. To me it would have made more sense to be 5 and over since that is when their permanent papers took effect. Now the permanent status and the class name will at least match.

 

[Humhill]

It was stated that 100 members were registered for the meeting on Friday, but only 79 were present and voting on Saturday just before the election of officers. Sad isn't it, that 40 members, a majority of those in attendance, could elect officers for 12,000 members??!!

Which is why we should all be allowed to vote. Does my opnion not count just becuase I have a job and live on the other side of the country from the meeting?? I also get the feeling that it's the same small group of people voting on all this.

 

[C.A.R.E.]

It was stated that 100 members were registered for the meeting on Friday, but only 79 were present and voting on Saturday just before the election of officers. Sad isn't it, that 40 members, a majority of those in attendance, could elect officers for 12,000 members??!!

Which is why we should all be allowed to vote. Does my opnion not count just becuase I have a job and live on the other side of the country from the meeting?? I also get the feeling that it's the same small group of people voting on all this.

EXACTLY! This is somethng very near and dear to the hearts of C.A.R.E. and MANY AMHA members, and because of this, we are currently working on trying to have member voting passed. We strongly feel that this is the only FAIR way to give all members a voice in their organization, and to feel like ALL members opinions are important, not only those fortunate enough to be in attendance at the meetings. We feel that if member voting is implemented, it will help draw members back into AMHA. At least we can hope, and work towards trying to make it happen.