PDA

View Full Version : Lobbying for exhibitor' interests/USEF convention



Wanderluster
Dec. 6, 2009, 07:21 PM
Just a thought about the organization that creates rules and structure for competitions.
Are we arriving at a point where the needs and concerns of the general membership are being dismissed because of a marginalized few that want to shape the rules and advance a personal/professional agenda ?
I really wonder if it is time to have representatives(lobbyists) at the convention that have the concerns of the average member and the opportunity to influence the direction of the governing body.
Given the perceived problems of unqualified participants riding in the medal finals at Harrisburg (the one finals that does not require a regional or point qualifying factor) the focus seems to be legislating riders out rather than enforcing the requirements of fence height, combinations, distances etc.
Would the membership be better served by a group or individual that clearly has a motivation to make the shows a better experience for those paying the entry fees ?
Maybe I am seeing this problem as being greater than it really is but I am reminded of a saying that says "Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts ". In a free enterprise system the bottom will fail as it should allowing the best to rise to the top, limiting access is a fundamental mistake and does not promote better competition.
Please feel free to disagree and share your different opinion. :)

Lucassb
Dec. 6, 2009, 09:01 PM
The convention is open to all, although relatively few exhibitors attend, IME. I went for a number of years when I sat on a committee and thought it was a very interesting experience. There are forums where general members can voice their thoughts and comments; I would assume that it is also possible to volunteer to serve on committees and have some influence that way.

Your Zone committee is also a venue to provide feedback, if desired... I've sent a few comments to my Zone chair and have received a thoughtful response (along with a comment that they very seldom hear from the exhibitor population that they theoretically represent.)

Wanderluster
Dec. 7, 2009, 08:27 PM
I agree that there is little to no participation at the general meetings and USHJA specifically addresses the interests of the portion of USEF members that attend hunter/jumper shows.
I am simply throwing out an idea, good, bad, or neutral that suggests a representative that is expressly a proponent for exhibitors and find a way to collectively participate in the decisions that have the interests of the exhibitor foremost. :confused:

mroades
Dec. 7, 2009, 08:30 PM
or, conversely, you can take the time and pay the expense to go, voice your opinions, only to be shot down or ignored completely...ask me how I know

War Admiral
Dec. 7, 2009, 10:51 PM
Your Zone committee is also a venue to provide feedback, if desired... I've sent a few comments to my Zone chair and have received a thoughtful response (along with a comment that they very seldom hear from the exhibitor population that they theoretically represent.)

Depends on the quality of your Zone rep. I e-mailed mine 3 weeks ago and haven't had so much as the courtesy of a reply... :rolleyes:

Mardi
Dec. 8, 2009, 09:23 PM
I agree with the OP.

An exhibitor's representative is needed, and would be very helpful.

Lucassb
Dec. 8, 2009, 09:40 PM
The USHJA, the Zone committees and various task forces etc ARE the groups that are supposed to be representing the membership. I'm not arguing that the relationship(s) and interaction with the majority of exhibitors couldn't be better, but IME, when a sub-group starts hiring lobbyists to advance a particular point of view, they tend to represent the specific interests of those paying the lobbyists, not the membership in general.

A look at any of the recent spirited discussions on this very board clearly illustrates the diversity of opinions that exist among "exhibitors" - and those who post here are themselves just a fraction of those who show.

Again I'm not trying to dismiss the idea, just wondering how this lobbying entity is going to decide what to pitch, and how it would be funded. I would definitely be hesitant to have any additional costs tacked on to an already pricey membership to fund some third party lobbyist to speak on my behalf... who might or might not share my views.

My bias, I guess, is that I like to speak for myself... and I think one of the privileges of membership includes accepting the responsibility of speaking up about issues that concern me or that I think will impact the future of the sport. Thus I have served on committees and have attended meetings and conventions etc at my own expense, and way back when we were embroiled in the governance challenges, I went to hearings, provided testimony, and so forth, also at my own expense.

I'm not saying that's the only way, of course. Interested to hear what others think.

M. O'Connor
Dec. 9, 2009, 09:18 AM
Any lobbying would need to be done at the breed/discipline level, as the "umbrella" hierarchy currently in place means that USEF pretty much will follow the recommendations of the breed/discipline affiliates as per rule changes.

