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.
Neil,
In reference to your comment, that you advise to "Bring these kind of concerns up with your directors to be sure they are relayed to the rest of the Board." That is exactly what we did with a UPS letter to the president, an email to all 26 U S Directors, and 12 Honorary Directors. We simply asked for a courtesy reply from each director and officer to acknowledge that they had received our letter. Do you really think that is too much for members to ask of the directors?
Below is a list of the questions and concerns that were asked of the President and the directors and officers 19 days ago. We have heard no official reply from anyone in the AMHA with any answers to our questions. The only replies that have been received are about a petition the Board thinks we need to get them to do something.
1. Did the staff review this amendment as required in the flow chart for rule change, for the Economic Impact, Computer Programming Requirements, Office Administration Requirements, and Legal/Liability Implications? Did the Board of Directors review the office staff's impact report and approve it?
2. Was proper notification given to the entire membership of this proposed amendment with clear explanation that it would change the procedure of a thirty year old rule in the way an AMHA Miniature Horse would be measured, and would change the Standard of Perfection? How was this official notification published to each member of the Association?
3. What formal training was given or will be given to the people that will be approved to measure horses at all shows?
4. What type of training or instruction will be given to the AMHA members in order for them to correctly measure their horses at the base of the withers for registration certificates?
5. It seems to be of greatest concern to most members as where to find the actual "spot" exactly where the base of the withers is located. This spot is not visible and can only be felt. There is a great variation in the determining the location of this spot, and will cause many problems and a lot of controversy between exhibitors, trainers, and the people measuring the horses. How do you intend to handle this problem?
6. Was any type of study or research done in measuring a number of horses at the base of the withers as opposed to the last hairs of the mane to determine differences in the height of the horses before the amendment was submitted for a vote? What were the findings? Did the horses measure taller or shorter?
7. Many members trying very hard to find the actual "spot" have already found that the majority of their horses measured at the base of the withers were shorter by a half an inch, and sometimes more, than measurements at the last hairs of the mane. The registration certificates on all permanently registered horses whose measurements differ from their current registration certificate will have to be corrected, as they would be making a false statement about the horse if the papers are not corrected. Will AMHA correct and issue new registration certificates to the owners of these horses at AMHA's expense?
8. What will AMHA do about horses that measured oversized at OVER 34 inches tall at the last hairs of the mane and had their papers revoked, but now will measure 34 inches tall or less at the base of the withers? Will these horses be allowed to be reinstated? Will they have to pay a reinstatement fee?
9. Knowing that a bylaw amendment has been presented to be voted on at the 2009 Annual Meeting to change the measuring point for an AMHA Miniature Horse to the top of the withers, what will AMHA do if this amendment is passed? Will any reinstatement fees paid be refunded to the owners of the horses who then have their registration revoked again?
10. Will horses that are hardshipped measuring 34 inches or less after the base of the withers bylaw is implemented be remeasured at the top of the withers should that amendment pass next year? Will their hardshipped fees be refunded, and their registration certificates be revoked, if they measure over 34 inches tall?
11. What will the impact be to the Association in their efforts to develop an International market for AMHA horses now if they are measured at the base of the withers? This was discussed at the meeting by Wayne Hipsley, AMHA facilitator, who stated that when he and the President recently spent three weeks traveling in International countries, the most important request they were given was to measure AMHA horses at the top of the withers. Will AMHA continue to spend money trying to develop an International market now?
12. What impact will the new amendment have on the integrity of the AMHA and the credibility of the registry when, because there is strong member support for using the worldwide, top-of-the-withers standard, it is very possible that the point of measurement may(again?) be changed from one point to another within the next few years? What then? We believe that most AMHA members do not feel that a foundation cornerstone of their organization should be changed, unless for the most compelling of reasons. This change appears to be looking to find a way to 'just be different', or to in fact allow taller horses into the Association while maintaining a pretense that the Standard has in no way been altered.
13. What impact will its implementation have on the acceptance of AMHA within the wider horse world/market, at a time when AMHA is stating that it is moving to become a 'breed' registry, not simply a height registry?
14. Most importantly, will AMHA enforce the rules and bylaws of the Association and revoke papers on horses that do not meet the requirements of an AMHA horse as 34 inches tall or less?
We have many more concerns and questions we would like to have addressed, therefore we submit the names of AMHA members that would like to volunteer to serve on any committees the Board should form to study the new bylaw amendment.
Let me explain about the petition so hopefully everyone will understand...
Article 6, Section 4 (E) Special Measures states, "Proposals to amend a Bylaw: amend the Articles of Incorporation, or disolve the corporation may be proposed at the Annual Meeting and voted on at the next Annual Meeting. Proposals to amend a Bylaw, amend the Articles of Incorporation or dissolve the corporation may be made by a petition signed by at least five (5) percent of the voting members as of the April 1st preceeding the meeting, or by a majority of the Board of Directors and notice of such proposals shall be published in the Miniature Horse World or by mail to all members at least sixty (60) days prior to the next Annual Meeting, etc"
Since we had a very short time to gather signatures we decided this bylaw was NOT the one to use, because the Board could come back to us and say your petition doesn't have enough signatures for us to act on your request. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BOARD HAS DONE.
The board could have looked at the 238 signatures on the petition and said, "With this many of our members unhappy over this new base of the withers rule, we should take a vote and if the majority of the directors agree, we can put a bylaw amendment forward to allow a vote for measuring to remain at the last hairs of the mane." A majority vote of the Directors has the power to do this in Article VI, Section 4 (E).
We decided NOT to use Article VI, because we could not gather the 438 signatures necessary for a petition in such a short time. We decided instead to use bylaw Article V, Section 3, Powers of the Board which states, "The Board of Directors shall have the power and authority to make, amend REPEAL, and enforce such rules and regulations, not contrary to law, the Articles of Incorporation or these Bylaws as they may deem expedient and necessary concerning the conduct, management and activites of the Association, etc "
Our request in the letter was to ask the Board to use the power given to them in the bylaws to REPEAL the base of the withers rule passed at the 2008 Annual Meeting. If the Board should choose not to repeal the bylaw, we asked that they handle this new bylaw change in the same manner that they have set a precedent for regarding another matter. (which was pointed out to them in detail)
In using bylaw Article V, for our request, there was no need for an official petition with 5 percent of the membership signatures. We knew they would have to make some decision to either grant us our request, or deny our request. The 238 signatures on the petition was to show the Board how many members requested a repeal of the new base of the withers measuring rule. However, it is evident that the Board did not understand our request, because both replies from the president have mentioned the petition, without the needed signatures, and that AMHA has no provisions for an electronic vote.
So Neil, what more would you advise us to do? Do you think we have done anything wrong? We are simply a group of members waiting for a response and answers to our questions from the Board. It has been 19 days today and still no answers.
So we wait, and wanted to update everyone that signed the petition in support to know what is happening.
I have written this post here on behalf of myself, as well as Diane Wolcott and Margaret Cox-Townsend
OH!
