AMHA Litigation

This information has apparently been posted on the GoMorgans website and I assume it will be up on the AMHA website soon if not already present.

I read it through and would recommend anyone read it who is interested in having a solvent organization going forward. No one needs to be told how tough the economic times are and we are rapidly approaching the point where the cost of seemingly endless litigation could cripple the AMHA’s ability to function in a productive and necessary fashion.

I have no idea whether or not Marjorie Hazelwood and her associates have a solid case and evidence of wrongdoing. Like most matters of this type, there are likely areas which can be portrayed either way, depending upon your viewpoint. My point is not to argue one side or the other and certainly not to start an unpleasant discussion. Rather, it is to say that we all need a solvent, functioning breed registry and this is not, in my opinion, the right way to go about maintaining it. If a majority of the membership feels the current BOD and management team are lacking, then they should be voted out of the office and replaced. If more transparency is felt to be needed, the membership should make those demands through appropriate channels. If nothing else, people should attend BOD meetings and make their voices heard if they are unhappy with governance.

I would really encourage anyone interested to read this document in detail and then think for a few moments about the financial costs involved in complying with this just this first volley. This kind of destructive behavior within the organization has to stop or we are not going to have an organization at all.


Susan Overstreet

2 Responses to AMHA Litigation

  1. Fred Braden says:

    Over and above just reading it, I would encourage you to do something about it. Write to those who have engaged the suit or better, call them and give them an indication of how you feel.

    As unpleasant as they were the Snow and Ekstrom matters had a logic to them these later issues appear to be more about notoriety.

    Susan is right, regardless of your position on Marjorie’s “right to know” the end result is an organization that is ill equipped to serve the basic needs of the membership. I haven’t followed much over the past few years but I would suspect that the declining revenue to the organization is more systemic and this latest lawsuit is coming at the least opportune time.

    Ultimately I don’t think you can resolve the issues that Marjorie, Painter, Quigley, Gardiner have with the current administration. Most of their issues revolve around acceptance and access. Marjorie appears to be the only one who has the social skills to endure and so she is now the “bully pulpit” for some really (dam) angry people with money, and unlike other legal issues the AMHA has encountered over the years this is one that will not find insurance coverage to offset the $300 per hour legal fees.

    Anyway as I started, getting verbally, not electronically, involved on both sides of the situation if you really want to see this issue progress in a positive way. It is also probably a good idea to get your check book out and make some much needed contributions to legally support the AMHA if you haven’t already done so.

  2. I suggest the membership in each district extract a promise from each directorship candidate not to file suit during the course of their directorship. Speak out regarding perceived problems, yes, but we have to stop stabbing ourselves in the back. Using a directorship as a springboard for litigation is deeply destructive. The voting members need to hold directors to such promises and institute recall petitions if the promise is broken. I understand the AMHA itself cannot institute such a requirement, but I think the members should be able to do so.

Leave a Reply