PDA

View Full Version : the Moroney Group USHJA is it what you want?



Snowbird
Mar. 4, 2004, 12:12 PM
In response to Portia I have chosen to separate Bill Moroney from the other thread because it would be a tangent to spoil the good dialog existing about what I think is a much more important topic.

I think that whether or not we show respect for those convicted of crimes is a personal evalauation as to who we choose to be friends with and with whom we want to be associated.

This is a letter which I have sent to John Straussburger explaining my position about an affiliate.

1. I do not believe there is any urgency that there be an affiliate selected right now.
2. It is not the who but the way I object to as it has been handled.
3. I am not an Officer or Member of the Board of the NHJA and have become involved only because I think the whole situation was handled badly and they have not yet made their presentation.
4. I do deeply believe in the right of the membership to have a representative and democratic association in which they can have confidence AND have the right to express and opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Dear Mr. Straussburger,



I regret your editorial endorsing the selection of the USHJA as the Official Affiliate for the Hunter Discipline. I would have hoped that with your experience you could see past the packaging of this Association which is nothing but smoke and mirrors and that it would defeat everything we as Members have all worked for during the past few years regarding our rights to know and be heard.

Do you realize that all 28,000 hunter members of the USEF would be represented on their Board of Directors by one seat? We have 12 Zones with diverse geographical and economic problems and the all are in the hands one person to present or defend. All the other seats are appointments by the President of USHJA.

I believe that your rush to judgment was premature and you were carried away by a 5 hour glitzy presentation with no substance and a lot of “we will, we plan, we might and we will evolve”. It was a promise of a perfect world that was all things to all people and varied depending on the listeners.

I have attached for your information suggestions to the USEF Board of Directors regarding what I think would be necessary criteria to make a selection. While these may be altered they do set in place some requirement for accountability by any affiliate to the members they seek to represent.

I think we need to learn from our mistakes with the NHJC which also made a great many promises and although all the Zones were represented had no accountability to the members or the Federation.

I believe that Mr.Moroney took advantage of his position and has a serious conflict of interest by making his proposal without any notification to any other Associations that this was even on the Agenda and never mind that it was on a fast track.
• I believe that Mr. Moroney and the USHJA have taken advantage of his position which is a direct conflict of interest by sending out emails with the effort of the USEF and their undue prejudicial influence.
• I believe it was a conflict of interest when he was granted at expense to the USEF 5 hours for a presentation with the projectors and rooms.
• I believe it was a conflict of interest when Sue Pinckney as a director for hunters gave him her expertise and skills while on the payroll of the USEF for the Convention.
• I believe it was unethical for this whole issue to be raised without proper information to all who want to apply; and then condemn them for not being prepared.

I believe it was wrong for the whole presentation to have been made until after there were proper criteria accepted by the Board of Directors published and made available for all those interested to apply, proper deadlines and opportunity for each to make an equal presentation.

We still do not know what the financial responsibilities will be, how the USEF plans to have this Affiliate function and under what terms and conditions they will monitor and supervise their activities and require accountability. Will Membership be mandatory or reciprocal? Will there be Financial accountability and over-sight by USEF? If so how?

This attachment was sent to the Board of Directors with the sincere hope that they will consider the conditions and terms by which to define a Breed/Discipline Affiliate that will replace the National hunter Committee in management of the whole discipline.

I hope they will then publish that criterion so that any and all National Associations may have the opportunity to read and comply, or apply for the position. We have had only one Executive Committee Meeting available to the members. Certainly, if they feel it is too expensive to web cast they could still produce an Audio CD of the meetings for the members who wish to hear it in the Media Library.

If the Federation wishes to assure the members that Mr.Moroney has had no undue influence on his behalf this is the most functional way to divert the antagonism of the members and keep the record open. I, by the way disagree that it was not worth the investment because not enough people listened; the fact is as you know there were several who listened and then gave ongoing reports to the thousands of people on your Forums.

Anything that builds the confidence of the members who pay the bills, support the shows and donate their money is money well spent.

Yours truly,

Vikki Karcher Siegel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Battle Scarred Veteran

Snowbird
Mar. 4, 2004, 12:12 PM
In response to Portia I have chosen to separate Bill Moroney from the other thread because it would be a tangent to spoil the good dialog existing about what I think is a much more important topic.

I think that whether or not we show respect for those convicted of crimes is a personal evalauation as to who we choose to be friends with and with whom we want to be associated.

This is a letter which I have sent to John Straussburger explaining my position about an affiliate.

1. I do not believe there is any urgency that there be an affiliate selected right now.
2. It is not the who but the way I object to as it has been handled.
3. I am not an Officer or Member of the Board of the NHJA and have become involved only because I think the whole situation was handled badly and they have not yet made their presentation.
4. I do deeply believe in the right of the membership to have a representative and democratic association in which they can have confidence AND have the right to express and opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Dear Mr. Straussburger,



I regret your editorial endorsing the selection of the USHJA as the Official Affiliate for the Hunter Discipline. I would have hoped that with your experience you could see past the packaging of this Association which is nothing but smoke and mirrors and that it would defeat everything we as Members have all worked for during the past few years regarding our rights to know and be heard.

Do you realize that all 28,000 hunter members of the USEF would be represented on their Board of Directors by one seat? We have 12 Zones with diverse geographical and economic problems and the all are in the hands one person to present or defend. All the other seats are appointments by the President of USHJA.

I believe that your rush to judgment was premature and you were carried away by a 5 hour glitzy presentation with no substance and a lot of “we will, we plan, we might and we will evolve”. It was a promise of a perfect world that was all things to all people and varied depending on the listeners.

I have attached for your information suggestions to the USEF Board of Directors regarding what I think would be necessary criteria to make a selection. While these may be altered they do set in place some requirement for accountability by any affiliate to the members they seek to represent.

I think we need to learn from our mistakes with the NHJC which also made a great many promises and although all the Zones were represented had no accountability to the members or the Federation.

I believe that Mr.Moroney took advantage of his position and has a serious conflict of interest by making his proposal without any notification to any other Associations that this was even on the Agenda and never mind that it was on a fast track.
• I believe that Mr. Moroney and the USHJA have taken advantage of his position which is a direct conflict of interest by sending out emails with the effort of the USEF and their undue prejudicial influence.
• I believe it was a conflict of interest when he was granted at expense to the USEF 5 hours for a presentation with the projectors and rooms.
• I believe it was a conflict of interest when Sue Pinckney as a director for hunters gave him her expertise and skills while on the payroll of the USEF for the Convention.
• I believe it was unethical for this whole issue to be raised without proper information to all who want to apply; and then condemn them for not being prepared.

I believe it was wrong for the whole presentation to have been made until after there were proper criteria accepted by the Board of Directors published and made available for all those interested to apply, proper deadlines and opportunity for each to make an equal presentation.

We still do not know what the financial responsibilities will be, how the USEF plans to have this Affiliate function and under what terms and conditions they will monitor and supervise their activities and require accountability. Will Membership be mandatory or reciprocal? Will there be Financial accountability and over-sight by USEF? If so how?

This attachment was sent to the Board of Directors with the sincere hope that they will consider the conditions and terms by which to define a Breed/Discipline Affiliate that will replace the National hunter Committee in management of the whole discipline.

I hope they will then publish that criterion so that any and all National Associations may have the opportunity to read and comply, or apply for the position. We have had only one Executive Committee Meeting available to the members. Certainly, if they feel it is too expensive to web cast they could still produce an Audio CD of the meetings for the members who wish to hear it in the Media Library.

If the Federation wishes to assure the members that Mr.Moroney has had no undue influence on his behalf this is the most functional way to divert the antagonism of the members and keep the record open. I, by the way disagree that it was not worth the investment because not enough people listened; the fact is as you know there were several who listened and then gave ongoing reports to the thousands of people on your Forums.

Anything that builds the confidence of the members who pay the bills, support the shows and donate their money is money well spent.

Yours truly,

Vikki Karcher Siegel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Battle Scarred Veteran

Erin
Mar. 4, 2004, 12:18 PM
Psst... Snowbird. It's "Strassburger."

Snowbird
Mar. 4, 2004, 12:27 PM
Thank you Ma!

Battle Scarred Veteran

Portia
Mar. 4, 2004, 01:01 PM
Snowbird, it seems to have escaped you that my objections to your comments on the other thread have nothing to do with the substance of the USHJA, NHJA, or the selection of an affiliate.

My objection and statement that you should apologize -- not to me, but to Bill Maroney and the USHJA -- was due to your linking of his name to "horse killers" and "child molesters." You took a low, uncalled-for swipe at an individual, and I called you on it.

You're perfectly capable and free to make whatever points you want or think you can about the substantive issues. But that's not at all what my objection was about.

Scarlet 1
Mar. 4, 2004, 01:04 PM
Snowbird, I wish I had enough time to go toe to toe with you on the USHJA and NHJA issue, but having a job, horses and a family prevents me from turning the BB into a full time occupation.

I have nothing against the NHJA and certainly nothing against Gary Baker, but the NHJA has had their chance (and a very long one) and I don't get the feeling that most people are very excited by what they have accomplished. Additionally, the NHJA has historically been dominated by horse show managers, and that I do find to be a conflict of interest. I believe our governing body should not be run by the same group that benefits financially from the horse shows. It would be a situation of no checks and balances. I think the USHJA sounds exciting, and I for one would like to see them get a chance, IF they meet the criteria and specs designed by the USEF. I also don't have a problem with a little good natured debate about the two entities, but I have had enough of your bomb throwing. Moroney, as you call him, is not a bad guy (even you have said this a number of times) so why do you persist in starting these threads making it out as if they are doing something truly evil? Please give it a rest!

Snowbird
Mar. 4, 2004, 01:59 PM
Portia, there is really no need for further dialog. I didn't put Moroney in the same scene, it was Lauriep who put him there and I responded in the order of importance to me simply as issues of fair play.


Scarlett, I too wish you had more time because there is no better way for me to clarify my thinking than to examine an idea from another perspective. I simply steal the time that should be sleeping time for projects of concern. At my age there is no further point in worrying about getting my beauty sleep. The time for doing nothing is too quickly approaching and I don't want to waste time or energy by not being useful with the time I have left.

As to NHJA it started out as a Show Managers Association and that is true but by the end of it's first year it had altered course into a Members Association since that is what was needed. It has been Affiliated with the AHSA/USAE/USEF for 15 years and simply functioned as a lobbying group for the hunter and jumper people. It continued to do that even after the AHSA opted to try the format which led to the now defunct NHJC.

I must say that my enthusiasm for NHJA started when I learned that Gary Baker was responsible for the changes to the Election System for the Zones to have dedicated seats as an assurance of equal representation not only geographically but also by competition level. That was when I realized his dedication to the principles that many of us had worked on the past 4 years.

When NHJC was introduced it sounded wonderful and it's demise resulted from the same concept that somehow the unrecognized and unsanctioned horse shows and the exhibitors who refused to accept the responsibilities of Membership should have an equal place in our Hunter Affiliate. This comes from a long standing dispute as to exactly what are the grass roots?

My objections have nothing to do with a choice for either side but rather the methods that got us to this place because it is too reminiscent of the formation of the NHJC and the way it sprang full blown onto the scene.

As you can see in the above letter my criticism has not to do with the USHJA or Bill Moroney personally or Andrew Ellis with whom I've had several lively debates. It has to do with what I have always believed a fair and equal system with rules and specifications that everyone can understand and follow with an honest choice of course.

I have for four/five years now been for our Right to Know and our Right to Vote. When you read the By-Laws of the NHJA and when you read about their plan of operation and if you still feel that the USHJA is your choice that's fine and maybe they will merge or maybe there can be two associations all those are things still open for resolution. Perhaps, we should not have to choose.

Perhaps there are many of our hunter people who prefer an autocratic system where everyone is appointed by the President and the other half is willing to gamble on democracy. None of that can be determined until the USEF determines what exactly their responsibility will continue to be and what are the terms and conditions that this new entity must follow.

Once that is determined and published and adequate time is allowed for development of plans there may be four or even six different associations that would be willing to comply with offers to benefit us all as hunter people.

Then perhaps we will either vote with our checks or get a chance to vote for which one suits us and each will make a presentation. I think it is illogical when there was only one presentation to say that's the one.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Erin
Mar. 4, 2004, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Portia, there is really no need for further dialog. I didn't put Moroney in the same scene, it was Lauriep who put him there and I responded in the order of importance to me simply as issues of fair play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, lauriep mentioned him... to irk you, I would imagine. It was you, however, who took the ball and ran with it. You took the opportunity to sensationalize what you perceive as his wrongdoings by comparing them to the wrongdoings of horse murderers and sexual offenders.

portrock
Mar. 4, 2004, 08:47 PM
Snowbird, it's Bill Maroney, not Moroney. Or is it a childish insult, designed to prove how much better NHJA is?

Snowbird
Mar. 4, 2004, 09:13 PM
Portrock I wouldn't be that petty, No one ever corrected me and I've been spelling it that way. So thank you very much I appreciate the information and will try not to make the mistake again.

But, then at my age I'm entitled to be forgiven for sessions of senility. It isn't nice for you young'uns to pick on us old folks for small errors and then expect us to forgive big errors in you youngsters.

In case you didn't understand I don't know if NHJA is better; what I object to is the playing field was not equal and fair. I understand that Tom Struzzeri was interested too, and who knows who else once we find out what the rules are going to be. Do you think its fair for USHJA to have all the benefits of the USEF at our expense and no one else knows about it?

