Voting time is here again.....

[Rusel]

So.... the question is .... have you looked at the home page of this BB to see who the candidates are..... do you know WHAT to vote on for your proxy form.... do you know WHO to vote for on your absentee ballot.

Do you have your delegates email address to ask questions....

BIGGIE: Is your region going to split the vote so that YOUR ACTUAL VOTE counts..... or are they going to do the majority present thing again.....translated to those who show up and vote at the meeting control the results... ...?????

Is it going to be Robin or Larry Johnson hummmm.. easy question for me(Robin)

How about for vice president...???? are there any other candidates that are not listed ?????

And for treasurer.... jezze... their's actually a qualified CPA with more years of paso experience activity for the association than most of us have put together... wouldn't that be a novelty.... I've never met him but I say "good luck Angel"....

Secretary..... where's Roseann's info... I thought she was going to run also..... anyone hear different.. or did she change her mind...???

[Candice Burger]

And for treasurer.... jezze... their's actually a qualified CPA with more years of paso experience activity for the association than most of us have put together... wouldn't that be a novelty.... I've never met him but I say "good luck Angel"....

You are joking, right? :shock: Just goes to show that one should always check references... ;-)

Rosanne's on the ballot for Treasurer.

[Pasogirlz]

I already mailed my vote in.

I thought Roseannes name come out on the ballot when you print it from the website. I think the ones mailed out or missing her name.

[Rusel]

Well if Rosanne is on the ballot for Treasurer she DEFINITELY has my vote... but I didn't see her on the list at the home page....??? and how can anyone vote for her if she isn't on the ballot... ??? did she apply to late or what.... anyone know..?

As to Angel.... I've never met him or know about him personally so if anyone has some info I need to know to make a vaild decision could you please pm me..... Thanks

[Pasogirlz]

When print the absentee ballot, Roseanne's name is there. ;-)

[Candice Burger]

Rosanne shows up on the .pdf ballot located on pfha.org. I think that's the only place I've seen her as a candidate.

I'll pm you Rusel.

I noticed that two members of the Finance Comittee are candidates as well. With all the hoopla about the proposed "show fee", I'd take note of that too.

EDIT: Sometimes I don't think before saying something. Well, actually I do, but I don't stop the thought from reaching my tongue. Most times I don't really care whether a size 13 shoe fits in my mouth. But this is one time I care.

I noticed that two members of the Finance Comittee are candidates as well. With all the hoopla about the proposed "show fee", I'd take note of that too.

What I mean is I'd be trying to find out the facts behind the proposed show fee. I wasn't there, as I'm sure most of us weren't. Seems it would be good to talk someone that was there or ask these candidates their reasoning for suggesting the fee. In my view, as mad as I am about it (I haven't been this angry in a long time, so either I'm bored or I really care), the blame for allowing this to pass belongs to all of us. We should have never allowed a BOD meeting to take place where they thought they had membership proxy votes in their pockets. We should have directed our delegates about what type of proposals should be reviewed and discussed before the members they represent. We should have insisted that this organization provide reasonable methods of representation. There's no equity when one delegate represents 1200 members as opposed to one that represents 42 members. We've been lazy as members and now we're paying the price for our lack of involvement.

So, shame on the Finance Committee, shame on the BOD and shame on us! When I mean "take note" I mean find out what the ------ is going on. This beautiful breed needs us.

[Rusel]

I see that she shows up on the absentee ballot.... but there is nothing of who she is for individuals to know about her if they haven't met her.... Seems they could add something to the website besides what they downloaded from the magazine....

Obviously those staff members who didn't want her running for president a few years back now want to make sure she doesn't have an equal chance at running for Treasurer either...

[Rusel]

Your show fee was pushed hard at the meeting for a yes vote by your current Treasurer, Tony.... who said it was necessary to keep the budget in the black....

Yet I see that PFHA still has over 1.3 million in CD's..... saving for a rainy day.!!

[Candice Burger]

I agree Rusel, Rosanne ought to get equal press.

[cowboy ed]

rusel, i thought you said you couldnt vote? :-?