In the case of H/J, the USHJA would be the organization that is supposed to discuss, debate, and then make policy recommendations to USEF based on how they affect H/J.

If there is an imbalance/disconnect between the interests of various groups within H/J (exhibitors vs management, or if the interests of different groups of exhibitors diverge from each other), then the reasons for that should be looked at.

A friend and I recently examined the bylaws posted on the USHJA website; I tend to think they could stand some tweaking to improve the level of protection of a broader range of interests.

(She is a delegate for two of our local organizations, in LI, and therefore is in attendance at the meeting, btw).

lauriep
Dec. 9, 2009, 05:29 PM
[QUOTE=Lucassb;4545665]The USHJA, the Zone committees and various task forces etc ARE the groups that are supposed to be representing the membership. I'm not arguing that the relationship(s) and interaction with the majority of exhibitors couldn't be better, but IME, when a sub-group starts hiring lobbyists to advance a particular point of view, they tend to represent the specific interests of those paying the lobbyists, not the membership in general."

And the "powers that be" don't? I completely agree with the OP. Things are happening in our sport, behind closed doors, even AFTER we vote the way we want them to go. This year's rule change proposals appalled me in the narrow focus, elitist, exclusionary way they were written. SO MANY are clearly being advanced for the benefit of ONE person with an agenda.

Our sport is in danger of changing forever, in ways we may not want, if we aren't vigiliant and reactive. When the dust settles on this year's crop, we will have but a few months to sound off loudly in protest if we don't like them. There is a growing feeling that the few want to control the sport the way THEY see it, not the way the membership sees it.

Wanderluster
Dec. 9, 2009, 08:46 PM
or, conversely, you can take the time and pay the expense to go, voice your opinions, only to be shot down or ignored completely...ask me how I know
You bet, ask me how I know ;)

Lauriep thank you for your reply, the "powers that be" will determine where the direction of the sport will go in the next decade and beyond. Participation and involvement is necessary to have a broad based consumer friendly and level playing field. I wonder if most members are aware that they can effectively change or influence the rules and standards by voicing their opinions? I wonder if a "cohesive group" of exhibitors can be as influential/ powerful as the group that currently is in a position to vote. :confused:
It is similar to calling your local representative and saying " Hi my name is xyz. I am calling on behalf of 25 voters in my family and we would like your consideration on abc".
I have been in contact with both judges and stewards and have voiced my opinions on the upcoming rule changes, so I am not silent about my concerns. I am more worried about the general membership who may be naively led by committees that may not have their best interest first.

Lucassb
Dec. 9, 2009, 10:16 PM
The USHJA, the Zone committees and various task forces etc ARE the groups that are supposed to be representing the membership. I'm not arguing that the relationship(s) and interaction with the majority of exhibitors couldn't be better, but IME, when a sub-group starts hiring lobbyists to advance a particular point of view, they tend to represent the specific interests of those paying the lobbyists, not the membership in general."

[quote=lauriep;4547208][And the "powers that be" don't? I completely agree with the OP. Things are happening in our sport, behind closed doors, even AFTER we vote the way we want them to go. This year's rule change proposals appalled me in the narrow focus, elitist, exclusionary way they were written. SO MANY are clearly being advanced for the benefit of ONE person with an agenda.

Our sport is in danger of changing forever, in ways we may not want, if we aren't vigiliant and reactive. When the dust settles on this year's crop, we will have but a few months to sound off loudly in protest if we don't like them. There is a growing feeling that the few want to control the sport the way THEY see it, not the way the membership sees it.

My point was that there ARE groups charged with representing the interests of exhibitors. Perhaps it would make sense to try to USE the existing mechanisms (ie, fix them so that they do, in fact, represent our interests) but of course that means that more people would have to get off their @sses and get involved, which very few bother to do.

There is no doubt that there are many special interests in our sport, and some have taken the time to build their influence so that they can shape things to benefit themselves. When you consider how much money is now at stake in our sport/industry, that is not at all surprising.

I've been down that particular road with the USEF (then AHSA, then the Fed) during the NGB battle. I cared about that issue a great deal and I went to meetings, worked on committes and even testified at hearings. It was time consuming, difficult and expensive (not just in $$.) I do understand how the sport works on the inside, and it's not particularly pretty.

