Here We Go Again

On October 28, the supposed settlement took a turn. I encourage all of you to read this link:

Now is the time for all members to take a stand!

7 Responses to Here We Go Again

  1. Chris Nerland says:

    If visitors will access the above link, I recommend they by-pass the Motion to Amend (which is pretty self-serving) and go toward the end where the copies of the correspondence and e-mails are contained. Also, the revised-REVISED-bylaw proposal is contained there (the one the AMHA is now refusing to post).
    Speaking from a legal background, and reading between the lines, the Plaintiffs, in a word, screwed up. They had delays in submitting the first bylaw proposal (containing the perjury language) and then, when that language initiated a storm of protest (on this blog as well as others), they went “Oops, that isn’t what we meant at all!” and pulled out the perjury language. That, of course, still left the proposal to divide USE and SHOW and as the responses on this blog pointed out, such a division was incredibly destructive and unworkable.
    Not lacking chutzpah, the Plaintiffs now seek to blame the AMHA for not properly posting their ever-shifting proposals. Remember, the settlement agreement mentioned amateur/professional divisions. A number of readers have been puzzled as to why the proposal does not discuss that at all but instead seeks to segregate SHOW members entirely, professional and amateurs. There is clearly an agenda on behalf of the Plaintiffs to entirely separate the Morgan Show horse from the using horse thereby splitting the breed and the bylaw proposals are their clumsy attempts to do so.
    If you will read the final attachment to the Motion to Amend, you will see the latest set of proposed bylaw changes. Clearly, the storm of protest has caused the Plaintiffs to duck and run a bit more. Now they draw a line at $1000 remuneration, 4 inch + feet Exclusive of pads and shoes, and other poorly defined criteria.
    I for one am becoming disgusted with this entire situation. It is now becoming a farce (albeit expensive). I would really like to know who is financing this vindictive and destructive string of lawsuits. I wish they had the guts to stand up and say “Yes! I have hated the show Morgan and their trainers since I lost a class back in 196_ and I am determined to drive them out of the Morgan breed!”
    As many of you know, I have strong personal objections to some of what goes on in the show ring. I believe the push to win can sometimes result in abuse of the horse. That is different from the hard fact that some other horse may be more athletic, better shod, better trained and ridden better than mine. I accept those liklihoods if I enter the show ring as an amateur. I do NOT ride for the ribbon. I ride to ride better than I did last time, for my horse to perform better than last time, and always, always for the sheer joy of riding. I am a big boy and when I lose, I decide to work harder and smarter. I do not join a lawsuit which seeks to take away other people’s right to choose how and when they sell or ride their Morgans.

  2. RaeOfLight says:

    Thanks for explaining this some Chris. I have not been in the breed as long as you, so I don’t have as much fatigue over this as you, but it’s still obnoxious, aggravating, etc. I’d be willing to give the plaintiffs a fair listen, and I’m the kind of person who tries to understand both sides before I decide which one to affiliate myself with. But 61 pages! I just don’t have the time or inclination to wade through that.

    Without getting too political, our country in general is in need of some serious tort reform. If nothing else this is a glaring example of that.

  3. GraceMorgn says:

    I am little confused by the new definitions of Show and USE.

    I don’t understand what I would be considered. I don’t make $1,000 owning or showing my horse. I win a couple $.10 ribbons each year, but no prize money. I don’t make money any of the other ways listed. So, I don’t think I would be a Show person based on the definition. But I do show, so I think that would eliminate me as a USE person. Does this mean that I am neither? Who would I get to vote for? Maybe I am reading something incorrectly, so if I am, please let me know.


  4. Trisha says:

    I skimmed the whole thing (skipping some of the email correspondence) and the “new” proposal” is no better than the “working draft”, sure there are changes, but it’s not an improvement. It appears to me that they saw the internet outrage and backtracked in hopes of getting a few more for their cause.

    And from all the reading I’ve done surrounding this mess, their “cause” seems to be an anti-show horse altogether and downright anger towards the show horse/people altogether. This lawsuit isn’t about helping the AMHA. In case anyone doesn’t know, this lawsuit began because the plaintiff requested copies of finances, and the like and was denied because she wanted to be sent hundreds of pages of the documents she requested and was asked to sign a confidentiality agreement (the particular documents are available to all AMHA members, but not non-members). How the lawsuit began is a far cry from what this proposal is suggesting. What began as a grievance against the privacy and alleged misconduct in terms of documents and finances has become an attempt to divide the our breed altogether. Being “Show” or “USE” has nothing to do with how the AMHA paid its employees or their privacy policies regarding members only material.

    If I’m not mistaken, when the lawsuit first started, it said that 5% of life members had to agree to it. Assuming my counting wasn’t wrong(haha), this lawsuit represents 50 (according to the morgan horse site obituary, one plaintiff appears to have passed away) of the 1000 life members and there are, I’m guessing, about 8000 members total. That is a small number, and from what I’ve seen since this proposal became public (the “working draft”), their opinion is NOT in the majority and NOT what AMHA members want.

  5. Flmorgan says:

    I will go on record as saying I am voting NO to this ridiclous proposal and I will tell every AMHA Member I know to vote NO to this ammendment. Plaintiffs, and I am sure you are monitoring these Morgan sites, you are not the majority here and should do what is best for the Morgan Breed Registration as a whole and not try to split it into 2 groups because you don’t see eye to eye with the majority of Members. AMHA members and Officers, lets do what is right and fair for all disaplines, be careful not to be self serving and extend a hand to all new owners and potential members. Lets get it together before we lose the great organization we have. Remember the saying “Together we stand, divided we fall.”

  6. somedaysue says:

    As an interested party (i.e., AMHA member, Morgan owner, breeder, exhibitor) here is what I would like to see happen. Give the plaintiffs one more chance to draft their proposal and proof read it so they are 100% happy with the wording. When that is submitted, post it on the Members only section of the AMHA website, with no commentary by either party, and then let the members vote on the entire proposal – Yea or Nay.

    No more bickering; no more making the lawyers rich.

    Personally, I am very opposed to the ideas of the proposal and find it very divisive. But my opinion is, given enough rope, I think the plantiffs will hang themselves.

  7. Vintage_Rider says:

    Chris, I am one of the odd ducks that DID read all the BS in the attachment… and I can’t agree with you more on what has happened. “They” and it is becoming a “they/them” vs “us/logical people” seem particularly annoyed at the town hall meetings held at GN. I show with a large contingent of educated wonderful people who really don’t normally bother themselves with organization hoopla who had NO IDEA what was going on. We all need to educate our peers, post on our blogs or facebook, twitter, whatever other means we have available to get the word out.

Leave a Reply