[Rusel]

I can't vote but my boss can.... and I can influence the vote of individuals I know by providing them with accurate information. I may not be a number in the ballots, but I can still be a voice...

[Abejita]

That is another problem..credentials can always look good..and yes people do deserve to be forgiven and given a second chance..BUT when I would say a great number of members came into the PFHA after what happened happened..how are they supposed to know about the history? If they vote just on credentials and then find out later that the person they just voted in had shall we say -a rocky past with the PFHA.. do you not think they are going to feel..well cheated? It is not slander if it is truth correct? But the other candidates are too polite to mention it.

[cristy]

That is another problem..credentials can always look good..and yes people do deserve to be forgiven and given a second chance..BUT when I would say a great number of members came into the PFHA after what happened happened..how are they supposed to know about the history? If they vote just on credentials and then find out later that the person they just voted in had shall we say -a rocky past with the PFHA.. do you not think they are going to feel..well cheated? It is not slander if it is truth correct? But the other candidates are too polite to mention it.


I guess I'm one of those people...Please fill me in?

[Rusel]

We should have insisted that this organization provide reasonable methods of representation. There's no equity when one delegate represents 1200 members as opposed to one that represents 42 members. We've been lazy as members and now we're paying the price for our lack of involvement

There would be equity if each region would split their vote and allow the actual vote of the member to count. That way a large organization would have all their members vote as they actually voted. Currently most regions count the votes and whoever has the majority is how ALL THE VOTED ARE CAST at the BOD meetings.

I'm not sure, and I have not validated the comment that some regions only count the votes of the members who show up for the meetings and cast the votes as the majority of those meetings. Which translates to, if you have 1,500 members and only 15 show up for the meeting, those 15 will decide the votes for 1,500 members. And you can surely bet those 15 are there because they know they can control the vote.

Most members don't go because of the distance they would have to travel, or just plan simply don't know. Many members are just lazy and figure most of the rules don't affect them so why bother. If they were to make the meeting set up with conference calls and members gather in homes close to them, everyone could be at the meeting.

This is not really a difficult solution. We just conferenced called over 2,200 individuals for the global warming movie by Al Gore last Saturday. We watched the movie at a designated time in someone's home. Put a webcam at the central location and logged onto it just like we have all been checking in on the African water hole. Phone calls were made (limited to one two minute question or discussion) (which eliminated multipe emails asking the same thing) and Al answered all the questions and concerns over the webcam.

The same thing could be done for regional meetings and everyone who wanted a say in the running of the organization could have their say. So the inequity in the regional and national organizations could really be taken back under control as Candice says.. by becoming an active and concerned member.....

None of the things in the past that you are now opposed to could have happened if each member was responsible for their action in regards to the development and rules of the organization....

Hummmm.... off the soap box.... it's the holidays...!!!

I'm with you Monice..... OPEN THE PRESENTS NOW..!!!

[Candice Burger]

Thanks for bringing that up Rusel. I checked the PFHA rule this morning and the way it's written, BOD members are given our voting rights by rule during BOD meetings and it's a majority vote.

Each Regional Group affiliated with the Association and in good standing, shall have the right to send one (1) Director to the meetings of the Association. Such Director shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each person who is designated as a voting member of that Regional Group and
who:
(1) is, as of the date of the meeting a member in good standing of the Association, and has been a member of the Association in good standing for thirty (30) days before the Meeting; and
(2) is in good standing with the Regional Group.

The vote tally for each Regional Group is determined by the number of designated voting members of that Region on record in the Association Office thirty (30) days prior to the meeting. No member shall be represented by a Director of more than one Regional Group. The Regional Director must have been a designated voting member of the Regional Group represented and of the Association for thirty (30) days prior to the meeting.

When a Regional Director is unable to attend either a Membership or Board of Directors meeting, a substitute may be authorized. The substitute must have been an Association member in good standing for thirty (30) days prior to the meeting and a designated voting member of that Regional Group on record in the Association Office and in good standing with the Regional Group. An officer of the Regional Group must notify the Association in writing of the authorized substitute.