Certainly those who are opposed to the proposed changes should mobilize and voice their concerns (some of which I share, BTW.) Not sure hiring a lobbyist would be the best way, but it's an interesting discussion. My concern with a lobbyist approach is that it will most likely just represent the views of a few who are willing to ante up and write a check to them - not the membership as a whole - and will wind up no better than the current powers that be, merely advocating for the interests of a few.

S A McKee
Dec. 9, 2009, 10:36 PM
[QUOTE]

My point was that there ARE groups charged with representing the interests of exhibitors. Perhaps it would make sense to try to USE the existing mechanisms (ie, fix them so that they do, in fact, represent our interests) but of course that means that more people would have to get off their @sses and get involved, which very few bother to do.



But perhaps those groups are representing the interests of a group with a very narrow focus instead of the majority?

And I don't really think it's so much a case of people not wanting to get involved. It may be a case of the governing bodies not wanting to hear from anyone who isn't on board with the 'agenda'.

khobstetter
Dec. 10, 2009, 01:08 AM
I am here at the meeting and will stay all the way through the Board meeting tomorrow. I can only speak to my experiences and THIS convention..to do other wise would take wayyyyyyyyyyy to long and its late here.

This particular convention is a HUGE example of how things can work..NO not everything is perfect BUT it has been a "hot" convention...because so many people showed up. This is their biggest one.

Starting on day one in the open rule change forum, members from the floor spoke up loud and clear against some of the major proposals.......in 2 of them dozens of people spoke their mind. Bill Morony was patient and let just about every single person who put their hands in the air speak...and they took notes.

I was interested in how a couple of them would turn out so I made it a point to sit in on a couple of those committees today....the voice of the people was heard and acted upon....AND THAT voice was certainly not the voice of "the powers" as some people like to say.

All I can tell you is that this is the best process we have so far, and its getting better. USHJA tried a couple of different approaches to the forums this convention and it worked quit well...

I can personally say a thanks to Karen Healy and that committee, Tracy Weinberg and that committee for staying up into the late hours to speak to LOTS of "regular" people to get their vioce...and then make adjustments !!

I will try to post more about all this later, its very late here.....

BUT.....GET INVOLVED, GET ON YOUR ZONE COMMITTES- OR AT LEAST CALL THOSE GUYS ON THAT COMMITTEE AND TALK TO THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN IF THATS WHAT IT TAKES.

ANY change in anything worth while is worth the work....come along and do it with those of us who have taken the time to come!!!

M. O'Connor
Dec. 10, 2009, 09:22 AM
I was among those who were on a committee at the start; I was invited to be on the USHJA Planning Committee.

We had maybe two phone conferences, two sessions at the meeting in Dallas a couple years ago, one more phone conference. Most of what was on our agenda was discussion about whether to build or buy a building to house the USHJA.

I was making plans to attend the next annual meeting, but couldn't find the Planning Committee on the schedule. When I called to enquire about that, I was told it had been abolished.

At least I hadn't already gotten my plane ticket...or made my hotel reservations.

I haven't been invited to serve on another commmitee ever since, though I have repeatedly indicated that I would be willing to do so. So much for being willing to get involved.:confused:

In looking at the bylaws last week, it appears that the committees are appointed by the Board, who in turn, are made up of certain members of each committee.

Such a process is not particularly democratic, but instead still boils down to politics...who knows who, etc...

I have taken part in the process by writing letters or calling to discuss my opinions with those who are present.

I have weighed in on several issues this time around. Got a reply from Bill Moroney, did not get a reply from some others.

Wanderluster
Dec. 11, 2009, 01:05 AM
"I can personally say a thanks to Karen Healy and that committee, Tracy Weinberg and that committee for staying up into the late hours to speak to LOTS of "regular" people to get their vioce...and then make adjustments !!

I will try to post more about all this later, its very late here.....

[/quote]

I know that the days events are exhausting but would you be clearer about the details of the two separate "that committees" and the topics that are being addressed? :)

S A McKee
Dec. 11, 2009, 08:07 AM
.

This particular convention is a HUGE example of how things can work..NO not everything is perfect BUT it has been a "hot" convention...because so many people showed up. This is their biggest one.