Battle Scarred Veteran

lauriep
Mar. 4, 2004, 09:35 PM
You have been trying to sell this POV for a couple of months now, since the convention. So far, I haven't seen a single person voice agreement with you. Perhaps it is time to move on?

Laurie

Snowbird
Mar. 4, 2004, 10:13 PM
Based on your posts you seem to have a very limited circle of acquaintances in a particular bracket. On the other hand I have found there is a lot of support from people who do believe in democracy and the right to know and the right to vote.

However, you seem to miss the issue which is not who is the choice but rather, whether or not the playing field is and has been equal and fair.

I have always had this weird concept left over I am sure from my youth that rules were rules for everyone and that an Educational Association needed to be very careful not to infringe on the rights of anyone. Even, little people who are just not important enough to worry about.

I think you may hear from the silent majority before this is over.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Ponybreath2
Mar. 4, 2004, 11:27 PM
My friends, debate and difference of opinion is a.) what our country is based on b.) a fun and healthy exercise of our brain power, that in this day and age we find it increasingly difficult to exercise... this is all good.
Do not get mental because someone makes a typo, or doesn't agree with you. Don' make petty issues the topic instead of what we really need, enjoy and want to address.
Now (dust...dust...) I will get off my soap box and let the games continue. My efforts are as well self centered... I don't have time to read 1000 threads to find out why you are all talking badly about Billy Moroney. I personally just find it interesting that he has become such a player because he happened to have the good fortune to be in the right place/time to get hired to try to keep Paige Johnson on the center of a pony at that time in her career, and now he heads committees and has you all getting crazed about his erudite decision making. PLEASE... let it be said... I have no issue w/ Mr. Maroney (or Mr. Moronoy for that matter...) It sometimes just blows my mind on how people get from place A. to place B.... No offence Billy...

Kestrel
Mar. 5, 2004, 02:34 AM
IMHO I am really tired of the attitude of "just hand over your money and shut up!" that is prevelent in so many organizations, and not just horse-oriented ones. I have put in many volunteer hours in different organizations (non-equestrian)at the national level in the past, and have found that the Movers and Shakers don't listen to "the little people" anywhere you go. It takes open meetings and direct voting by members to give any voice to those who aren't at the top. Unfortunately, we are arm-twisted financially into joining these equestrian organizations if we want to participate, but don't have any say in how our dollars are spent. Is it really such a horrible thought that we might have some influence in the organization? I'm sure I'll just get slapped down for even opening my mouth here - I should know better, but it's all part of the whole "don't buck the Important people in the sport" thing that really ticks me off.

Doubleeez
Mar. 5, 2004, 05:04 AM
Let's get one simple thing straight. The spelling of the name of the USHJA leader is MORONEY. That's the way it is spelled in the USEF Roster of Officials.

DMK
Mar. 5, 2004, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
I think you may hear from the silent majority before this is over.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If a silent majority falls in the woods, does anyone hear it?

Sometimes I think I understand everything, then I regain consciousness.

portrock
Mar. 5, 2004, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
In case you didn't understand I don't know if NHJA is better; what I object to is the playing field was not equal and fair.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Have you read Linda Allen's article in the Chronicle (2/20/04)?
Quote:"The challenge put to the NHJC's leaders was to take the head start provided by this instant creation and use it to develop a business plan for transformation into an independent affiliate organization that equaled the other affiliates. Seven years, and several million dollars, later, the NHJC was not much closer to meeting that challenge than it had been at the outset.
Wrangling between the NHJC's leaders and their 'parents' was continual, centering around the NHJC's desire for immediate and complete authority over the disciplines while retaining access to funding via the federation for the foreseeable future." End of quote.
You are right, the playing field is not level. One organization obviously had all the benefits at our expense. Like, seven years and several million dollars!

BAB
Mar. 5, 2004, 08:32 AM
I am a steward and have taken a sit back and wait stance on these issues, however, I am a member of both groups - NHJA and USHJA. I know Billy Moroney personally quite well and find him to be as upstanding a man in the horse world that I know. And, as a steward, I know a lot of people who push the limits of the rules all the time. And, Gary Baker is just as upstanding as is Billy. I have the same feelings for him as I do for Billy. If anyone is attacking these people personally, that is a huge mistake. Of course, both groups have their own agenda, but it is now up to both groups to present their agenda to USEF for them to make their decision as to who will become the H/J affiliate. If you want to support one or the other organization, that's fine. But I chose to wait it out, see just who is picked for that affiliate, then work hard to support the chosen group to attain the goals as they present them. I usually don't speak to these topics, but I am so tired of the constant bickering and the posts that are so negative. Don't you all realize that USEF is working on it and will make a decision in July. Certain of you didn't want USEF to make a decision at the convention, and they didn't. Now you bicker about the fact that, supposedly, one group has more information in front of USEF than the other. Just how do you know that that is true. I think we need to give the powers at USEF some credit for being smart enough to figure out just which group will be the best to be the affiliate and go with that with our support. I know I will certainly give all my efforts to the group chosen, whether it is Gary's or Billy's. I would be proud to work for either one.

sopha
Mar. 5, 2004, 08:57 AM
Nicely stated, BAB!

Hopeful Hunter
Mar. 5, 2004, 09:02 AM
Out of ignorance, a question...

Will those who pay H/J discipline fees on their USEF memberships have a right to VOTE for which organization, or if they want either or any, to represent them?

If not...well...doesn't this issue of choice become somewhat moot?

Snowbird
Mar. 5, 2004, 12:26 PM
And that Hopeful Hunter has been my issue for four years. If as they like to say this is our association then why don't we get to choose to whom we will pay our money and what services that we require.

I am for the Association that proposes to give that right and privilege to know and to be heard. While in essence I agree with you BAB I think that if one runeer gets out the gate before the gun shot says GO! that's not a fair race.

I think that first the USEF Board of Directors need to decide what exactly is the function of the Affiliate.

Bill Moroney quote from the Horse Of Delaware Valley
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"As our group took over responsibilities, Fees to the Federation would be reduced and ours would be increased" said Moroney "You would have to be a Member of the Federation and of the affiliate in order to compete in recognized shows".

Of course, if an affiliate takes over responsibilities now covered by the Federation, there would presumably no need for such a large staff in Lexington.

"There are some exceptional people working for the Federation, and we wouldn't want to lose them,"said Moroney. "It would make sense to lease office space from the Federation and transfer some of their employees to the affiliate".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems to me I've heard that song before and read that scenario. Different time, different faces but the same old song. Except we had two people from each zone on the Board of Directors (24) and now we have one.

But even better part of that old song was that one third of the Board would represent the unrecognized shows, without enforceable rules and they would have an equal voice to all of those who are members and only participate in the C Rated shows.

And, just think they wouldn't have to be members because the shows are not recognized. What a great idea, the 98% of the silent majority don't have to pay any memberships any more. The best part of being unrecognized is NO STEWARDS we know how bad they are, and no drug and medication rules. Well, at least that would be fair because everyone can mix their own cocktails. Great idea don't you think?

If you all think that's a good plan, then I'll accept the previous poster's invitation to get outta here and back to the arts where people are more practical.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Portia
Mar. 5, 2004, 01:42 PM
Snowbird, you've expressed your objections to the USHJA structure and qualifications to become the new H/J affiliate organization.

In early January the USHJA provided copies of materials identifying and detailing its officers, board members, bylaws, structure, financing, legal status, service proposals, and operational plans public. In doing so, it made it possible for you and me and anyone else who wanted to do so to evaluate its proposals and form an opinion regarding their strengths and weaknesses.

I'm not aware that the has the NHJA made any similar disclosure and report. If it has, then that's great; I'd like to know where I can get a copy of the materials. I know its website lists its current officers, but without significantly more information, it is difficult to evaluate its proposals to become the new H/J affiliate.

Can someone answer these questions regarding the NHJA and its plans:

a. How does it plan to finance its operations?

b. How does it propose to include democracy and representation of all levels and interests in H/J?

c. How does it plan to reconcile the required distinctions between governance of hunters and equitation and governance of jumpers?

d. How does it plan to provide educational opportunities for members?

e. How does it plan to structure its relationships with state and local H/J organizations?

f. Where can we find a copy of its bylaws and other corporate organization and governance documents?

g. Does it have a strategic plan, and if so, where is it available for review?

h. What procedure does it propose for the rules adoption and amendment process?

i. What committees does it propose to maintain, and how does it plan to elect or appoint members to those committees?

j. What is the status of review of and planning for the legal issues involved in organization, governance, finance, and operations?

k. How and where will it establish corporate offices, and finance start up costs?

l. How does it propose to staff and finance provision of necessary services?

BAB
Mar. 5, 2004, 02:07 PM
Snowbird, you are so wrong - NO STEWARDS, you know how bad they are. I dare you to find any reason to label me or the many other good stewards I know as bad. What makes me bad - you tell me, and if you can't, you owe me and all of us, who take our jobs seriously and do that job well, an apology. I really resent what you said and so should the many other great stewards I could name. How about the stewards you use at your shows - you have just labeled them "bad" too. I wouldn't work for you, if I were them. It takes a lot to make me mad in my world of stewarding, but when you go after my reputation or my fellow steward's reputations, I get very angry. I can hardly believe you had the nerve to make such a completely incorrect generalization.

[This message was edited by BAB on Mar. 05, 2004 at 04:36 PM.]

DMK
Mar. 5, 2004, 02:09 PM
And hey, because these issues are near and dear to my heart...

m. How does it plan to approach the mileage rule issue? What structure would it use to give weight and hearing to all sides and how could the membership be assured that any findings were not skewed towards show manager interests?

n. What is its position on the requirement of qualified medical professionals on showgrounds (i.e., paramedics as opposed to school nurses)?

o. What is its position on making the stewards more independent from show managers and more accountable to the governing body?

Sometimes I think I understand everything, then I regain consciousness.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 5, 2004, 02:17 PM
BAB after reading what was written, I think that Snowbird was trying to make a point, and that it was more tongue in cheek rather than ripping on stewards. I for one know many good and great stewards. And never would like to be at a show without one!!

BAB
Mar. 5, 2004, 02:39 PM
Radio Talk - maybe you are right. And, if what you read it to be is true and Snowbird says just that, I will let it go. But I always hear people going after stewards - why are we hired by management, why doesn't USEF assign us, and on and on. I don't take it well when anyone, let alone a show manager, goes after stewards. WHen I work, I support the exhibitor, the management and USEF. Anyone who knows me will attest to that. Most of us do our jobs well, and facetious or not, it wasn't a nice thing to say.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 5, 2004, 02:54 PM
Agreed BAB. Stewards play an integral part in the horse show. Peace keepers, moderators, doing more jobs than most people have a clue of. Everyone I know takes their job seriously and trys to do the best job possible. Not always helped by people throwing stones or making snide remarks. Sorry, just had to speak my piece as well... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird
Mar. 5, 2004, 03:05 PM
Gee! BAB haven't you heard according to dialog at the Annual Meeting the only thing worse as far as intergrity and honor go is the money grubbing thieving show managers.

We as show managers pay you all of so you won't report the dastardly deeds we do at our shows. That I believe is the reason for the new super-Stewards who will be visitng shows just to find out how bad we all are.

For heaven's sake no one has defended Stewards more than I have! I believe that it is the hardest and most unrewarding job in the industry. Stewards are over worked and underpaid. And, you get blamed for everything even though no one there is willing to put their john hancock on a piece of paper for the violations they say they all know are happening.

I believe Stewards are an invaluable aid to make sure that I don't violate any rules. I like every show manager I know, want to put on a good show and follow the rules and we are more than willing to have you there. I resent these persistent attacks on Stewards.

Of Course right behind you are the political blind judges who don't know what they're doing and pin classes depending whose at the in gate. That as well is an exaggerated untruth.



Battle Scarred Veteran

Snowbird
Mar. 5, 2004, 03:19 PM
Portia I don't want you to get your answers from the wrong end of a horse so I will forward your message to Gary Baker.

In as much as there is yet no criteria and in as much as there is no definition and explanation of reponsibilities I think it is premature for anyone to have answers to questions that haven't been asked. Which is no doubt why the USHJA is so broad that it can suit anyone with any opinion.

I am not on the Board of NHJA, I am not an officer of NHJA my only contribution has been to host their website and put on it what I'm given. I am in no position to make decisions or explain what their plans are.

The problem is that no one at this is prepared because there is not even an application available yet. I know of three associations that would be interested in applying when they see a job description.

I have no personal choice as I've said a 1000 times it is just that an equal and level playing field for all applicants so that we can choose, that interests me as always. And I do believe we should be able to make our own choice and that it should not be mandatory until there is some unanimity and agreement as to what and how it will function.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Portia
Mar. 5, 2004, 03:22 PM
BAB, what Snowbird is referring to, in her snide way, is the work and proposals of the Ad Hoc Federation Representative Committee, to which she objects.

The Fed Rep Committee is examining proposals to send independent stewards, hired by USEF and not by show management, to observe conditions at various shows. This would not be every show by any means, and certainly not limited to H/J but to all kinds of competitions recognized by USEF. The shows would be randomly chosen, much as which shows will get drug testers are chosen. The Fed Rep steward would observe conditions at the show, try to help and answer any questions members might have, and report back to USEF regarding the conditions and observance of rules.

It is intended to be a spot check procedure designed to address the concerns of many exhibitors that some (by no means all) stewards and other licensed officials may be reluctant to report poor conditions or rules violations by management since it is that same management which hires the LOs.

Snowbird seems to see this as some kind of facist spy plot by the USEF against show managers such as herself, and possibly against stewards and other LOs, and an insult to all of them by suggesting that perhaps some of the exhibitors' concerns might be justified in some instances. Others view it as a positive step forward to be responsive to the concerns of USEF members.

