Update on Rule Measuring work...

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
So, maybe I'm a little dense, here. Is there some reason this President cannot answer or send his own emails?
default_wink.png


Why are we having to hear from a "middle man" instead of directly?
default_nono.gif


That seems a little bit strange to me.
default_thumbdown.gif
I know that this may come as a suprise to many but some people have a life other than on the Internet. They actually have a working life and family in addition to our common interest in miniature horses.

It is not uncommon for people in Mike's postion as AMHA President to have a staff person that handles office tasks for him. When I send email to Mike at his AMHA email address I know Kristy will often read the email and be sure to bring it to Mike's attention. Kristy does her job very well and is a good person to work with.

Maybe we need an icon that shows "caught with your pants down?"
Or, you can just pull them up.
default_wink.png
default_wink.png
 
The glass is nearly half full.
default_wink.png
I think that you are talking to many people that think that the glass nearly half empty.
default_wink.png
default_wink.png
I see far too much negativity. I have read (don't remember now if it was on this thread or on another forum) that there has been NO RESPONSE from the Board. In fact, nearly half of the individual members DID respond. Why paint them all with the same brush?

Don't get me wrong. I signed the petition and was one of the first ones to do so. I am opposed to allowing taller minis to be registered as AMHA. However, all this negativity and insinuation that the Board members are trying to ignore us is getting on my nerves. If you want to name the ones who ignore you, fine, but don't classify them all together. I have personally talked with my Director, face to face. We don't necessarily always agree on all issues, but he is definately a voice of reason.

It also seems to me, from what I have read here, that Mr Want's response before he received the actual packet was sufficient to indicate what was necessary to get the action requested and further response would be redundant.

Hey, maybe some are ignoring the complaints. Just don't paint them all the same.
 
I was not meaning to imply that he answered before he got the letter, but, you did get correspondence from AMHA. As for Mike not sending it directly, he is BRAND new to the internet and email.

Also, just because it was forwarded to the board does not mean they got it, as I just found out that some of the newer members emails from the board are bouncing. I am trying to get it resolved.

As for a response to this letter that went out, I cannot answer to that, don't know the contents, but I suggest that you call Mike at the phone number he sent to you twice, and have a conversation rather than an email or postal mail conversation.

boy, am I ever sorry I entered this 'conversation', I resolve to just shut up.
 
I was not meaning to imply that he answered before he got the letter, but, you did get correspondence from AMHA. As for Mike not sending it directly, he is BRAND new to the internet and email.

Also, just because it was forwarded to the board does not mean they got it, as I just found out that some of the newer members emails from the board are bouncing. I am trying to get it resolved.

As for a response to this letter that went out, I cannot answer to that, don't know the contents, but I suggest that you call Mike at the phone number he sent to you twice, and have a conversation rather than an email or postal mail conversation.

boy, am I ever sorry I entered this 'conversation', I resolve to just shut up.
Jody, I wish you would not feel sorry that you have given input to a conversation here. It is always welcomed. We may not always agree, but it is always welcome!
default_yes.gif


I am confused though by a few things in this post of yours. Your first line about getting correspondence from AMHA...yes, as I said, I did receive that email dated March 27, but again, that was before we sent the letter of March 28. When I posted this original message here it was in regards to the letter sent to Mike Want's home by UPS on March 28, signed for as received (by a female in the house) on March 31, and emailed to AMHA and the BOD in the evening of March 31. This is the letter that we asked a response to, so whatever was sent before this, really has no bearing on the matter.

Also, you said, "As for a response to this letter that went out, I cannot answer to that, don't know the contents ". This letter that you refer to here, you do know the contents of. It was the same one that was sent to Mike Want's home(hard copy) and the same one that I emailed, complete with attachments) to each and every BOD member. THIS is the letter that was sent that asked for the courtesy reply, and that we are referring to when I posted this message here. So since I sent it to every BOD member and it was forwarded to all BOD members by Mike Want, then I think that each BOD member should have received one copy or the other.
default_yes.gif


As for him Mike Want being brand new to computers/email, I see a bit of a double standard here. As members we are all expected to have access to the internet and the ability to use it to keep ourselves informed of what is going on in our organization, as that is how AMHA communicates with us, yet we are supposed to accept a president that is new to the internet and doesn't know how to use it? He was elected president in June 2006, so why has he not tried to learn something about using the interned in the last two years?