BUT.....GET INVOLVED, GET ON YOUR ZONE COMMITTES- OR AT LEAST CALL THOSE GUYS ON THAT COMMITTEE AND TALK TO THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN IF THATS WHAT IT TAKES.

ANY change in anything worth while is worth the work....come along and do it with those of us who have taken the time to come!!!

I'm sure it is a 'hot' convention. This year USHJA has proposed a great number of rule changes that are controversial so yeah, lots of people did go. Not because it's a cool thing to do, but because they are trying to make sure management knows how wrong some of the proposals are.

After USHJA formed I expressed an interest in being on a committee. I received a letter syaing 'thanks, but no thanks'. I few years ago I again asked if they needed any volunteer help. I received a curt email saying they didn't need any volunteer help.
And I know two other people who like M.O'Connor were on a committee, the group disolved, never heard from USHJA again.

I've contacted people on my zone committee several times. Never get back to me.

I think you are on the Show Standards committee. Care to share with us how that proposal came about? What's the intent? What is it looking to acomplish?

mroades
Dec. 11, 2009, 08:30 AM
I went to the convention last year. People in charge kept begging me to apply for committees. So right there I wrote down application after application to 4 or so committees. I never heard ONE thing from ANYBODY. I reiterated my desire to be involved at the the Trainer's Symposium in April. Nada, zip.

Tackpud
Dec. 11, 2009, 11:00 AM
Another way to get your voice heard is to encourage your local organizations to become "Associate" members. The associate committee IS heard - believe me. The meeting yesterday was fairly well attended and Shelby French is vocal about the needs of the bulk of the membership.

There is a schizm between the elite membership and the rest of us, but it's not going to go away by non-attendance at the conventions and just voicing opinions here. I have been to every convention now, and this was the best yet. Everyone who wanted to voice an opinion was heard and there was lots of good feedback.

Lucassb
Dec. 11, 2009, 02:13 PM
I too have served on committees only to have them dismantled and I have since been rebuffed when I've offered to volunteer. (I will say that my Zone reps have been courteous and responsive, though.)

I guess I think that is something that it would be useful to try to change. The committees and USHJA in general cost us a lot of membership $$$$. I'd rather try to make them useful than to spend even more creating a parallel structure to work around them.

If the effort to reform the existing structures to be more inclusive, then sure - I'd support creating other vehicles to try to influence the organization.

111
Dec. 11, 2009, 11:07 PM
I too went to the convention.
I represented my local association, that is an affiliate member.

At the first meeting on Monday, I was worried that it was going to be the super powers controling everything as usual. There were some VERY heated discussions, not the least of which happened when with about 10 minutes left to the first proposed rule change meeting, USEF extraordinary rule change pages were handed out. First on the list was to make CHILDREN'S & ADULT AMATUER HUNTER divisions a National championship division. Meaning no longer just "C" rated. People were not happy. But by the end of the convention, I think they got the mesage that this was VERY unpopular, & USHJA was backpeddling & blaming it all on USEF.

Karen Healey actually sat down with a group of trainers(not BNTs but good trainers who wanted to be heard) who were not happy with the proposed changes for the USEF medal. Apparently, for once, shew listened & worked WITH them & hashed out a new plan for the medal finals that everyone felt good about.

As far as the B/C shows we heard a lot of promises, now we have to wait & see what happens when they get behind closed doors.

By the end of the convention I was hopeful they meant what they said & are willing to really listen. It was made very clear to them that if they don't, they might not have any membership left to push around.

S A McKee
Dec. 12, 2009, 09:44 AM
At the first meeting on Monday, I was worried that it was going to be the super powers controling everything as usual. There were some VERY heated discussions, not the least of which happened when with about 10 minutes left to the first proposed rule change meeting, USEF extraordinary rule change pages were handed out. First on the list was to make CHILDREN'S & ADULT AMATUER HUNTER divisions a National championship division. Meaning no longer just "C" rated. People were not happy. But by the end of the convention, I think they got the mesage that this was VERY unpopular, & USHJA was backpeddling & blaming it all on USEF.


I can't even find that change on USEF's list of changes. So another 'secret' rule change. That's just great. Isn't there a rule change proposal to stop this sort of thing from happening?