BAB
Mar. 5, 2004, 03:32 PM
Portia, yes, I know about that committee as I am a member. Thanks for the explanation of the committee's works, for everyone's sake.

I do know there is an issue of how these representatives are viewed and we are working hard on finding the right persons for this job.

Portia
Mar. 5, 2004, 03:36 PM
BAB, that's great. From what I've heard about it from Andrew E. and Robert H., it is a really worthwhile project. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Snowbird
Mar. 5, 2004, 03:50 PM
I too am glad you are on the Committee and that as such you understand that the image has been tainted.

I am sure there is a way to manage this project so that it has an affirmative tone. I look forward to that change and would support a program which puts the Federation in a good light without making its members feel guilty until proven innocent. I personally have never employed a Steward who did not have the best interests of the exhibitors at heart.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Coreene
Mar. 5, 2004, 03:56 PM
DMK, what the hell do you mean about school nurses? OMGiH!

DMK
Mar. 5, 2004, 05:26 PM
Hey, everything I have heard about the committe and the project seems to have a positive spin and could only reward those shows who do it well and maybe cause some discomfort to those shows that are not quite as shining and nice.

The only reason I can fathom that one would be violently opposed to such an idea is if one thinks one might be one of those show managers that might not fair so well under additional scrutiny. Otherwise, WHY WOULD YOU CARE? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Hey, I'm all for the governing body hiring and selecting the Stewards, because I think this helps good, dedicated people do their job, and that's never a bad thing. But if we aren't ready to go there yet, this is a great "next step."

Yes Coreene, it is true that not all shows have top notch medical personnel on hand, nor are they required to. Now that's a real issue that needs to be addressed! I

Sometimes I think I understand everything, then I regain consciousness.

BAB
Mar. 5, 2004, 05:34 PM
DMK - actually, if you read Article 1213.6 - page 186, it gives the requirements for medical personnel at horse shows. When I steward shows, I check the licensing of the medical personnel and make sure they are trained in pre-hospital trauma care. A school nurse, who has prehospital trauma training, could be the 2nd medical person at a show, if a 2nd one was needed, but could never work alone as the only medical person. If this is happening, it is not legal and should be noted to management and to USEF. I'm not sure what you mean that some shows are not required to have top notch medical personnel - all shows must have either an EMT or a Paramedic or a Doctor trained in prehospital trauma care. That wording is specific in the rule book and there is no deviation from what it says. If shows aren't following that, there is a huge fine and possible liability issue.

Portia
Mar. 5, 2004, 05:52 PM
BAB, that may be one of the things an independent steward could report about.

The school nurse issue came up in the Safety Committee meeting. The Committee members can give you a better account of what happened, but as I understand it there was a discussion of the rules amendment regarding more specific trauma-training and equipment requirements for medical personnel at any competition. Snowbird disagreed with the rule change, expressing her belief that a school nurse is sufficient to serve as the qualified medical personnel on site at her shows. I do not know whether she actually uses a school nurse or not, but she apparently wanted to have that option.

Snowbird
Mar. 5, 2004, 05:54 PM
DMK we probably don't disagree as much as you think. The difference is that I prefer to assume the professionalism of those licensed and I find all this bashing of officials very offensive.

We can't build a healthy safe sports activity if we are going to demean those who have been entrusted with licenses. As BAB said if you have reason to believe you are endangered by incompetency then you have recourse to take action.

The rules are pretty specific and I think that you can assume a show manager who has everything to lose is not going to gamble their investment and livlihood by having incompetent medical personel that does not meet the specifications of the rules because of liability issues in this atmosphere of law suits for everything.

It would be the same for the Steward who has to know who is the medical personel and if they meet don't meet the criteria they have personal liability so why would anyone take that chance.

Unfortunately, at horse shows there is a lot of railside speculation that is less than hearsay. There is also a part of this debate which you may have missed every part of the country is not the same and the rules need to take that into account. There are places where it is very rural and it can be 10 miles between houses.

There have no doubt been exceptions made in those cases by necessity. It's just like you can't mandate that there be a helicopter pad at every show or that there not be a hospital more than 30 minutes away. The rules in place are very strong and look out for the benefit of the exhibitors on a national level and perspective.

One of my concerns is that by including the unrecognized shows there are no such rules and there is no way to enforce all the measures that have been so carefully crafted for the protection of the competitor.

Battle Scarred Veteran

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Mar. 05, 2004 at 08:02 PM.]

BAB
Mar. 5, 2004, 06:02 PM
Portia, I had the very same thing happen at a show I stewarded - there was a school nurse there who said she was pre-hospital trauma trained. I had no reason to disbelieve her, however, according to the rules as written, she could not be the only medical person for that show. I pointed that out to management and they immediately brought in an EMT. I also called the USEF emergency number and the person I spoke to, agreed totally with my assessment. I know there is a big emphasis on safety in the horse show world now, after some happenings last year and in previous years. But, I firmly, believe that now there is no place in the current rules for a school nurse to act as the only medical person for a horse show. An attentive steward would see to this. But, yes, you are right - this could be a problem for the federation representative. I, however, would not like to have the federation representative find that I am allowing incorrect medical personnel at a show that I do. I would certainly be one of the persons responsible for that violation, if I allowed it to continue. I'm glad for the Safety Committee - someone or some group has to pay attention to the things that seem to be passing under the radar.

Snowbird
Mar. 5, 2004, 06:10 PM
That was out of context Portia, what I said was that there could be a School Nurse who was actually also trained.

The context was that each community may have different employment situations and that school nurses could also have the necessary amount of training. There are communities without hospitals and where the doctor only comes once or twice a month their assistants frequently have additional positions and yet may be very well trained and skilled. In our community our police department is well over-qualified for emergency situations and carry with them in their cars a vast amount of emergency equipment.

I personally have no problem with the rule because this is a densely populated area with three hospitals with 15 minutes of here and we can have a helicopter land. But, that does not mean that everyone needs to have the same medical convenience.

I would love to see the statistics some time for injuries that actually happen at horse shows and how that relaates to the general population statistics. I know here in New Jersey one of the reasons we were able to get the Equine Activity Bill past the bar Association was because when they checked thir records they had handled only 3 cases involving injury over a 10 year period. And, was not just horse shows but general horse activities.

Battle Scarred Veteran

DMK
Mar. 5, 2004, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
DMK we probably don't disagree as much as you think. The difference is that I prefer to assume the professionalism of those licensed and I find all this bashing of officials very offensive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, Snowbird - would this be like the "professionalism" displayed by Martha Stewart and her broker? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

No, I am afraid we will very much have to disagree. While I believe the vast majority of stewards do their job professionally and above reproach, the current system does not ensure that there are checks and balances in place. That needs to be addressed so people have faith in those people who currently do their job, and do it well.

I can rarely be found quoting a republican, but does the phrase "Trust, but verify" ring any bells with you?

Sometimes I think I understand everything, then I regain consciousness.

Pet Psychic
Mar. 5, 2004, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
But even better part of that old song was that one third of the Board would represent the unrecognized shows, without enforceable rules and they would have an equal voice to all of those who are members and only participate in the C Rated shows.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the problem with this is ________? We're talking about AN AFFILIATE, meant to represent everyone, including those who participate in non-rated yet locally affiliated shows. Some county associations are USEF afffiliates, for example. As someone who is not "one of the little people" but who occasionally rubs elbows with the tiny tykes, I know the Fed has long been trying to figure out a way to bring these grassroots types back into the Fed fold.

Looking into my crystal ball (standard equipment for all certified pet psychics) I can foresee a time when there might be a sanctioning of non-rated shows, held by county-type associations affiliated with USEF where a steward would be present and certain standards would be adhered to. No year end points, no medals, just a well-run show meeting certain criteria.

Of course, it wouldn't be a huge money-maker for the horse show manager. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pet Psychic says: "If the horse is too much animal for you, try a gerbil."

Snowbird
Mar. 5, 2004, 08:23 PM
I'm a believer so you could be right and I'm sure it will be a better world for it. It may be the wave of the future to go back to where we started 33 years ago. Maybe next time we'll get it right.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Heidi
Mar. 5, 2004, 08:25 PM
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I've been on this here ole' BB long enough to have memorized Snowbird's support of the grassroots, the assertion that the grassroots are the heart and soul of the sport...and, lookee, here, the primary protest seems to be that:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But even better part of that old song was that one third of the Board would represent the unrecognized shows <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me recount all the horrific accidents I've witnessed at horse shows...

-a rider rides a horse has just sustained a heart attack over an oxer. She lands with her teeth implanted in the poles, with a broken arm;

-an aspiring pro shows a four year old in a greenie class. Horse bolts, riders falls, horse lands on rider's leg;

-pony goes wild on course, bucks, wanting nothing more than to head back to the barn -- leaving behind a 10 year old rider curled on the ground;

-yet another pony goes wild on course, he steps on rider's head...

On the one hand, Snowbird, you seem to be damning the unrated shows because they're not adhering to the mandated rules of safety of the rated shows; and on the other, you seem to be pronouncing that school nurses are appropriate medical professionals at a horse show...

Do the parents who scribble their signatures on the bottom of the cheque know that their child's life may well rest in the hands of a school nurse? No, this isn't an attack on school nurses, though some will conveniently interpret it as such...

Just as my child will never show at a venue where a convicted child molester serves as announcer - there ain't no way in hell that I'd settle for a...school nurse to tend to her should the horrific happen.

Snowbird
Mar. 5, 2004, 09:21 PM
And you shouldn't Heidi, neither will I and certainly not my granddaughter. I won't support those shows. The problem without shows being recognized would you ever know? Do you have any idea who officiates at an unrecognized show. The judge may be unlicensed it can be the owner of the farm or any exhibitor who happens to be there. The First Aide person could be a Jeffrey Daumer or a Serial killer, but you won't know if they smile nice.

I never showed at the unrecognized shows for all those reasons of safety, uniformity and have worked hard to get shows recognized for 30 years because I believe in Rules and Enforcement. I believe in the Local Show, no points just recognized and in support of the system. I believe in the C/B Rated Shows for real people who really show for the sport of it. I believe in the people who work to support their horses rather than have their horses support them.

I believe that the competitions should be honest and that people should be willing to blow the whistle if it isn't honest. I believe in the basic integrity and honor of humanity and I guess I am as extinct as the dinosaur.

I enjoy a good debate and exchange of ideas, and I believe in representation and our right to know and our right to vote. I have put my efforts in that direction and I believe in the good purpose of those ideas.

BUT...if this is a time and place where that can't happen so be it, I'm old and I've run my course and I won't reap the results so to me personally it doesn't matter a bit. I'm tired and I don't have as much time as you all do.

My children are grown and love horses, and my granddaughter can play with them and doesn't need to be competitive if she can't win on a clean horse because it plays in the corner.

I love this sport for the good it can do, I didn't do it for the money and I am offended by people who believe that all show managers are thieves and pick pockets who don't care about whether or not the competitors are safe.

The whole point of Recognized shows is that there are rules and minimum of requirements to keep people safe and especially my children and my grandchildren. There are Stewards and Judges and Course Designers and First Aid people. The fences are safer and the footing should be better.

Now, if there are recognized shows that don't comply with those rules you have recourse and I have recourse. I've never been afraid to be a whistle blower. I have never bought off a Steward and I don't care if they drug test my horses or me daily. I've never told a judge to whom to award the ribbons. The reason I believe in recognized shows is because i've seen all those things happen.

Is there a well run honest unrecognized circuit? Sure nothing is ever 100% but the odds are that it might not be so. But, the recognized shows from what you all say are no better well then look to yourselves and your failure to speak out and put your money where your mouth is.

Did Tom Struzzerri run a great finals even though they weren't recognized YES! by all means. Tom Struzzerri is one of those who considered applying for Hunter Affiliate status. But there's no application yet! Could he get a Presidential modification to have it recognized, I'd fight for him to get it.

I don't damn the unrecognized shows because they don't, I damn them because they don't have to and you won't know which ones do and which ones don't. So called "Schooling" shows don't need less coverage and safety but more because that's where people may be likely to have an accident because either the horses or the riders are inexperienced. Yet! everyone seems not to care if there's not a certified medical specialist there.

If there are people who have chosen to go unrecognized they save a lot of time and a lot of money that I have to spend to be recognized. I do that because I believe in the principle of Recognized horse shows and established standards. These have to be liberal enough not to prevent the rural areas from having shows and strict enough to keep those in populated areas safe. It's a hard line to paint down the middle.

But hey! if you all think that the unrecognized management of horse shows deserve equal time and support with those of us who have been paying the piper for 30 years trying to make it better, why should I not just join them. Financially, I'd be way ahead. Time wise it would be great, because I can't afford a huge staff I'm always late and always trying to meet a deadline. And, I'm really tired of the police state mentality that says I'm a villain every time I wake up in the morning.

I have my own association, I could go in under that category and who knows I might even be elected to the board. Would that br right? Is it the best way? Will it make a better sport and better horse shows or horses? My personal opnion is NO! You want to blast me for that go for it. I'm not a fragile lilly who will fade and wilt.

Battle Scarred Veteran

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Mar. 05, 2004 at 11:50 PM.]

wtywmn4
Mar. 6, 2004, 08:42 AM
There is much in this sport that needs fixing. Abiding by the rules as set forth is one of them. Any rated show which does not, should be written up. I would not damn unrecognized shows for not following the "USEF" rules, I would try and figure out a way we could get them under the umbrella. Then and only then, would you be able to make sure safety for horse & rider is foremost.