Also, to comment on another post here, no, it is definately NOT my intent to paint all with the same brush. We appreciate those that did respond, even if it was not in detail or not in agreement with our attempts, but just enough to say they received it, but when we constantly hear that our directors work for us, then something like this happens, I feel it is important to share the results of it with members from all areas, as maybe their directors are not working as hard for the members of that area as those members think they are, or are lead to believe they are.
 
I find this all quite interesting, and the lack of replies disconcerting. Also the confusion on what has been sent and when... hmmmmm
default_laugh.png
 
Sorry, but I fail to see where mentioning the FACT that some Directors had acknowledged receipt, while others had not(and an acknowledgement,to the emailed letter and addendum, was all that was requested in the emailing to the individual BOD members---something that would have taken about 10 seconds...)constitutes 'negativity'?

A simple acknowledgment of receipt would be classed as common courtesy. A RESPONSE is not necessarily the same thing as an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of a communication sent; however, when the communication is one of polite, yet firm, statement of serious concerns as members, shouldn't common courtesy require a RESPONSE, at the very least to say that you have no answers to the questions posed? Is it 'businesslike', or 'mature', to fail to offer ANY response , thereby, seeming to IGNORE, such concerns...when others have urged that the way to better and more comprehensive representation is to CONTACT your representatives?

If you have spoken to your own Director, good for you! Others who'd like to know whether THEIR director(s) has/have(as some regions have more than ONE Director) has provided either a simple acknowledgement of receipt, or further, a response, to the communication of these concerns--perhaps you should contact them?

It has been stated that the BOTW(Base of the withers)measurement change (was 'voted in by "the membership"...of course, those 60+ who voted the BOTW in were most certainly MEMBERS---but I keep thinking about the irony of the references I've read and heard about how "the membership voted this in"..., when in reality, those who were free to and could afford to attend the Annual meeting were, in number, less than 1% of "the membership" of AMHA-and, the number present to vote on this particular issue were only 90-some--so, an even SMALLER % of the total AMHA membership. I just have a very hard time considering those numbers as realistically and in fact, demonstrating the wishes of "the membership". Perhaps it's time that the procedures of the AMHA require an 'overhaul' to enter the 21st century in a more democratic way?? As in, voting on major issues for all qualified members who demonstrate a desire to do so?

Margo
 
I was making every effort to be positive about this issue. I am still in favor of producing "the smallest possible perfect horse". However, this issue has turned into bashing the Directors and making personal insults against them. If you will care to notice, my signature and that of my wife are numbers 10 and 11 on the "petition" that is not really a petition and is not necessary. Please remove our names. I'm sick of this mess.
default_smileypuke.gif
default_deadhorse2.gif


Edited to add, I also emailed several friends and encouraged them to sign. I am now sorry I did so and am embarrassed to be a part of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont think anyone is bashing Directors or anything else. Many many members are upset about this, and would like some answers to the various questions that have been asked.

A non response, even to a simple thing like acknowledging a letter, email or phone call comes across to some as being apathetic or trying to avoid an issue, whether it is intended to or not. Or perhaps even 'ignore it and it will go away'.

People are concerned, and rightly so. Members don't want to 'assume' what is going on with the Association, or left in the dark to guess.

A serious issue is being addressed, and it will take all involved to help in getting things on track and sort things out, and not getting a response to even acknowledge the receipt of something does not seem like a good start to me. I called the AMHA office when this first started and made a request for some information, but have never had a response, even if it was to say 'we are unable to get that information for you'. I got nothing at all.
 
However, this issue has turned into bashing the Directors and making personal insults against them.
Freeland, as I said in an earlier post, it is not our group's intent in any way to "bash" anyone, and to the best of my knowledge we have not. Yes, we have posted the goings on of what has transpired thus far, and it may not appear favorable towards those that have not responded, but nowhere that I can see, has anyone been "bashed". If I am overlooking something, I ask that you please point out specifically where this has occured, and in what form. Thank you.
 