Do you know who proposed that change? I'm curious if USHJA was blaming USEF then who made the request?

khobstetter
Dec. 12, 2009, 07:15 PM
I can't even find that change on USEF's list of changes. So another 'secret' rule change. That's just great. Isn't there a rule change proposal to stop this sort of thing from happening?

Do you know who proposed that change? I'm curious if USHJA was blaming USEF then who made the request?

USEF proposed the rule change, I was there when the staff of USEF stood up to the podium to discuss a bunch of the ones we never saw before..

One of the things that got discussed, almost ad nasesuem, was the fact that USEF sends "Extraordinary" rule changes and proposals to the Convention and NO ONE has seen them before at all. David O'Conner, and the USEF staff, was there for the General Rule Change Forum on the first day when the papers appeared out of no where, and heard LOUD AND CLEAR that the USHJA membership was extremely unhappy about that process!

Even up to the Board of Directors meeting on the last day, the USHJA Board was discussing how to stop that process. As much as you (and ME) hate the process of that stuff being a "surprise"...believe me when I say that Bill and the staff REALLY REALLY have a problem with it too.

BUT remember that USEF is BIG daddy and we live under that as well as we can. USEF has the rules, USHJA only gives input and PRAYS stuff does not get changed.

There was extensive discussion about any possible way USHJA could be completely in charge of the hunter-jumper rules and NOT have them go through USEF where the ones that pertain the H-J's get voted on by arabs, morgans and so on.

khobstetter
Dec. 12, 2009, 07:18 PM
I'm sure it is a 'hot' convention. This year USHJA has proposed a great number of rule changes that are controversial so yeah, lots of people did go. Not because it's a cool thing to do, but because they are trying to make sure management knows how wrong some of the proposals are.

***********
I think you are on the Show Standards committee. Care to share with us how that proposal came about? What's the intent? What is it looking to acomplish?

I am on the Show Standards committee......which proposal are you referring to, there were many (another issue)! I'll tell you what Ican if you'll be more specific.

khobstetter
Dec. 12, 2009, 07:34 PM
"I can personally say a thanks to Karen Healy and that committee, Tracy Weinberg and that committee for staying up into the late hours to speak to LOTS of "regular" people to get their vioce...and then make adjustments !!

I will try to post more about all this later, its very late here.....



I know that the days events are exhausting but would you be clearer about the details of the two separate "that committees" and the topics that are being addressed? :)[/QUOTE]
************************************************** **

Sorry,,,I was really tired when I posted that. Karen Healy and the Equitation Task force.....Tracy Weinberg and the Owners Committee.

For Karen's committee there was a big proposal to change the qualifying points for Harrisburg to cut down on entries for time sake. (NOT her proposal though!) It would have chopped out a LOT of riders who then would not be able to go there for their very first Medal Finals. BUT something has to give - there are only so many minutes in a day and therefore only so many rounds in a ring.

Karen spent an exorbatant amount of hours meeting with ALL trainers she possibly could, riders too, and came up with what was a WONDERFUL compromise...SOMETHING had to give! The plan now - THIS IS NOT A DIRECT QUOTE- is to have Saturday be the "sorting" process and anyone with a MAJOR problem there would not move on to Sunday. When we asked about data to back up that approach it was presented that approximately 30% of the riders either had a stop or a MAJOR error. If those riders do not go on to Sunday it would give time to make the FINALS really specialer than they are now. More info if you want it...

Tracy Weinburg heads the Owners Committee. During the first Rule Change Forum people were overwhelmingly against taking the word Owner out of Amateur Owner, either hunter OR jumper. I guess the proposal was mostly meant for the jumpers so they could ride other horses BUT the Owners Committee was adament in their efforts to back up what the majority seemed to want. She also spent HOURS and hours talking to the membership, NOT just her friends, and brought a "compromise" to the final Board of Directors meeting. The Board majority did NOT want the Hunter and Jumpers to have 2 different definations. That proposal was NOT approved and went back to the committees for next year. THAT proposal was a very difficult one!

So, I hope that answers those questions. If not, let me know and I'll try again. :-)

khobstetter
Dec. 12, 2009, 07:45 PM
Originally Posted by 111
At the first meeting on Monday, I was worried that it was going to be the super powers controling everything as usual. There were some VERY heated discussions, not the least of which happened when with about 10 minutes left to the first proposed rule change meeting, USEF extraordinary rule change pages were handed out. First on the list was to make CHILDREN'S & ADULT AMATUER HUNTER divisions a National championship division. Meaning no longer just "C" rated. People were not happy. But by the end of the convention, I think they got the message that this was VERY unpopular, & USHJA was backpeddling & blaming it all on USEF.