Snowbird
Mar. 6, 2004, 09:19 AM
The problem is that our lower level shows are not hospitable to new people who would like to attend, it rather like a culture shock. The last time a lady came with two kids and two ponies and it cost her $106 before she got to entry fees because of Non-Member fees and measurement as a non-member.

Pre-NHJC we had a rule that said the members of an Affiliate Association could come to our shows and be treated as a member, they didn't have a vote and they didn't have the right to acquire any points. That at least gave those interested a chance to arrive and try.

What I've seen is that the people who do the unrecognized don't want to break any rules and they don't understand our rules so they're afraid to come and try. I agree with you totally bu the way to get them under the umbrella is to get them to want to come to the sanctioned shows and enjoy them.

I don't understand the logic of saying that they can participate and they don't have to follow the rules. Why not let everyone off the hook then?

Battle Scarred Veteran

pwynnnorman
Mar. 6, 2004, 04:53 PM
But what about all those great questions two people asked?

You know what would be useful? If those questions and the "officers, board members, bylaws, structure, financing, legal status, service proposals, and operational plans public" list that someone else came up with could be answered by BOTH organizations and put into some kind of comparative chart or something. That would really, really help, don't you think?

I mentioned privately elsewhere that USHJA did sort of get the jump on NHJA in an unfair way, BUT it seems to me that NHJA hasn't made much of an effort to catch up, either. That may be a structural problem they are having or mere (but potentially fatal) "politeness" in that they are waiting to be told what the criteria will be.

USHJA hasn't waited to be told anything. They seem to be aggressively seeking the role, while NHJA seems rather passive. I'm not sure I'm comfortable which either approach and I do hope that USEF (er, or whatever the name is now) will hurry the heck up and spell out how this issue will be handled. It's not fair to the people working hard in either organization.

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com/Sportponies_Unlimited_stallions.html

Coreene
Mar. 8, 2004, 09:17 AM
Amen, wty.

Katie
Mar. 8, 2004, 03:28 PM
From everything I read and hear, I think the USHJA is well-prepared to take on the task of our national affiliate. I trust Bill Moroney and everyone on his team to make the horse shows a better place for riders, trainers, owners, and ESPECIALLY the horses.

The reason I would not choose the NHJA is that I don't feel comfortable with someone who has to 'see' the application before applying. They seem to want the USEF to spell out the problems before they address them. This doesn't make me feel confident that they'd be proactive in the role of affiliate, only reactive to problems people bring to their attention.

Bill Moroney seems to have his finger on the pulse of what the horse show world needs. He's also a very hard-working trainer who wants to give back to the industry. On top of that, he's not an A show snob, even though he has some of the best horses in the country in his care.

lauriep
Mar. 8, 2004, 09:27 PM
Katie, after talking with him for about an hour yesterday, I have to second your assessment. Did you know that Gary Baker was actually involved in the initial stages of USHJA's planning, and then later elected to drop out? So, despite what we have been told on this subject, the NHJA knew full well where USHJA was headed, and just didn't match them in presentation. Bill seems to be very forward thinking, has a plan that is truly trying to be inclusive, and perhaps what this sport needs is a shot in the arm of some new, eager, progressive ideas. I am impressed...

Laurie

Katie
Mar. 8, 2004, 10:16 PM
I didn't know Gary was involved with the USHJA. And you're right about Bill; he seems to be concerned about the future of our sport, not just about the present. I think we need a guy like him at the helm of the national affiliate.

Doubleeez
Mar. 9, 2004, 09:00 AM
Katie -
"Seeing" the application before applying is not quite what NHJA is looking for. There has to be a set of criteria by which the National Affiliate must operate. That is what NHJA wants to see before applying. Suppose the Federation requires an exhorbitant amount of expense to meet their criteria and the applicant does not feel they can comply. Then what do we do? Would there be a time limit for the applicant to raise the necessary funds? At this point these are questions the applicants need answered.
It is hard to understand how USHJA can apply for the position of National Affiliate without knowing what will be expected of them - or do they alone have those answers?

Portia
Mar. 9, 2004, 09:43 AM
I think the point Katie and Lauriep are making, with which I agree, is that the NHJA is not making any friends by sitting around waiting to be told what the USEF is going to require rather than moving forward proactively to make itself an attractive candidate to serve as the affiliate.

Nothing the USHJF has done or has planned takes any "insider knowledge" about what the USEF may require for the affiliate. What they've done is what any good B-school grad knows is necessary for any well run start-up organization, whether for profit or non-profit. They've assessed interest and need, solicited support, addressed the legal necessities of forming a new org, and they've done a realistic business plan complete with financing goals and sources.

Instead of waiting to be told what technically may be required to become the affiliate, they have evaluated the industry and assessed apparent needs and resources, and ways to fill those needs. They've looked at other affiliate orgs and studied how they operate and what works and doesn't work in their operations.

The only truly unusual thing I've seen in the USHJA is how businesslike, well organized, and well planned it has been. Let's face it, in the horse show world, something being planned and treated as a real business from its inception is a rarity.

Doubleeez
Mar. 9, 2004, 10:01 AM
Portia -
I don't think, as a lawyer, that you would consider taking on a case without knowing what would be expected of you. NHJA simply wants to know what they will be responsible for if chosen at the National Affiliate.
And as for "business like" performances in the sport - look at how RMI, HITS, The Classic Company, Stadium Jumping and the like have given us a better showing world.

Portia
Mar. 9, 2004, 10:18 AM
If NHJA wants to sit back and wait until it is told exactly what will be required of an affiliate before it does any of the basic planning and formation activities, that's fine. Every group has its own ideas of the best way to proceed, and some like to take a very conservative "wait and see" approach.

However, any group that takes that approach and does not even do the basics of organization and planning should not be surprised if another org that was proactive about planning and organizing is in a better position to fill the requirements of the affiliate when the time comes.

I, for one, will not be terribly sympathetic to NHJA or any other group if they complain that they were not ready to proceed and need more time to get themselves formed properly, do a business plan, come up with financing plans, etc. Any group that is serious about wanting to become the affiliate can do all of that in advance and still leave plenty of flexibility to adapt to meet whatever the specific requirements to become the affiliate may be, just as USHJA has done.

Doubleeez
Mar. 9, 2004, 10:37 AM
NHJA did all that 15 years ago. How do you think we have been able to exist all this time?
Certainly not by "sitting back and waiting to see what would happen"
We waded through five years of the Council and whether we are chosen or not, will continue to support our aims and goals for the future of the hunter and national jumper community.

Snowbird
Mar. 9, 2004, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Nothing the USHJF has done or has planned takes any "insider knowledge" about what the USEF may require for the affiliate. What they've done is what any good B-school grad knows is necessary for any well run start-up organization, whether for profit or non-profit. They've assessed interest and need, solicited support, addressed the legal necessities of forming a new org, and they've done a realistic business plan complete with financing goals and sources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference is that NHJA has been for 15 years a members association lobbying for the interests of the Hunters and Jumpers and they were totally unaware there was an impending need for a Recognized National Affiliate as under Section 2 of the By-Laws. The USEF has not yet posted their criteria as to what they expect of such an affiliate as one which replaces the National Hunter Committee as stated in the By-Laws. The USEF has not yet even resolved if it is possible to represent the lower level Jumpers since Jumpers is an International Disciple and any association is supposed to go from grassroots to the top how will the jumpers fit in without USHJA being the FEI Jumper Affiliate.

What was "Insider Trading" and a "Conflict of Interest" was the possibility that this was the Association which would be mandatory for us to join and would have complete control over all the hunter Shows and Divisions.

If USHJA were just organizing another Hunter Association which would affiliate under Section 3 of the By-Laws there's no problem at all and time would tell how it worked out because membership would be voluntary as it has been in the NHJA. No one was aware that we were inventing a new NHJC which had just been deposed because it lacked accountability to the Members and the Federation.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Katie, after talking with him for about an hour yesterday, I have to second your assessment. Did you know that Gary Baker was actually involved in the initial stages of USHJA's planning, and then later elected to drop out? So, despite what we have been told on this subject, the NHJA knew full well where USHJA was headed, and just didn't match them in presentation. Bill seems to be very forward thinking, has a plan that is truly trying to be inclusive, and perhaps what this sport needs is a shot in the arm of some new, eager, progressive ideas. I am impressed...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the initial stages Gary invited them all to join the NHJA but at the time there was no understanding that this was for "THE" association. It was rather just another hunter affiliated association as NHJA has been for 15 years.

When the first email came out it was quite a surprise to everyone and in addition there is still not available an application. Tom Struzzeri inquired also because he was interested in the prospect for his association.

NHJA has held its Annual Meeting in conjunction with the AHSA/USAE/USEF for 15 years as an affiliate under section 3. They were always granted an hour on the schedule. It was with great surprise that we all learned that USHJA had 3 hours and then added another two hours because of the conflict with the Competition Management Forum.

NHJA already had it's Board of Directors and it's membership and its By-Laws so there was nothing new or exciting to present. When we all became aware past the 11th hour that USHJA was not just another affiliate but seeking to control the entire hunter discipline it was too late to prepare anything realistic especially since not even the USEF has any idea of what duties they intend to relinquish to such an Afffiliate.

Mr. Moroney is quoted in the Horse Of Delaware Valley as proposing to take over responsibilities from the USEF to the extent that their staff would be reduced and then hiring them as employees of USHJA, he also is quoted as saying that the USHJA will lease space in the offices of the USEF. None of this has been before the Board of Directors of USEF none of this has been defined or analyized and there is nothing in his format that permits or even offers accountability for financial affairs and operation affairs to the USEF or the Members.

The Board of Directors of the USEF has not yet been heard, there have not been any decisions or debate on the issue with the Board of Directors.

The Working Group for National Affiliates is pending because the draft that they received for criteria had to do with General Affiliates and not with one that is to replace an existing National Committee that currently acts as the Affiliate but under the supervision of the USEF to make sure that all members are treated fairly and equally in the best interests of the purpose of the Federation. Certainly,since Gary Baker is a Director he would have then known what the specifications were and could have prepared a proposal for the Annual Meeting. This Working Group is waiting to be advised by the USEF of its decisions.

I can assure you that within the next weeks you will have the proposal from NHJA that is a totally representative and democratic association based on the structure of the Zones and for the benefit of the existing 26,000 dues paying members of the USEF who have chosen Hunter as their primary discipline. The only delay is waiting for the approval of the legal staff to make sure it can all be properly implemented as an Educational Not-For-Profit.

Battle Scarred Veteran

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Mar. 09, 2004 at 01:27 PM.]

portrock
Mar. 9, 2004, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doubleeez:
NHJA simply wants to know what they will be responsible for if chosen at the National Affiliate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They can always look what USDF is doing and use it as preliminary guidelines. USDF might not be perfect, but at least in dressage there is no vacuum waiting to be filled.

Doubleeez
Mar. 9, 2004, 12:34 PM
And who would we contact to find out what USDF is doing and what set of criteria they are working under with the Federation?

Portia
Mar. 9, 2004, 12:46 PM
If the NJHA did all that 15 years ago, then you can answer some of the questions posted above, regarding NJHA's incorporation, bylaws, financing, staffing, offices, and so on. What is the NHJA's status with respect to those matters?

Doubleeez
Mar. 9, 2004, 01:39 PM
NHJA had no need for incorporation when it was first organized. Since that time it has become incorporated in the State of New Jersey and is currently requesting a 501(c)(3) non-profit status with the IRS.

With the advent of the possibility of becoming the National Affiliate, the By-laws are being revised to incorporate a larger number of Board members so that representation will include the grass roots up through the Olympic rider. NHJA has always been financed by volunteer membership at a very minimal fee. Staffing has been volunteer with many of us feeling that this is our sport and we should give something back to it for what it has given us. We have looked for ways to help the membership with whatever their questions might be from a kid asksing, "How can I be a famous jumper rider" to "I've just moved to "X" and would like to know what "A" show trainers are in the area". In our annual survey we ask the members about upcoming rule change proposals and then take their wishes forward to the annual meeting on these subjects."
Again, if we knew what the Federation criteria will be we could develop a financial plan that would encompass their requirements and make a decision whether mandatory membership would be necessary for the Affiliate members to show in recognized competitions. If we also knew just what operations would be continued by the Federation and what the Affiliate would be expected to handle, we could better develop a more specific financial plan.

Erin
Mar. 9, 2004, 02:12 PM
http://www.usdf.org

Their website is pretty thorough... if you can't find answers to your questions there, I'm sure you can find a staff listing and can perhaps figure out who'd be able to give you more info.

Doubleeez
Mar. 9, 2004, 02:19 PM
Thanks Erin - That's quite a staff. Hopefully I can find criteria answers there.

Moonriver
Mar. 9, 2004, 05:08 PM
I admit to being ignorant about this subject but wasn't life simpler when we were AHSA? And does anyone remember why the changes?

swansong
Mar. 9, 2004, 05:18 PM
Is it my imagination or does Snowbird always have an ax to grind with whomever doesn't do things exactly her way. Everytime I see her name on here it is with long winded attacks on someone who is trying to improve the sport and not cut corners.

Snowbird
Mar. 9, 2004, 05:40 PM
Well only if there are rules to be enforced and for a level playing field for everyone equally. Rather than break or ignore the rules I think they should be changed.

However, my last post was simply an explanation. I do try to help people stay informed with all sides of the issues. And, I try to respond to questions, just as I have yours.

I'm so sorry if that disturbs your peace and tranquility but then no one can please everyone all the time.

Yes! life was a lot more simple and then we had to comply with the Ted Stevens Amateur Athlete Act because the AHSA was the NGB. In order to comply there were a lot of changes including the name to USA Equestrian Federation. Then we had the merger and became US Equestrian Federation lost an A in the process.