However, this issue has turned into bashing the Directors and making personal insults against them.
Freeland, as I said in an earlier post, it is not our group's intent in any way to "bash" anyone, and to the best of my knowledge we have not. Yes, we have posted the goings on of what has transpired thus far, and it may not appear favorable towards those that have not responded, but nowhere that I can see, has anyone been "bashed". If I am overlooking something, I ask that you please point out specifically where this has occured, and in what form. Thank you.
To answer your question, in post #31, Diane Wolcott has edited and removed what I consider to be a personal insult against Frank Lupton.

I know Frank, consider him an honorable man. He offered to discuss the issue with her privately, and she gave this response:

And thank you for your offer, but since I don't live in the region you represent, I would not feel comfortable taking your time to discuss any issues.
Feel free to delete this as well as all other related posts if you wish.
 
Mona for what it is worth I don't feel you or your group should have anything at all to be embarassed about.

This has not been handled right from AMHA from the get go IMO

If they are saying we don't care what anyone thinks we will now allow larger horses into the AMHA gene pool legally great then at least say it like it is admit it and move on.
default_yes.gif
 
This has not been handled right from AMHA from the get go IMO
I take exception to this comment about the AMHA. Could you be more specific rather than just making a general negative comment like this.
 
Sure Neil first off we can start with the fact that no provisions were made for those honest people that turned in the AMHA papers on horses that were over the 34 inch height limit. Those horses could every easily measure in at the new 34 inch height limit.

From what I have seen and heard at the meeting while watching online that was not even brought up as any part of the discussion. It seems to me that is a big issue. Why should I have to pay full hardship prices to register a horse who was already registered with AMHA?

I could go on but I will leave it at that for now so as to not be looked as only being negative rather then stating a justified opinion.
 
I would like to thank everyone for all the work they have put into presenting AMHA with info on how many of the AMHA members who are unable to attend and vote on these proposals view this rule on measuring. They have given us a voice. Thank you again for that and for the update.
 
Sure Neil first off we can start with the fact that no provisions were made for those honest people that turned in the AMHA papers on horses that were over the 34 inch height limit. Those horses could every easily measure in at the new 34 inch height limit.
I am sure the BOD is aware of this issue as it relates to the rule change. Since the rule does not take effect untill Jan 2009 they have plenty of time to deal with this issue and and make what ever changes need to be made. Please give them time to do their job.

I can think of another issue along this same line that they will need to deal with. I am an approved AMHA Measurer. Will I have to be retrained/approved to know where the new measuring spot is or will they assume that I can find it.

From what I have seen and heard at the meeting while watching online that was not even brought up as any part of the discussion. It seems to me that is a big issue. Why should I have to pay full hardship prices to register a horse who was already registered with AMHA?
Please don't waste time assuming things will happen that may well not happen. Bring these kinds of concerns up with your directors to be sure the are relayed on to the rest of the BOD.

I am sure with any rule change there could be other possible changes that should be dealt with as they come up.

I could go on but I will leave it at that for now so as to not be looked as only being negative rather then stating a justified opinion.
What you have said above is a valid concern. Make sure you voice your concern to your Directors.
 
It is very sad that this whole topic has gone south. It pretty devestating that AMHA is going this route. Oh well, simple solution for myself, I'll just stick with R from now on and won't even care what AMHA does anymore.
default_no.gif
 
It is very sad that this whole topic has gone south. It pretty devestating that AMHA is going this route. Oh well, simple solution for myself, I'll just stick with R from now on and won't even care what AMHA does anymore.
default_no.gif
I've been kind of sitting on the brink of that for years Jamie
default_sad.png
 
I just wish the registry would communicate better with the members. The only time I hear from them is to vote to elect the director to represent our area. I get more information from this forum than from the registry. It is sad....and this effort to understand and reverse this measuring rule blatantly shows AMHA's elected group's practice of non communication. This is my opinion only....I don't speak for anyone else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And YES.. I am disappointed & frustrated… and giving up on this whole situation.
Don't you dare give up Mary Lou!
default_nono.gif
THAT is EXACTLY what they are hoping everyone will do! Changes will never be made if everyone gives up! Believe me, I have also felt that way many times, but have found we must persevere to get things done!
default_yes.gif
 

Latest posts

Back
Top