I can't even find that change on USEF's list of changes. So another 'secret' rule change. That's just great. Isn't there a rule change proposal to stop this sort of thing from happening?

Do you know who proposed that change? I'm curious if USHJA was blaming USEF then who made the request?

The Children's & Amateur Hunter proposal came directly from USEF and were delivered that day to the USHJA convention on the floor when those pages were passed out. As they were passed out the USEF staff person stood up for discussion...and there WAS heated discussion. First time we saw them was then...DEFINATELY not a USHJA issue, I can guarantee you we were all as frustrated as you..see the above post.

S A McKee
Dec. 12, 2009, 07:47 PM
I am on the Show Standards committee......which proposal are you referring to, there were many (another issue)! I'll tell you what Ican if you'll be more specific.

http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/611-09.pdf

khobstetter
Dec. 12, 2009, 08:04 PM
AH............HA.......... McKee

MY OPINION!!!

That proposal was brought forth not from the Show Standards Committee, the proponent was USHJA for the Competition Task Force that has been working on Competitions across the board, not just standards. I understand it was presented to start the process to have detailed Standards, Divisions and ratings.

The first Rule Change Forum, that was on the table and from there it was passed to a combined meeting of the Competiton Task Force, Show Standards and Managers. At THAT meeting it was decided that the "Task Force" would now be added to by 3 members from those committees to create a mega committee to really examine this proposal. That new big committee will meet in a retreat sometime in January to start really pouring over this.

The main thing is it is now "out there" to be talked about and some new decisions made. One of the things that came out of some of this was the fact that these have to be "definable, measureable and enforceable" as we go on.

IF you are interested in this proposal, I would suggest that you really read it thoroughly and completely and make a LOT of written suggestions with your opinion. It is a HUGE and complex problem.

I do not belive this proposal, as it is written, is that solution ...but with it on the table it starts the process which we all know ultimalely makes for VERY difficult changes. BUT NECESSARY ONES IN MY OPINION!!

SO it was tabled for quite sometime for further exploring.

Wanderluster
Dec. 12, 2009, 08:07 PM
Kathy,
there is a warm up hunter round that already exists. I don't see that the number of entries have changed throughout the past 10-15 years, please inform me if I am incorrect.
Further of the 30% that had a major error, is that number consistent throughout the years ? If so then the course is separating them out as it supposed to in a competition of this caliber.
I am not convinced that the 90 minutes of rounds those riders would take up justifies a reconstruction of rules.
How much "specialer" will the finals be without those entries? :confused:

S A McKee
Dec. 12, 2009, 08:14 PM
.

IF you are interested in this proposal, I would suggest that you really read it thoroughly and completely and make a LOT of written suggestions with your opinion. It is a HUGE and complex problem.

SO it was tabled for quite sometime for further exploring.

I've read it and I've sent written comments. Do I expect to ever hear back from USHJA? Well no, is hell freezing over?

I am pleased that it was tabled. Thank you for the update.

khobstetter
Dec. 12, 2009, 08:32 PM
Kathy,
there is a warm up hunter round that already exists. I don't see that the number of entries have changed throughout the past 10-15 years, please inform me if I am incorrect.
Further of the 30% that had a major error, is that number consistent throughout the years ? If so then the course is separating them out as it supposed to in a competition of this caliber.
I am not convinced that the 90 minutes of rounds those riders would take up justifies a reconstruction of rules.
How much "specialer" will the finals be without those entries? :confused:

I have no dog in this fight as they say...I am only reporting, as unsubjective as I can, what took place.

I think the new proposed way is a LOT better than simply making the qualifying so difficlut that the riders run their horses to a zillion shows to qualify and horse welfare becomes at risk. That system can be the best man standing at the end of a marathom approach (THERE I did get my opioion in the way :-) )

The data seems to be very consistent through the years...and it was growing before the economy crash, so when that changes again we could possibly have 300-400 qualify and those number simply do NOT work in the matter of minutes vs rounds.

The priority was to try to come up with a system that would NOT have to be changed again and again.