Now life is not so simple any more.

Battle Scarred Veteran

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Mar. 09, 2004 at 07:48 PM.]

Katie
Mar. 9, 2004, 07:03 PM
I think Swansong is right. I'm exhausted from all the run-on sentences...

Snowbird
Mar. 9, 2004, 08:26 PM
I'm sorry Katie if my sentences are too convoluted and they make you tired.

I really don't mean to bring discomfort to anyone. You will have to forgive me. If after all this time I am passionate in the defense of democracy and representation. I care so much that we maintain what we have already won and don't give it away easily.

There now, is that less painful I divided my sentence into parts for you but not the facts they are the same.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Saddlebag
Mar. 9, 2004, 09:25 PM
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif I think we should all congratulate Snowbird for her ability to combine her many warnings that the USHJA and the leadership of the USEF are in cahoots on a variety of insidious schemes aimed at squashing the hopes and dreams of anyone who is new to the sport or void of an endless bankroll andher role as Chicken Little, rushing to warn her compadres that the sky is indeed falling in.

Ah-HA See. I can write a long convoluted sentence too,!! Neener-Neener

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

Portia
Mar. 10, 2004, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moonriver:
I admit to being ignorant about this subject but wasn't life simpler when we were AHSA? And does anyone remember why the changes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The big changes have primarily been required to allow AHSA/USA Eq and now the new org, USEF, to comply with the requirements of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act regarding National Governing Body status. While the Sports Act has been around for a long time, its precise implementation with respect to the equestrian NGB was largely ignored, until the USET began to chafe at the oversight of its activities by the AHSA. Then it gets really complicated. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But, with respect to H/J, there has always been the issue that every other discipline and breed has its own separate governance organization, like USDF, USEA, AMHA, AHA, etc., while H/J has not -- mainly because AHSA was started way back when by a group of H/J show managers, and then expanded beyond H/J to cover the other areas.

As the role of the AHSA grew and became more complicated, it became apparent that a disproportionate amount of the AHSA resources were going to perform the functions for H/J that the affiliate orgs were performing for the other breeds and disciplines. Rather than being either strictly an umbrella org or strictly a dedicated discipline org, it was doing both, and in the process making the other breed and discipline people feel like they were not getting a fair voice or share of the resources. So, AHSA decided several years ago, before the USET dispute, to try to deal with the problem.

So, they created the National Hunter Jumper Council as an arm of the AHSA that would assume the governance of H/J and eventually, hopefully, spin-off to be an affiliate like the other orgs. That didn't work for a variety of reasons, as explained by Linda Allen in a very good recent article in the COTH.

Then the USET dispute arose, with its focus on the Sports Act and the requirements for being NGB. In resolving that, another problem became apparent because because the international FEI disciplines have to be dealt with separately from the national non-FEI disciplines, which splits the jumpers from the hunters. Again, that gets very complicated, but legally, organizationally, and operationally it just doesn't work anymore to lump hunters in with jumpers for all purposes.

So, with USEF taking over as the new NGB, combining the strengths of the AHSA/USA Eq and of the USET, the new organization decided that now is the right time to find a separate organization that can act as the affiliate for hunters and jumpers and provide specific, dedicated services to those two areas the same way USDF does for dressage or USEF does for eventing, and let USEF concentrate on its role as an umbrella org.

As I understand it, the need for a separate H/J affiliate has been part of the planning of hte USEF since the time of or shortly after the initial agreement between USA Eq and USET in early 2003.

Snowbird
Mar. 10, 2004, 01:26 PM
Well Saddlebag, I hope you enjoyed the exercise. I found your sentence well written and easy to comprehend even if the meaning was a misinterpretation.

Chicken Little imagined the sky was falling down but Merlin took action so that the sky wouldn't fall down. If the sky had been falling down I think its a friend that would warn others to take cover so they weren't buried under the falling down sky and thank Merlin for holding off a catastrophe.

In any case ignoring the problem will not make it go away because that is the story of the Ostrich who thought because his head was in the sand he was safe. I on the otherhand think of myself as the little red engine that said "I think I can, I think I can" and that even might be able to stop the sky from falling down.

Battle Scarred Veteran

lauriep
Mar. 10, 2004, 01:54 PM
I hardly think that the possibility of USHJA being the H/J affiliate is a "catastrophe" or equivalent to the sky falling. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Laurie

Moonriver
Mar. 10, 2004, 03:04 PM
Can anyone tell me what I actually receive for my (many years) membership $$ ?(Besides being allowed to show rated?) There must be many benefits/ opportunities that I just am not aware of...... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

pwynnnorman
Mar. 10, 2004, 04:16 PM
Ummm...excuse me for asking, but...

"The only truly unusual thing I've seen in the USHJA is how businesslike, well organized, and well planned it has been."

VS

"NHJA has always been financed by volunteer membership at a very minimal fee. Staffing has been volunteer with many of us feeling that this is our sport and we should give something back to it for what it has given us."

...these two statements DO make me wonder...

Where IS the money coming from?

I, too, am impressed by USHJA's proactive promotion and disappointed by NHJA's, but, well, some things come very easy if they are being bankrolled...and what is/might be the cost of that bankroll?

Now, don't get me wrong: the result of solid, financial support from somewhere from the get-go might be outrageously beneficial. Like USDF which was initially bankrolled by a few, very caring individuals.

But, well, my perspective about this is the same as it is about showing these days: money talks...and it often has a very loud voice.

But is it fair that just because it's the most noticeable voice in the room that it is the only one that should be heard? I'm not saying that I'm for or against either organization, but I do have a problem if yet again the playing field isn't level. I think that may be behind at least a little of what Doubleez and Snowbird are referring to.

Anyone know about the financial angle of EITHER organization? What percent of their current operating budgets are member supported? What are their other sources of income? How have they or will they finance efforts to "get the word out" about their ideas to enlist popular support (or whoever's support, which isn't clear yet, matters in the decisionmaking)?

Other issues aside, I'd feel happier being able to follow the money, given the history of other issues in this industry.

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com/Sportponies_Unlimited_stallions.html

Ponybreath2
Mar. 10, 2004, 04:48 PM
I am always interested in snowbird's posts. I mostly don't agree with most, and I do agree with plenty. Snowbird is a voice that has been in our industry a long time. I can not tell you that she doesn't have intelligent input. You may agree, you may not agree. But all the input we get is so fortunate. When our industry is in trouble(which I believe it is...) we need to hear from all parties and not make judgements. Take what people supply you and process it make what is relevant for you your own. Leave on the table what doesn't work for you. Best to all without personal agenda.

Katie
Mar. 10, 2004, 07:46 PM
I'm curious, when did it cost money to be businesslike, organized and well-prepared? Just because the USHJA is thoughtful and proactive doesn't mean someone is bankrolling them.

Another question, what has the USHJA done so far to actually require large amounts of money? I didn't get to see their presentation, but the fees are nominal for computer, fax, email, and copier services...

CBoylen
Mar. 10, 2004, 07:56 PM
So, did anyone go to the open USHJA meeting today? I had houseguests and couldn't attend, although I would liked to have done so.
Speaking of well planned, it was quite well advertised and everyone was encouraged to attend. I haven't seen any similar action from any opposing factions.

http://community.webshots.com/user/anallie

Snowbird
Mar. 10, 2004, 09:30 PM
Well actually it is very expensive to print a bound book maybe 30 pages leather back, brochures in three colors, baseball caps, a PowerPoint presentation with projector operator and manager of the lap top with the power point programimg. The use of hotel rooms for 5 hours all of that is not cheap. People to go from Zone to Zone and hold wine and cheese parties and make presentations even with free labor the expenses can be very high.

That's a big investment for an association that started with no members one month ago and has people joining and the members paying that don't really know what the program is and how it's going to affect them.

Well! Why haven't you heard from the other sides. And there can be more than just NHJA that are qualified and interested. But there is no application there are no specifications there is no job description so no one else was prepared to apply for the job. There was no warning or announcement that the USEF was going to take public bids for the the position of National Hunter Affiliate.

We were all blindsided with a sucker punch and a surprise email program that appeared to be sponosred by the USEF.

Yes! it's true there has been conversation that there needed to be a National Hunter Association for years and years. But, since the merged associations had not yet even had their first meeting, since the National Hunter Committee had only had one meeting, and the new Federation was still in a shake down stage and no one had mentioned any such plans except if someone had inside information how could any other association be prepared.

Since the NHJC had just been disbanded since there were no announcements no emails no news of any kind the entire discipline was caught off guard by an announcement that this new Association void of any any members, experience or affiliates had been organized by invitation at a meeting in Newark was applying for the position we didn't even know was open.

When NHJA got to the Annual Meeting they had their annual Election and Meeting, they had an operating procedure and have been affiliated for 15 years. There was nothing that was new because they didn't know it was necessary. They requested an application and were told there was no application, there were no specifications and it was a pending discussion.

The By-Laws of the National Hunter committee which acts as the Affiliate Association had been revised to change all the Election Procedures for all the Zones. The Zones ARE the Hunter Discipline.

NOW and ONLY NOW is it apparent that the Board of Directors will consider the criteria for the selection of a National Hunter Affiliate.

Within the next weeks the NHJA while it is waiting to hear what the USEF will expect from an Affiliate Association will publish for your information its plans and programs and organizational structure.

Bill Moroney meanwhile is talking about leasing office space in the Kentucky Offices and hiring the employees who will be laid off because the USEF won't have to do anything for the hunters any more. Now either he has information the rest of us don't have or he's wrong and that's not what's going to happen.

The NHJA has reorganized from a volunteer based Lobby Association as a 501(c3) corporation in order to apply. The By-laws will be available during the next weeks. They propose what we all have asked for: a Democratic Representative Association where the 26,000 members of the Zones will have a voice and a vote.

Once that is done and in a logical fashion the USEF will announce its criteria for and Association with checks and balances and accountability to all the members who already belong then we can compare the programs offered by everyone who may be interested and I doubt that will be limited to these two associations.

Each will make it's bid for the opportunity and will be under the control and accountable to the USEF. The Federation has already had one negative experience with the very expensive NHJC, I cannot imagine they would be so foolish as to rush into another decision without full consideration of the ramifications by the entire Board of Directors and the Corporate Legal Staff.

SO the USEF Federation will determine the criteria, they will publish that criteria and they make available the information to all interested parties and then hopefully pick the one which is most likely to protect the interests of all the members.

The USHJA, or the NHJA or some other not known group as of now will all have the opportunity to prove they conform with the requirements and are the best suited and most dependable. Will the Hunters Members have a vote on the decision? That's an open question?

Battle Scarred Veteran

Snowbird
Mar. 10, 2004, 10:05 PM
The USHJA can be a very valuable National Hunter Association, it can affiliate under Section 3 of the By-Laws as has the NHJA and many other associations. This is not and should not be an US against THEM argument.

This is not an either or situation both associations have a purpose and method of operation; and which is better will be determined when the USEF Federation decides on the job description..

Meanwhile the USEF will in its wisdom determine the criteria and decide when and IF they have an Association that is suitable under Section 2 of the By-Laws.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Katie
Mar. 10, 2004, 11:20 PM
But Snowbird, YOU are the one who have made this an US against THEM argument.

Several of us on this BB have said that we aren't concerned with the actual group chosen, only that they consider our perspective as exhibitors. Whether it's Gary or Bill makes no difference, we just want the programs/membership to be worth something to us.

The group that currently appears to stand for the exhibitors is the USHJA (of course, I'm only considering what I want in an affiliate and this is my opinion).

Janet
Mar. 10, 2004, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But, with respect to H/J, there has always been the issue that every other discipline and breed has its own separate governance organization, like USDF, USEA, AMHA, AHA, etc., while H/J has not <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And Western.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Janet
Mar. 10, 2004, 11:36 PM
If you are looking at how other affiliates work, you could check out USEA, at www.eventingusa.com (http://www.eventingusa.com)

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

pwynnnorman
Mar. 11, 2004, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Well actually it is very expensive to print a bound book maybe 30 pages leather back, brochures in three colors, baseball caps, a PowerPoint presentation with projector operator and manager of the lap top with the power point programimg. The use of hotel rooms for 5 hours all of that is not cheap. People to go from Zone to Zone and hold wine and cheese parties and make presentations even with free labor the expenses can be very high. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SOOO????

Who is footing the bill? Who WILL foot the bill? Come ON, folks! Do you really think this aspect should be ignored--with respect to ANY organization presenting itself in this process?

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com/Sportponies_Unlimited_stallions.html

Snowbird
Mar. 11, 2004, 08:44 AM
Thank you Pwynn, I have been asking since the beginning if the USEF was compensated for the time of its staff and the use of facilities. The only answer was that that were private donations.

Any association which intends to represent a whole discipline I think should be prepared to be financially accountable. There were no financial reports at the Meetings. As to even what they had spent or where the money came from.

Like you after our experience with the NHJC I am most aware of the impact of "special interests". I looked at their paper work and see nothing where they intend to keep the members or the USEF informed of their income and expenses.

I'm sure you remember as I do that it took us 3 years to get the information from NHJC and then we found out about the huge administrative over rides that were being doled out.

Thank you Janet, I will look at that site and see what I can learn. The big question that doesn't see to have an answer is who and how is the USEF Discipline Committee selected and what exactly are their responsibilities. That would appear to me to be a critical link.

I also wonder about the conflict between the Jumpers which require an FEI Affiliate Association and how that would tie into the non-FEI Hunter Association. Would the Affiliate have to be both? Would they sit on both Working groups?