A quroum is 51% of BOD as determined by total possible number of votes. So is that 51% of actual members of the BOD or 51% of the votes they represent?

Now I know it's rule and it's followed, but I'm not ok with this at all. What this means is when there are issues of debate, motions made and voting ensues we, the members, are not privvy to any of the information yet we allow our regional delegate to weight his vote with regional numbers. That isn't logical. Essentially, each BOD meeting is really a membership by proxy meeting without formal delegation.

I've read the PFHA Constitution several times and each time I'm struck with the lack of protocol and process. Again, common sense says a delegate should realize when an issue requires input from members and when it doesn't. PFHA constitution presumes a process without definition or guidance. I see this as a problem, a serious one and why this corporation alienates its members.

It's my fault I didn't bother with this. Amazing what a nice hiatus from membership activity does to oneself.

Well no soapbox today. I'm so bothered I've decided to start a grass roots campaign before the next rule change proposals to start reclaiming PFHA back to it's members. Some of these rules are so random and made to obviously please special interests that the whole organization suffers. This is not the fault of a few but ALL of the members of PFHA. We have the power to change it!

[LynnG]

Piedmont is splitting votes for the election. I always send in my own ballot anyway. Members have that option, so no reason not too. Because of that you do see some larger regions that members do want their vote counted and it runs against the trend of the way that regions tend to vote ... can have an effect on the outcome of elections.

[Rusel]

A quroum is 51% of BOD as determined by total possible number of votes. So is that 51% of actual members of the BOD or 51% of the votes they represent?

A quroum is 51% of the votes they represent. And just because your delegate is there with votes to be counted does not mean that the delegate will use those votes. On some matter delegates has obstained from voting on an issue. The resulting 51% still represents a quroum.

I've read the PFHA Constitution several times and each time I'm struck with the lack of protocol and process. Again, common sense says a delegate should realize when an issue requires input from members and when it doesn't. PFHA constitution presumes a process without definition or guidance. I see this as a problem, a serious one and why this corporation alienates its members.

And this is how you ended up with the $100 show fee. The matter was brought up at the PFHA BOD meeting by Tony Coleman, who is the current treasurer, and indicated that it was a necessary charge to keep the PFHA in the black. The vote could not WAIT til the next BOD in Jan. 2007 because the answer was needed in order to accept the budget presented one way with the fee and another way without the fee. The delegates DID NOT have adequate time to inform the members. Some delegates refrained from voting. I do not recall, nor did I write down which regions voted which way, but it is in the minutes for review. But to my way of thinking if it was something of that importance to affect the budget that the regional directors should have had access to that information in more than enough time to inform their members. If there was not enough time then the issue should have been passed to Jan. 2007 and the budget passed without the fee. A modification to the budget could have been voted on in Jan. when all members had a chance to voice their opinion.

PHFA is not set up for the ease of it's members but for the ease of governing. The fewer delegates the easier the voting process and the fewer individuals that have a say in what goes on. That is one of the reasons why the request for a new region was denied in Texas although they had everything they needed to become a region... Then since they were denied and Virginia asked to become a region they were also denied. But instead Virginia became a charter... then somehow a region.?? All of this by votes......

[Rusel]

I've gotten some pm's and a couple of phone calls about my involvement with the Paso Finos asking why I keep sticking my face into the politics of PFHA. Why I go to as many of the BOD meeting as I can and yet am not a member...

I guess this forum is the best place to answer the question....

I LOVE THE BREED..!!! and it is truly that simple. and yes I am moving into the Tiger horse, which is for me a great combination of Paso, size and color. I get my paso gait and brains and my wild Indian coloring with more size...

BECAUSE... the politics of the PFHA are not for expanding the breed. The largest part of the income of the organization is from the shows and the auctions. So by nature of the beast, we lick the hand that feeds us... Hince most of the ruling is set up with the show paso in the forefront.
That hinders the expansion of the paso. Most sales are for pleasure horses or versatility horses, trail horses. Most fino and performance horses are sold to fellow paso owners.

It is truly a sad day to go to the shows and see so few people there. And 99% of those individuals there are SHOWING.... This is even more true of the National Show.... Our whole marketing concept is still towards fino as shown in the RFTD shows.