AND, on a personal note, I would love to see the awarding system be extremely special and have more "butts in the seats" as they say. The current system IMHO!! does not promote that and the stands do NOT seem full AT ALL as I look at pictures and videos of the FINALS, they are pretty empty! I think "we" really can step up the "special", INSTEAD of making qualiying changes making it so LOTS of riders cannot come at all. ONLY MY OPINION ON THAT ONE. :-)

Wanderluster
Dec. 13, 2009, 12:10 AM
Let me get this right, this idea is about drawing more spectators to the stands. :confused:

Why not make entry "quantifiable" by having prescribed course outlines that measure a riders abilities fairly ?
Fixing numbers does not accomplish getting more spectator interest, are you kidding me ?

khobstetter
Dec. 13, 2009, 01:05 AM
Let me get this right, this idea is about drawing more spectators to the stands. :confused:

Why not make entry "quantifiable" by having prescribed course outlines that measure a riders abilities fairly ?
Fixing numbers does not accomplish getting more spectator interest, are you kidding me ?

If you REALLY read my post I did not ever say "this idea is about drawing more spectators to the stands". I very carefully said "on a personal note" so that someone reading it would know it was "on a personal note" having nothing to do with why OR who did the proposal. PLEASE do not read something else into it.

I STILL would like to see a ton of people in the stands when that presentation is done. Will this change make that happen.....NOT ALONE but it can help. MO!

"Fixing numbers does not accomplish getting more spectator interest, are you kidding me?" ..............I never said anything about "fixing numbers"!!

The "are you kidding me" sentence, geemeny whiz...........And on that note I will not bring any more information to this forum....I was only trying to get requested information out and I will NOT be a part of a fuss.

S A McKee
Dec. 13, 2009, 08:58 AM
The "are you kidding me" sentence, geemeny whiz...........And on that note I will not bring any more information to this forum....I was only trying to get requested information out and I will NOT be a part of a fuss.

Not pointing at Knobstetter in particular but this is a big part of the problem.
When challenged USHJA picks up their toys and walks away.

It's really very difficult to get any information about why rule changes were proposed and what benefit we can expect from a change.

And don't anybody suggest that talking to our zone committee should be the solution. Just doesn't work.

Maybe USHJA could think about doing a little better in communicating with their membership? Perhaps more detail on the cause and effect of changes. Perhaps a sense of direction they want to go in. Most of the changes simply show up on the USEF website, no open dialogue with USHJA. If we understood the 'why' perhaps the perception of USHJA would be better.

khobstetter
Dec. 13, 2009, 12:18 PM
Not pointing at Knobstetter in particular but this is a big part of the problem.
When challenged USHJA picks up their toys and walks away.

It's really very difficult to get any information about why rule changes were proposed and what benefit we can expect from a change.

And don't anybody suggest that talking to our zone committee should be the solution. Just doesn't work.

Maybe USHJA could think about doing a little better in communicating with their membership? Perhaps more detail on the cause and effect of changes. Perhaps a sense of direction they want to go in. Most of the changes simply show up on the USEF website, no open dialogue with USHJA. If we understood the 'why' perhaps the perception of USHJA would be better.

SA...obviously you don't know me too well...I never mind being "challenged"!! I have just returned from a LONG expensive week there and am willing to get information to this board for those who did not go....BUT if gets EXTREMELY frustrating to have it completely misread and then slacked back. I NEVER said the proposal was about "number fixing", etc and it takes time to respond to what I didn't say. I'd rather report on what happened.

Your comment..."Not pointing at Knobstetter in particular but this is a big part of the problem" (which I did NOT take offense to)......but I also think that repeatedly getting slammed by the people I am trying to communicate with could ALSO be part of the problem, and that happens all the time! From where I sit it could be a both way thing.

I KNOW it is frustrating out "there" to not get information and thats the ONLY reason I came on in the first place...to TRY to get information and communication out to those of you who did not go and want information. When it starts to become one of those misread situations (possibly not here), I do then chose to "pick up my toys and walk away" as you say.

I only have so many hours in a day and I'd rather report what I saw/heard than fuss about somethig I did NOT say...........after re-reading the start of this thread, maybe I did not get the point of it the OP wanted, sorry if I misunderstood what was wanted here. I really thought it was to get information and reports...