It is at least a preception that the same person could have a seat on the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee and then both Working Groups. This may just be a glitch in the system that needs to addressed.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Portia
Mar. 11, 2004, 08:59 AM
I'm not sure where Snowbird gets the idea of a "bound book" with a "leather back." I have it in front of me, and it's your pretty typical black and white print, clear plastic front, blue textured plastic back, spiral-bound, notebook. Yes, they also had brochures and baseball caps.

Where did the initial money come from? I certainly don't know exactly, other than what they report in their materials. My understanding from what they said at the introductory meeting and from what I've been told by someone who is on their board is that the initial founders all donated to get it started, people donated services and resources, and they have had a very good response in both individual memberships and group affiliations.

They have a founding member program whereby anyone can join as a founding/life member for $1000. I don't remember the exact number they announced as of the time of the meeting in January, but if I recall correctly, it was 30+ at that point, so those memberships generate a lot of quick seed cash. (Bob Bell sent out an e-mail a few days ago to his Classic Company mailing list saying he had just joined as a life/founding member for $1000 and encouraged others to join as individual or life members.)

I believe that many of the services, such as the preparation and filing of the incorporation and bylaw documents, were donated by a woman in the group who is a corporate lawyer -- Marianne Kutner, I believe. When those otherwise expensive legal services are donated, that's a huge savings.

As for who will foot the bill in the future, they have their financing projections set out in their planning materials, which I think are all posted on their website.

USHJA (http://www.ushja.org/)

Portia
Mar. 11, 2004, 09:08 AM
On the issue of the distinction between the international jumper discipline governance and the national hunter discipline governance, Linda Allen prepared a proposal for how it might work, which the USHJA included as a separate handout in the materials they presented in January. It provides for a hunters and eqquitation division, and for a jumper division in the USHJA governance, with different committees and working groups, and designated board representation. I don't know whether that plan is on the USHJA webisite or not, but it's well thought out.

Snowbird
Mar. 11, 2004, 09:12 AM
Thank you Portia, the blue textured back is what I referred to that looked like leather with the particular texture. Having been in volved in founding programs I have some idea how expensive it can be and I think that is our question who donated what and how much for a public corporation is something I think we should know as well as what was spent on what and paid to whom are questions that have been raised for years because of accountability.

For example do you know if the USEF was reimbursed for the time spent by Sue Pinckney who is on the USEF payroll for the Powerpoint Presentation and the use of the rooms for 5 hours? Or do you know if the USEF was reimbursed for the email services. In working on another committee I was told it was very expensive for them send out emails and so it wasn't available for our USEF committee.

I know for our annual dinner it is very expensive to rent their equipment for projectors screens etc. and I wondered if the IT people of USEF were involved.

I would surely like to know that since we are working on a presentation for the NHJA and would like to use those services if they are at no charge to the Associations that wish to make a presentation. It would be a lot more professional than me dragging my projecter and laptop to Kentucky.
Battle Scarred Veteran

Portia
Mar. 11, 2004, 09:18 AM
I don't know Snowbird. Why don't you ask them those questions?

Snowbird
Mar. 11, 2004, 09:24 AM
I remember catching a glimpse of that but I also had several conversations with Linda and she was very concerned about splitting the lower level jumpers away from the Jumper Committee. I certainly can't speak for Linda but my perception was that she was not very certain that would not be considered a delegation by the Jumper Discipline as it pertains to the Ted Stevens rules. I perceived that she would prefer the original proposal.

To date I have found no clarification and the only information was that there could be two people from the Regional Committee of the jumpers to coordinate with Zone Programs.

I do wonder as she stated whether it wouldn't be wiser to leave the the Jumper committee to make jumper Rules and not have hunter people making jumpers rules. I did not come home with a clear answer from any of the meetings. I believe that linda felt if there had to be a compromise her suggestion might be a way to do it but it was not her first choice.

Battle Scarred Veteran

pwynnnorman
Mar. 11, 2004, 09:25 AM
...And NHJA?

Look, I do want to make something clear. Snowbird and I have worked together, that's true, but I don't want anyone to misconstrue why I am asking the money question.

It ISN'T just about "influence." It CAN also be about simple fairness. I think it's great that USHJA is an organization already so well-connected and supported that it has gotten off to a running start...

BUT DOES THAT MAKE IT ANY MORE QUALIFIED THAN NHJA?

Maybe it does, but as someone who has frequently whined about how "it takes more money than talent" to succeed in our industry, I can't help but being honestly unhappy about what MAY occur just because one group had the funding to get a head start.

That has nothing to do with the merits of either groups' proposals. It has to do with the process.

So often in the past "the process" has been subordinated to "it's not what you know, it's who you know." One of the reasons why, IMO, the committee structure of the old AHSA really didn't work in terms of representing the membership as well as the vested interests was for that specific reason.

I am one person who doesn't want to see this issue come down to "it's not what you propose, it's who is proposing." I'm NOT saying that that IS what is occurring...but until and unless the criteria are set forth and ALL groups interested in presenting a proposal are allowed to do so and treated the same, regardless of ANY early PR, it's just not fair for anyone--especially the media--to take sides.

Does that make sense to anyone besides me?

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com/Sportponies_Unlimited_stallions.html

Snowbird
Mar. 11, 2004, 09:30 AM
I wish Portia it was that simple, I have asked several people from both sides of the fence and so far I haven't had an answer which is why I thought to ask you.

Battle Scarred Veteran

PineTreeFarm
Mar. 11, 2004, 10:39 AM
On the issue of hunters/jumpers combined or separate I think the current arrangement has a few quirks.
For the childrens/adult jumpers the specs are set at the zone level. In order to get a vote on the zone level you must have selected Hunter on your USEF membership application.
If you select Jumper as your membership group you can vote in the Regional Jumper elections.
So if I select a membership group that has nothing to do with my current interest I get a vote at the zone level. If I select my real interest I can't help elect those who will be setting/making changes to the zone jumper rules.
Does anybody else think this is odd?
Does the USHJA have a position on this?
If would be helpful if someone from that organization would post on this topic.

lauriep
Mar. 11, 2004, 11:40 AM
Until they are actually named as the affilitate, I don't really think they have to account to anyone but their members for their finances. If they become the affiliate, then absolutely, the accountability becomes crucial. But if all the current members want to donate money or time to get it off the ground, who cares?

But, having seen how professional they are in attacking this, I am sure each penney is documented preparatory to being named the affiliate, should that happen.

Laurie

Snowbird
Mar. 11, 2004, 08:34 PM
Dear Lauriep I am posting this response just so you don't suffer the trauma of being a thread killer.

I think the idea that an association is not accountable for it's activities unless it becomes THE Affiliate in charge has left everyone speachless. All of us that remembers the experience of the NHJC knows that is not a valid or well considered response.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Katie
Mar. 11, 2004, 11:40 PM
Not speechless, but in agreement with LaurieP.

Snowbird, you say that you aren't involved with the NHJA except to host their website. Now you say that you're doing their presentations. Methinks you aren't being honest with us.

Erin
Mar. 12, 2004, 08:18 AM
So, lemme get this straight, Snowbird... you want to know where the USHJA's money is coming from, correct? Seems to me that, in the horse show world, 99 times out of 100 it comes from a small group of wealthy people (no shortage of those! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) who kindly pitch in to get the ball rolling. And from the sound of it, that's what USHJA is doing with their lifetime memberships. If you get 30 lifetime members to sign up, you've got $30,000 to work with... that's plenty to get something going.

So I would guess you want to know WHO those people are who have already pitched their money in? Okay then... two additional questions. Why do you want to know, and has anyone ASKED for and been DENIED that information?

Most org's publish the names of their lifetime members. USEF publishes them in Equestrian. I don't think it's usually a secret.

I would guess that the only reason someone would want to know who the "seed money" is coming from is because they worry that these people might have undue influence with USEF?

Well, I just took a look at the USHJA website, and the org is chock full of who's who in the horse world. Hardly a surprise... this world is tiny, everyone knows everyone. And it's the same with NHJC.

Honestly, despite your many posts on the subject, I have yet to figure out exactly what you're worried about. (And please, if you're going to try to explain, can you do so in 200 words or less? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

BTW, when Robby Johnson and Denny Emerson decided to do a sport horse breeding seminar at Rolex, they approached USEF. Folks at USEF provided organizational support, flew a couple of people over from England to be expert speakers, helped run the symposium, etc. And USEF is totally up front about the fact that anyone who wants to do something similar can approach them and ask for funding.

I guess I don't really see why it's so egregious that USHJA used a room at the convention for five hours. I'm sure it was paid for whether or not they used it. Same with the projector. Perhaps USHJA simply ASKED for the use of these things and the extra time, while NHJC did not?

KMZ
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:06 AM
Ok so now I have a question in regards to the other thread about Milage rules etc... Bill Moroney seems to be on that committee as well...does anyone think this could be a conflict of interest with his viaing for his new organization? Is this the same person? I'm so confused...

Portia
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:21 AM
It is the same Bill Moroney, but I'm not sure how it could be a conflict of interest on the mileage issue. That is an issue that will be decided strictly by USEF, not by the affiliate whoever it turns out to be, and it is unikely that the new H/J affiliate, whoever it is, would have the new org would have anyhing to do with competition sanctioning -- that goes through USEF, as with all the other disciplines.

Now, Snowbird and some others apparently think it is a conflict of interest that Bill Moroney is also on the USEF board of directors while trying to put together USHJA to apply to become the affiliate. But then, Gary Baker of the NHJA is also on the USEF board of directors, so if there is a conflict from that, they both have one. Obviously, neither of them will be allowed to vote on any issues regarding the selection of an affiliate, and with our sport that's about all you can do. Everyone on the USEF board from dressage, eventing, Morgans, Arabs, Connemaras, driving, etc., are also on the boards and/or are officers of their affiliate org.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Discussing concepts like fair play and decorum with certain marketing people is like discussing salad with your cat." Bruce Davis, Executive Director, Acadamy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences (Feb. 26, 2004)

KMZ
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:27 AM
Thanks, for the clarification. I wasn't sure if he ran horse shows as well as was on the boards or various groups. But Portia if you are comfortable with it, then that works for me.

Snowbird
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:40 AM
Yes! it is the same Bill Moroney who is on the Board of Directors of USEF, who is on the Executive Committee of USEF, who is on the Working Group for National Affiliates.

YES! I think that the information he may have had access to as a result of these postions gave him and advantage of insider knowledge about the thinking of the current Governance. I do not think this was and act of malice or corruption it probably just happened because Bill Moroney was there when the conversations were held.

Yes! I think that after he made the decision to start his own association of which he was president it would have been more ethical to recuse himself from discussions on the subject. I do think it is a conflict of interest and that it is not adequate to say yes, I have a conflict of interest but I'm an honest man so I don't need to recuse myself. For example at the meeting of the Working Group for National Affiliates Gary Baker offered to recuse himself but Bill Moproney did not and the Chairman did not request a vote to make a decision.

And they belong on the Boards, no one says that Bill Moroney is not a valuable and knowledgeable contributer to the Boards and Committees on which he functions. But, there is a perception of impropriety that should not be tolerated depending on the discussion.

When I was on the Zoning Board I was required to step down if I knew any party in an application or any attorney in an application. I was put on the Sire Stakes because I had no contact or activity having anything to do with Harness Racing.

I think on those other Boards if issues that pertain to the Association which they represent are being discussed they should recuse themselves because they cannot help but be influenced or influence others to their perspective.

I submitted my suggestions for a criteria to be used to select a Recognized Affiliate to the USEF. I sent a copy to both Gary Baker and Bill Moroney.

I have no vested interest in either association and my only interest is as it has been for the past five years an association where the Members have the right vote and the right to know and particpate in the dialog and planning.

The premise is very simple, if someone has a good idea and can successfully propose it they should have that right and a way to get that done. Will all 26,000 hunter people ever show up in one place at the same time no!

Battle Scarred Veteran

Snowbird
Mar. 12, 2004, 10:04 AM
Erin I apologize for the fact that I cannot say things in a brief and concise manner. I have a compulsion to amplify my reasons with logical deductions. Perhaps, it is a generation thing I was not educated with 30 second sound bites but rather lengthy reports. Perhaps its my lack of experience with writing skills as a reporter.

Those who prefer to correct my spelling or my grammar and writing style are free to do so, but I certainly would rather discuss ideas.

As to your direct question to me, it is no one's business what any private corporation does except the taxman.

BUT....when that Corporation intends to represent me and I will be mandated to give them my money then I believe I have the right to know if there is undo special interest funding or spending.

I believe USHJA as it proposes itself it is accountable to the members of USEF if it uses the assets of the USEF for it's overall individual benefit. I believe if it wants to be THE Recognized National Hunter Affiliate it is responsible to give us (as 26,000 members of USEF in the Hunter Zone Program)the information and to be accountable for it's actions and its financing. I agree with Pwynn if you want to evaluate a corporation follow the money.

If it is a private educational foundation no it does not need to tell me anything. If it is a private trust fund, no it doesn't need to tell me anything.

If it is a public corporation whose purpose is to manage the discipline on which my life depends then YES! it is required to be prepared to answer these questions. When I read in the Horse of Delaware Valley that the USHJA intends to employ some of the staff of the USEF, when I read that they plan to lease office space in Kentucky then I want to know how they will finance that and what it will cost and who will be being paid what amount of money for which jobs, and how the USHJA know which portions of responsibility they will be taking over from the USEF.

I think they need to tell us that too. What parts of what we pay to USEF for services will they be taking over? And, who will be supervising that work, and will it be even handed and fair to us little folks who don't make a ripple on the horse radarscope.

Battle Scarred Veteran

lauriep
Mar. 12, 2004, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
It is the same Bill Moroney, but I'm not sure how it could be a conflict of interest on the mileage issue. That is an issue that will be decided strictly by USEF, not by the affiliate whoever it turns out to be, and it is unikely that the new H/J affiliate, whoever it is, would have the new org would have anyhing to do with competition sanctioning -- that goes through USEF, as with all the other disciplines.

Now, Snowbird and some others apparently think it is a conflict of interest that Bill Moroney is also on the USEF board of directors while trying to put together USHJA to apply to become the affiliate. But then, Gary Baker of the NHJA is also on the USEF board of directors, so if there is a conflict from that, they both have one. Obviously, neither of them will be allowed to vote on any issues regarding the selection of an affiliate, and with our sport that's about all you can do. Everyone on the USEF board from dressage, eventing, Morgans, Arabs, Connemaras, driving, etc., are also on the boards and/or are officers of their affiliate org.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that would be because, as with every single organization I've been involved with, no matter how many "members" there are, there are only a precious few, a nucleus, that want to do the work. Many voices have complaints/ideas, but few actually want to get in and do it. So, the workers have to take many positions to get the work done. Not because they want to have undue influence, but just because that's the way it is!

Laurie

Erin
Mar. 12, 2004, 10:19 AM
Snowbird, you didn't answer my question.

Has anyone ASKED where USHJA's funding comes from, and been denied that information?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When I read in the Horse of Delaware Valley that the USHJA intends to employ some of the staff of the USEF, when I read that they plan to lease office space in Kentucky then I want to know how they will finance that and what it will cost and who will be being paid what amount of money for which jobs, and how the USHJA know which portions of responsibility they will be taking over from the USEF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I'm completely missing something here, but wouldn't all of this only become concern IF they are chosen as the affiliate? In which case, wouldn't the funding come from where every other org's funding comes from? Either from dues, or from USEF? (I'm assuming USEF pays for some stuff related to the workings of affiliates like USEA, USDF, etc., but maybe I'm wrong on that.) Why are you clamoring for accountability on things that haven't happened yet?

Portia
Mar. 12, 2004, 10:29 AM
KMZ, Bill Moroney is a trainer. He doesn't run horse shows.

Gary Baker is a licensed official (judge and steward). I'm not sure if he also runs horse shows or not.

Given the volunteer nature of the volunteer governance orgs, there are always going to be actual or perceived conflicts of interest. As Lauriep said, it is because you have a relatively limited pool of people who have the time, desire, energy, and commitment to become actively involved in volunteer governance. And, many people, such as show managers, licensed officials, breeders, etc., become involved because it is in their business interests to have a say in how things are run.

That is the situation with virtually every volunteer organization, and it is unavoidable. So, as I see it at least, the best we can do is to identify where potential conflicts may exist, provide for disclosure of actual or potential conflicts, and disqualify people who are directly and significantly impacted by a decision from voting on it.

KMZ
Mar. 12, 2004, 10:45 AM
Thanks again Portia, I am trying really hard to understand all of this as our local chapter of the PHA was asked to endorse this group, by another group. We are waiting for a bit before endorsing anyone, trying to understand which would be the best for the sport.

Portia
Mar. 12, 2004, 10:48 AM
Geez Snowbird -- stop acting like it's some huge, incredibly difficult to figure out mystery what the new affiliate's responsibilities might be and what might be required to operate it. It's not.

Any moderately intelligent individual who wants to study how the USEF operates, how the hunter and jumper worlds operate and what their needs may be, and then studies how the other affilliates operate, can figure out within a pretty reasonable range of possibilities what might be required of an affilliate. It does not have to be spelled out step by step and task by task before an organization can make plans.

Example -- The USDF just moved its headquarters to the Horse Park in Kentucky, next door to the USEF headquarters. USPC is there too, as is the Saddlebred headquarters, and some others are all there. Why? Because Kentucky likes horse businesses and makes it very attractive for them to establish themselves there -- Nice tax incentives, lovely environment, strong community support, free advertising, local government familiar with the needs of equine orgs and horse lovers. And then when you get a bunch of them together, you get the synergies of proximity. It is easier to conduct business if the group you're having to deal with most often is right next door.

Also example -- the new affiliate is going to be assuming some of the duties that have previously been performed by USEF staff, whatever those specific duties may ultimately turn out to be. So gosh, who might be good people to look at to fill in the staff for the new org? Hmmmm. Maybe the people with lots of experience in doing those things and who might be losing their jobs and looking for work? Gosh, who could that be?

That's basic business planning. Not some big mystery. Not some big conspiracy. I've got absolutely nothing to do with USHJA (other than I just sent them my $35 to join) and I'm not on the USEF board or on any of the H/J committees, and I can figure that out.

Frankly, the NHJA "we can't do anything until we're told what to do" line just convinces me they are not the group to try to become the affiliate. If they are so timid they can't begin to move to meet even the most obvious requirements for any affiliates -- like creating bylaws or planning to have offices and a staff -- then they are far too unimagninative and lacking drive to serve as any kind of govering body.

Snowbird
Mar. 12, 2004, 11:05 AM
Yes! Erin I have asked and had no response except in generalizations. i.e. we had some private funding. As to the participation of the USEF no response either.

Well Portia I think we can agree to disagree on this one. I happen to think that it is important to know what the USEF has in mind. I have heard temporary, trial period, and we're working on it. I have been told that no decision will be made until the Board of Directors determines the ground rules and financial responsibilities. As it stands now each Zone can go to the USEF for financing assistance with their projects and then they submit a complete financial report.

Since we are a part of the "little people" and very grassroots I am interested that we do not have another situation like the NHJC where we all jumped on board and then as time went on discovered the glitches.

I don't know about you, but I try to learn from my mistakes and I try very hard not to make the same mistakes over again. So this time I am asking the questions before the fact instead of after it's done.

Lauriep sounds just like the old Larry Langer when he said that none of us were interested or knowledgeable and should be grateful for all the effort put forward by that few who do all the work.

Well, I haven't changed my mind I think there are a lot of very knowledgeable people like you out there who deserve to be heard and who can contribute valuable ideas.

It may be that to you this is a simple situation, and I apologize for my density and lack of comprehension. While I can bow to your
legal expertise I hope you will be patient with my lack of such knowledge. All I can do is tell you what I think!

Battle Scarred Veteran

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Mar. 12, 2004 at 01:30 PM.]

Erin
Mar. 12, 2004, 12:00 PM
Snowbird, you know, the thinly-veiled swipes you like to take at lauriep and Portia are getting really old.

lauriep
Mar. 12, 2004, 12:55 PM
Not too thinly veiled when she calls me by name.

Look Snowbird, if you would EVER read my posts for comprehension, you would see that I did NOT say anything about ANYONE'S knowledge or ideas. What I said was that out of all these thousands of people who claim to be interested, it ultimately ALWAYS comes down to a dedicated few who do all the work, start to finish. And that is why we, as members of a small community, will ALWAYS have people serving on more than one committee, and perhaps be perceived as having a conflict of interest when that couldn't be further from the truth. This isn't unique to horses; it exists in ALL areas of volunteer involvement.

And I still maintain that none of these organizations owes you or me an explanation of their finanacing unless we are members, or until they are chosen as the affiliate! Why would they? They will need to provide a plan for funding going into the future as part of their application, but how they have survived until that point is of no consequence. If one of the rich owners said "Here, prepare your plan, buy some hats, make your case", and gives them a check, then leaves it at that, so what? Or, as has been said, if they are using the lifetime members dues as seed money, again, so what?

Never have I seen a post from you giving an individual, or an organization, a chance to do what it will without promises of doom. Personally, I would rather see you sit back and wait and say "I told you so" if your premonitions came true. Or better yet, I'll say it when MY conviction that they will do fine comes true.

Laurie

Duffy
Mar. 12, 2004, 01:01 PM
There are "Gary Baker" shows in this area - they literally are called that - most at the Cap Challenge venue (outside rings). I've been to one when there was a poodle show going on in the indoor - lots of fun for the entire family. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"B***h in training"

Janet
Mar. 12, 2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> (I'm assuming USEF pays for some stuff related to the workings of affiliates like USEA, USDF, etc., but maybe I'm wrong on that.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not that I know of.

In fact, I have been told that USEA PAYS USEF $75,000 per year (for enforcing the USEF rules at the "endorsed" but not "recognized" levels (BN, N, T)). As well, of course, as the various USEF fees that the organizers and competitors pay.

AFAIK, the USEF doesn't PAY the affiliates in any discipline.

The only thing you could possibly interpret that way, is a reduction in the discipline fee the members pay. I forget the numbers, but if you look just at the USEF discipline fee, eventers pay less than hunters. But if you look at the combination of the USEA and USEF dues that eventers pay, they pay more than the hunters.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Snowbird
Mar. 12, 2004, 05:52 PM
Well Lauriep I guess we just have to agree to disagree. But, might I point out that I do think a democratic association like the NHJA is capable. And, Portia is proof that there are people out there that would join in the chores if permitted. And, so am I and several others who have not be on committees before.

So, there you go there is someone I think can do it NHJA. Just not the one you think can do it. I'm sorry to disagree but I do believe in people and I do believe that those who have worked so hard for so long should be grateful for a little help from us unknowns. I think an inviting atmosphere might find a lot of undiscovered talent more than willing to pitch in and help.

So in truth I am not the pessimist but the optimist.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Erin
Mar. 12, 2004, 06:00 PM
No one said people were not "permitted" to be on committees.

It was stated that the pool of people who want to run associations and be on committees on a volunteer basis is small, which is why there are inherent conflicts of interest. It's a well-known problem with volunteer groups. Not just horse groups.

I think I'm basically just restating what lauriep said... her point seemed crystal clear to me, and Snowbird, to be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about.

wtywmn4
Mar. 12, 2004, 06:16 PM
Have to agree that when volunteers find out exactly the time involved, well you see alot of backward moving. That goes for the USEF committee's as well. Its time consumming. And most assurdly, not rewarding many times.

From my understanding, the USHJA or what ever it's name is, was trying very hard not to have show managers on the board. But in fact use them on ad hoc committees...In other words allowing a different track for the affiliate.

Snowbird, you know I have agreed with many of your points in the past, but me thinks you are doing more harm than good for the NHJA. One has to let this all run it's course. Banging the proverbial drum sometimes gives everyone a headache.

Katie
Mar. 12, 2004, 07:33 PM
Snowbird, are you aligning yourself with Gary's group because he'll protect your show dates?

DMK
Mar. 13, 2004, 09:23 AM
It's just a basic fact of business that you will have vendors try and anticipate the needs of potential clients. It happens every day. It's not a new idea, and it isn't a novel approach to business. If I had to issue an RFP for 100% of my resourced business, I wouldn't be part of an innovative, profitable industry leader. My company IS succesful because it looks at things outside the box and it works with affiliates who are equally innovative and are ALWAYS TRYING TO ANTICIPATE INDUSTRY TRENDS AND NEEDS. Ideally before we even realize it ourselves, because they are the experts in that subset of our larger business.

I am just marginally involved in this issue, and all I can say is you must have been under a rock or not terribly committed to the idea if you didn't:

* realize that there was going to be an h/j affiliate on the horizon VERY soon;

* have a complete, well documented organization and plan to address what you perceived to be the key issues affecting the industry;

* have a plan to assume affiliate status at the very least based on existing affiliate practices prepared and ready to go or be tweaked as necessary;

* have an strong idea that you would need to move VERY fast at the end of 2003 and be prepared to move fast...

Well all I can say is if someone else was already doing all that, then chances are you would be left looking a day late and a dollar short. Now the obvious next move a business-minded organization in that position would be to build off the hard work your competitor already built/invested in and try and improve on that model to see if, at the very least, you can sell your plan that way.

Yes! I'd be impressed if one could do that and still have time for dedicated whining.

Sometimes I think I understand everything, then I regain consciousness.

Erin
Mar. 13, 2004, 10:08 AM
Did someone let Marv Albert in on this thread? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif )

Portia
Mar. 13, 2004, 01:03 PM
Yes! (but with much better hair.) http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Snowbird
Mar. 13, 2004, 01:49 PM
I am supporting a procedure that would make it fair for anyone interested to be considered as the Hunter Affiliate. I think this is large country with a membership of 26,000 paid members in the Hunter Zones there might be more than one possibility or even two possibilites available.

No I have not been living under a mushroom, I have heard the subject mentioned and discussed for years. We have just finished an experiment for such that cost the Federation $500,000 a year and that money was not well spent. I would think we could take our time to get it right this time.

I do not know which side of the argument Gary would take, because I never asked him where he stood on the mileage rule or date approvals as they are or if they should be compromised.

Of the the two possibilities USHJA and NHJA I am in favor of the one which is the most democratic and representative of all the members because I have always believed that and worked hard for our right to know so we could as members be capable to make judgements instead of just receiving pronouncements of what is already done.

In the next few weeks you will see the plan of the NHJA and you can make your own evaluation.

I disagree with the concept that show managers should be excluded because I believe all groups of an industry or sport should be equally and fairly represented. I for one have fought long and hard because when they took away the right to vote from the shows and the Federation should have given that right to the members. Even though I know there are a minimum of 500 members for each show manager, I believe that was arbitrary and that the members should have the right to vote their choices.

I do not agree that the pool of interested and qualified people to manage the committees is small, or that the majority of the members would not be pleased to participate.

I believe that there is a huge pool of members in this Federation with a great deal of talent and experience in many fields and that they would be pleased to participate. I think the environment has been unhospitable for them to want to share their talents.