Your comment "maybe USHJA could think of doing a little better in communicating" is an interesting one. I am attempting to communicate, and have for years here, BUT I am NOT USHJA - I am merely a volunteer who loves this sport and more times than not it turns into a slam Khob fest for what happened!!! Simply did not want to take part in that this year, maybe I misunderstood, sorry if I did.

S A McKee
Dec. 13, 2009, 01:29 PM
Your comment "maybe USHJA could think of doing a little better in communicating" is an interesting one. I am attempting to communicate, and have for years here, BUT I am NOT USHJA - I am merely a volunteer who loves this sport and more times than not it turns into a slam Khob fest for what happened!!! Simply did not want to take part in that this year, maybe I misunderstood, sorry if I did.

That's kind of the point. You aren't USHJA.
I don't expect you personally to have all the answers ( unless it involves a committee you are on ).

But USHJA sure isn't communicating direction or vision clearly.

If the general membership knew the reason for the proposal perhaps we'd be able understand the benefits of a change.
Maybe the USEF change proposal form needs to have more than an 'intent' section. Maybe a problem statement.

And we if really had some say in matters that impact everyone involved with the sport that would be useful.

Lucassb
Dec. 13, 2009, 09:50 PM
Way back in the olden days, when I was involved and the organization was called the AHSA and then The Fed, lol, they offered WEBCASTS of many of the meetings.

I don't think they do that anymore, but they should. It is not particularly expensive technology and it would provide an opportunity for the vast majority of members who cannot be there in person to participate or at least observe what is going on there. It would be simple enough to allow questions and comments to be submitted via the web, too, which I am sure would increase participation.

Winston the Corgi
Dec. 14, 2009, 05:54 AM
Way back in the olden days, when I was involved and the organization was called the AHSA and then The Fed, lol, they offered WEBCASTS of many of the meetings.


I miss the AHSA. I really do. I still have my AHSA card from my short stirrup days somewhere around here.

Wanderluster
Dec. 14, 2009, 02:11 PM
Way back in the olden days, when I was involved and the organization was called the AHSA and then The Fed, lol, they offered WEBCASTS of many of the meetings.

I don't think they do that anymore, but they should. It is not particularly expensive technology and it would provide an opportunity for the vast majority of members who cannot be there in person to participate or at least observe what is going on there. It would be simple enough to allow questions and comments to be submitted via the web, too, which I am sure would increase participation.

I really like that idea.
KH I hope you don't think I am personally targeting you, I appreciate the fact that you are willing to donate your time and money to attend.
Perhaps it would be useful to the USHJA to know how large the spectatorship is through the web and that the finals draw much more attention than can be measured by audience attendance. :)

khobstetter
Dec. 14, 2009, 07:34 PM
I really like that idea.
KH I hope you don't think I am personally targeting you, I appreciate the fact that you are willing to donate your time and money to attend.
Perhaps it would be useful to the USHJA to know how large the spectatorship is through the web and that the finals draw much more attention than can be measured by audience attendance. :)

Thanks Wanderluster..not really feeling 'targeted', just don't have time for the banter.

The subject of spectators did not come up in the meetings...that was a personal opinion (which I stated) that could be an additional side effect if the Sunday class and presentations could be spotlighted better.

I also think it is good to remember that, dispite some of the comments otherwise....it is an organization of people and committees. Yes, it can be flawed, but at least some people are trying.

Karen Healey could have simply said "this is what we want".....but instead she spent a HUGE amount of hours talking to anyone who would listen, getting their opinion and trying to find out what they wanted. THEN the committee came back with an alternative that got NO resistence AT ALL when it was presented in the Committee forum.

That particular meeting was standing room ONLY with tons of people there with the guns loaded to fight against making the qualifying process more difficult. When the committee presented the saturday "sorting" suggestion process, NOT ONE person voiced a disagreement although the day before it was verbal warfare.

So somewhere the process worked and the proposal was shot down.

NOW..you and I may not like what is now proposed BUT I can only tell you the process worked of presenting a proposal...then seeking comments...then seeking discussion...then writing up changes...then presenting the new one..then seeking discussion...then voting in front of everyone.

It may not be the outcome "WE" wanted (for me it is).....but it was presented, talked about and then voted on.