These have been my opinions, these are my opinions and I have no doubt these will be my opinions until I die. And if you don't agree with me so be it.

You are entitled to sing the same old songs as many times as you wish to take the same trail that has been already traveled.

I am entitled to continue to seek changes in favor of democracy and representation and my faith in people being better than they may have been in the past. I am entitled as well to seek new ways and new ideas for how to make it better and to believe that people will behave better in a democracy.

I am a show manager, that does not make me a second class citizen and does not entitle any organization that proposes to represent me to discriminate against me because I am also an exhibitor, an owner, a mother and a grandmother of exhibitors.

I am happy to participate in any dialog about ideas and if there is a reason why in this case democracy would not be better, I would be pleased to learn and I can adjust but I cannot believe that can ever be so.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Portia
Mar. 13, 2004, 02:58 PM
Looking at the USHJA governance flow charts and notes, show managers are in no way "excluded" from the organization.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"There are six advisory committees, each of which has a representative on the BOD. They are the Amateurs, Breeders, Riders, Owners, Trainers, and Show Manager Committees."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So show managers have a reserved seat on the board -- equal to all the other special interest groups.

The notes also say that "each committee will consist of 9-15 members," so that's 9-15 show managers on one committee.

Bob Bell sent out an e-mail last week saying he had joined as a life member, so I'm guessing he's not feeling too excluded, even though he is a show manager. Andrew Ellis is on the steering committee and on the board of directors, and he's a show manager, so I'm guessing he's not feeling too excluded either. Peter Pletcher is on the advisory committee, and he does put on at least two AA shows a year here in Houston, which makes him a show manager too. There may well be a few other show manager types in the org also.

From what I can see, show managers are well represented in the USHJA, and have a voice equal to all the other interest groups. They're just not given a louder voice than the other groups.

wtywmn4
Mar. 13, 2004, 04:20 PM
Thank you Portia. That diffinitely is a change to what I had been led to believe. But then again, that was many months ago. So, with the current notes, show managers will have their own committee. Then there will be other committees who also will have representation on the board. Interesting, where is the info on how this is being done? Posted on the web site?

Snowbird
Mar. 13, 2004, 08:57 PM
Thank you wtywmn4 I thought maybe I was getting senile early. That was also my understanding and I looked at the paperwork I brought home from LA and I couldn't find it there. But, maybe I just need new eyeglasses.

I remember a specific conversation and Andrew Ellis was the token show manager and I remember telling him that I didn't think he was to only honest show manager in the country. So I think that was the general understanding.

But then I don't mind someone admitting they made a mistake and changing it at all.

Battle Scarred Veteran

DMK
Mar. 14, 2004, 05:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Andrew Ellis was the token show manager and I remember telling him that I didn't think he was to only honest show manager in the country.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I, for one, am quite sure Andrew will sleep better tonight.

Sometimes I think I understand everything, then I regain consciousness.

Portia
Mar. 14, 2004, 11:31 AM
It was all set out in the materials passed out at the Annual Meeting at the USHJA introductory meeting, in the spiral-bound booklet.

The provisions dealing explicitly with the participation of show managers are set out in the outline of Organizational Structure and again in the section on Governance Heirarchy, in both the Flow Chart and explained in detail in the Governance Flow Chart Notes. It is also set out in the Bylaws under Article 302, Composition of the Board of Directors, and in Article 404, Advisory Committees.

All of these materials are also posted on the USHJA.org website.

Snowbird
Mar. 14, 2004, 09:55 PM
I guess Portia I got stuck at the point on the Flow Chart where the Breeders, Riders and Show Managers were on the bottom rung of a ladder that only led to an Advisory Committee and while that then got to the Board of Directors somehow on my Flow Chart the show managers just aren't even connected to anything; we were all there out talking to ourselves. Then I guess the Riders and Breeders aren't any better off, they're disconnected too. Do you think that was an accident or a Freudian slip of the pen?

You see Portia that's the real problem it seems that what was said and what was written just doesn't always match up. That's why I told Bill Moroney that his was the best of all possible worlds because it could be interpreted to be everything to everybody and then if it didn't fit they could always say it would change and evolve. Hey! how could anything that promises that much be wrong?

Battle Scarred Veteran

hjchik
Mar. 15, 2004, 05:32 AM
Billy Moroney was at the Swan Lake show promoting the USHJF yesterday and was doing a stellar job of it! He was really taking the time to talk to management and anyone who wanted to listen about what the group is about.

lauriep
Mar. 15, 2004, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:

You see Portia that's the real problem it seems that what was said and what was written just doesn't always match up. That's why I told Bill Moroney that his was the best of all possible worlds because it could be interpreted to be everything to everybody and then if it didn't fit they could always say it would change and evolve. Hey! how could anything that promises that much be wrong?

_Battle Scarred Veteran_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, I guess you are saying that NHJA will be absolutely rigid and not respond to members' needs and suggestions? They will stick completely to their written plan? Now THERE is a group I'd like to have representing me! (Note to Gary: I KNOW this isn't what you have planned, but you need a better salesman than Snowy).

ANY organization is going to have to be flexible and able to adapt as the organization goes forward. It is virtually impossible to address every single possible item of contention before you are even an operating entity. As situations come up, a truly representative org. will listen to suggestions and respond accordingly. It is forever an ongoing process.

Laurie

Portia
Mar. 15, 2004, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Snowbird:
I guess Portia I got stuck at the point on the Flow Chart where the Breeders, Riders and Show Managers were on the bottom rung of a ladder that only led to an Advisory Committee and while that then got to the Board of Directors somehow on my Flow Chart the show managers just aren't even connected to anything; we were all there out talking to ourselves. Then I guess the Riders and Breeders aren't any better off, they're disconnected too. Do you think that was an accident or a Freudian slip of the pen?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't see it that way at all, Snowbird. The fact that these groups are denominated as "advisory committees" does not change the fact that they have an equal voice and an equal vote, as set out quite clearly in the bylaws. "Advisory," in this context, was apparently used as a term of convenience to distinguish these groups (amateurs, owners, trainers, breeders, riders, and show managers) from the "discipline programs,"
"administration," and "human interest" divisions. The "advisory" groups are not excluded at all, but are instead expressly included.

Frankly, it looks like you're trying hard to find a way to continue to be able to criticize the USHJA on this point even though your accusation that show managers were excluded from their governance was clearly wrong.

pwynnnorman
Mar. 15, 2004, 09:19 AM
Wait a minute, folks...

This topic came up a page or so ago, but I can't let it go by:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> What I said was that out of all these thousands of people who claim to be interested, it ultimately ALWAYS comes down to a dedicated few who do all the work, start to finish. And that is why we, as members of a small community, will ALWAYS have people serving on more than one committee, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an ASSUMPTION, people. It is NOT a fact--and I can show you the research to illustrate that.

Enthusiastic people serve when they are encouraged and empowered to do so. Vested people serve when they have a stake in what is going on. If you want enthusiasts and not just the vested, the organization itself must invest in techniques/tools/tactics that identify and enable the enthusiastic.

Unfortunately, "the organization" means the leadership, but that leadership frequently doesn't itself have the time, energy and/or will to take this FACT of non-profit-dom to heart.

For example, the biggest stumbling block our industry has faced has been the nature of meetings--how expensive it is to meet face-to-face.

The CORPORATE world, in contrast to the non-profit/volunteer-based one, uses the most efficient techniques to get people working together...and not through guesswork, pet-projects or the other stumblings and bumblings of those with time on their hands or a business to protect.

USEF seems to have finally moved in that direction, thanks in part to, IMO, the efforts of Alan Balch and others to use telecommunications and other techniques. But there are still a heck of a lot of people around (on committees) who don't even check their email on a regular basis, much less know how to use search functions to do a little research before re-inventing the wheel. Some of them don't have the skill, others just don't have the time...but that's a PROBLEM with them and reason why other "types" perhaps should also populate committees.

Also, in the corporate world, it is easy to identify and solicit/enlist the input of those with the ability as well as the willingness to do specific jobs--there are records out there, after all. In the non-profit world, if the person doesn't come forward, the person isn't known...and without knowing what is going on, what is needed (specifically), people don't come forward.

So it becomes a vicious circle. Some of those perpetually on this or that committee are such because they are in the loop. It takes a LOT for an outsider to be assertive and get involved on his or her own...but ASK, specifically, and you'd be surprised at the result. Is that the outsider's fault (a lot of you will say, yeah, it is--but it's also the system's fault because as a result, a LOT of effective resources are never used).

Again, I know some attempts have been made in Equestrian magazine in the past, but the technique was off, primarily because the requests were not anywhere near specific enough about what was needed and because the only way the message was distributed was through the magazine.

And yet I'm sure the response to this post, as is always the response to "poor response" in volunteerism, will be "well, if you/they REALLY wanted to, you'd do this or that or whatever..."

Writing as someone who has had to do a heck of a lot of reading in this field (to teach classes in non-profit management and fundraising), I'm just trying to get you all to realize that a lot of your assumptions are only that: assumptions. They are not fact. If you are curious about what research has discovered about volunteerism, I'd be happy to provide you with citations.

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com/Sportponies_Unlimited_stallions.html

Snowbird
Mar. 15, 2004, 11:29 AM
OH! Ladies lighten up, this is not war and I am not the captain of the ship. Our fearless leaders are Bill Moroney and Gary Baker. Please don't put words in my mouth, I've been accused of too many words of my own as it is.

No! I didn't say NHJA was going to be rigid and immovable and that it would not evolve. I said it has the basic premise of democracy and representation and I believe Gary because he got that included by the National Hunter Committee for the coming zone elections from which we will all benefit.

I haven't even said that I have made a choice except that I believe in democracy and the basic intelligence and right of the average folks who pay the bills to participate in a meaningful way. If tommorrow Bill Moroney said he was in favor of democracy I would seriously consider the plan that included all us "little folks" instead of the "intellectual giants" currently running this industry.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, I guess you are saying that NHJA will be absolutely rigid and not respond to members' needs and suggestions? They will stick completely to their written plan? Now THERE is a group I'd like to have representing me! (Note to Gary: I KNOW this isn't what you have planned, but you need a better salesman than Snowy).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am a volunteer Lauriep Gary didn't have a choice, he's just stuck with me because of the democracy that he believes in and the fact that I believe he got a rotten deal and I've always defended the underdog who is an honorable gentleman.

Yep! democracy is hazardous because people like me who feel an obsessive compulsion for democracy are so passionate about their convictions that we just keep on running like the Energizer Bunny. I don't know if Gary would have preferred different allies and a different spokeman, but I do know that if there is one thing I'm really bad at its "salesmanship".On that we agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't see it that way at all, Snowbird. The fact that these groups are denominated as "advisory committees" does not change the fact that they have an equal voice and an equal vote, as set out quite clearly in the bylaws. "Advisory," in this context, was apparently used as a term of convenience to distinguish these groups (amateurs, owners, trainers, breeders, riders, and show managers) from the "discipline programs,"
"administration," and "human interest" divisions. The "advisory" groups are not excluded at all, but are instead expressly included.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Portia That is probably the most true statement in the world that "you don't see it that way". I have no doubt that's true but there is a reason you are a trained lawyer and can deal with things differently than I who was trained as an esoteric abstract philosopher and artist or visualizer interested in the overall and not the literal. So, we will always have a difficult time being on the same side of any topic.

You find it adequate that the primary interests of this industry are all lumped together in some ambiguous little slot on the chart disonnected from all the other little slots on the chart totally. Imagine All amateur, owners, trainers, breeders show managers and riders 28,000 of them are lumped together in an "Advisory" Committee that has no definition or apparent purpose in the governance. And, the only voters are the Board of Directors. Don't you find it at all odd that both "Advisory" and "Human Interest" are out in right wing and left wing all by themselves at all? Connected to nowhere like USEF Hunter Zones or planning, or any of the discipline progams which these "people" paying "members" support and operate. But, we haven't been forgotten we're there out in left field and right field and we can send our money, ideas on if we have any. But then you've all decided we don't have any ideas or talent or intelligence worth hearing. We do have our own little sandbox where we can play. Which is why we don't participate and need to let our "leaders" make all our decisions. That is autocracy and I really dislike autocracy, I don't dislike Bill Moroney or Andrew Ellis, I do dislike their plan for my participating in my industry.

Well put Pwynn this is where we all started 5 years ago. When Larry Langer shut down the NHJC BB because he didn't like what we were saying.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So it becomes a vicious circle. Some of those perpetually on this or that committee are such because they are in the loop. It takes a LOT for an outsider to be assertive and get involved on his or her own...but ASK, specifically, and you'd be surprised at the result. Is that the outsider's fault (a lot of you will say, yeah, it is--but it's also the system's fault because as a result, a LOT of effective resources are never used).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes! but democracy and representation is just so much extra effort. It takes a lot of time and patience to endure the questions and suggestions of all those "little folks" who are just needed for their money. The leaders are giving so much they should not have to be responsive to the members as well.

Show management has gotten a very bad rap. We at least give you something for your money and yet for the past 10 years every member has said well what do I get for my membership money if I don't even have a vote.

All I'm saying to any "undecided" just wait and see what other offers may be on the table by July. If this is still best plan then it will win without us attacking each other and playing this game of upsmanship.

Portia, LaurieP we are different, we have different experiences and education and we have a big difference in age and those are different generations so it is not surprising that we do not agree. But, instead of of being protagonists can't we agree to convince the undecided with logic and common sense in a debate of the issues?

Battle Scarred Veteran

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Mar. 15, 2004 at 01:41 PM.]