I'm signing on as marketing director for the Tiger Assn. My first task will be to study those already existing associations that have made it big. And believe me I will be checking out the Paint Assn. They broke off from the QH and followed the same tatics that the QH organization did and have become the number 2 largest equine organization in a relatively few short years. The Arab assn broke their assn into 2 different organization that work together very effectively.... the registration and the show.... Another organization is the Standardbred..... they had over 25,000 VIEWERS at their last Nationals in Shelby, N.C. filled the stadium..... There has to be a pattern to their success and I don't wish to waste time by trying to rediscover it..... so I will go straight to the horses mouth..... and it's SO EASY.... just get a copy of their rules and regulations. The agenda of how they set up their shows.. How they run their ethics.... How they vote.... NO NEED TO REINVENT THE WHEEL when the wheel already shows that it works well.

Maybe if enough members decide that it is worth the effort the Paso Fino will become well known for it's versatility and from doing, and not just for it's FINE STEP in the show ring...

So the reason I stick my nose in...... I want an organization that will promote the Paso Fino as a true versatility horse so that I do not have to show every individual who sees a paso that it CAN DO something besides what they see on TV.... I'm tired of busting my as*.... to demostate the paso and what it can do to make a sale to support an organization that does not support what I sell...

And my cudoos to ROBIN..... she is busting her butt to make a difference... and, in my book, deserves another 10 years as president instead of the allowed 2.... She is totally committed to the Paso, makes her living from Pasos, and is dedicated to expansion and care of the PASO FINO....

NOW I AM GOING ......TO OPEN MY PRESENT...!!!!!

[Candice Burger]

I recorded the vote for the show fee. There are 24 regions, 20 were present for OCT 2006 BOD meeting. LynnG posted the voting record. No one abstained from voting. The vote won by a 2/3 majority vote of those present using the membership voting mechanism.

Like I said, I'm doing research now and taking notes in order to come up with a reasonable proposal or at least get the members to start thinking about what's going on and what to do about this. I've pulled off examples of other horse associations. You ought to read the American Paint Horse Association By-Laws. Obviously they went through a PFHA phase themselves. They've got quite a process for notification, rule proposal and review (min 30 days before voting), voting, etc. I'm impressed and also saddened that it has to be this way.

I downloaded the Florida Statues for not-for-profit corporations yesterday. I'm not taking this lightly. I'm checking the legal standing of some of PFHA Constitutional articles and if I have to I will get counseling from an attorney that knows corporate law.

I'm concerned about the membership bleed out, the high turn over rate and the fact that PFHA is having a real hard time convincing me to stay. In these past years I've caught myself thinking about getting rid of all of my horses because I don't see a person like me fitting in or having even a fair chance to participate. This is a disease of the mind and not a fact. I don't feel welcomed nor invited so why stay? If I feel this way, how do so many others new to the breed feel?

There is no language in the PFHA rules that require how a Consitutional change is proposed or voting on. There is no requirment for justification in writing, no review process, no notification, nothing. As a general member I don't want to be involved nor know about the mundane administrative aspects of running a corporation. That's why there's BOD meetings and general membership delegation. If they really needed to raise fees, raise fees, but I'm not going to allow it to happen like this. They even created a new membership category without realizing it.

Just because there wasn't enough time between proposal and voting doesn't mean it should have been voted on. So???? Abstain until there's more information, don't vote until more research is done, demand proper notification and review. BOD members CAN abstain and not vote. Because it takes a "majority" of membership votes by proxy, only a few BOD members need vote and even if the others abstain, it can pass. Nope don't think I like that. I prefer a quorom of BOD members, a representative number of BOD by voter numbers, and at least 2/3 or 75% vote to pass and each BOD is one vote.

Yeah I checked into the regional formation rules too. That's a bunch a bohooey. I remember when that all started; think that's when I quit PFHA for that and several other silly rules proposed in a matter of a few years. Made me sick and it still does.

Regions should be formed based on some statistical measure besides a group gets together and wants a club and it should NOT be voted on by some delegate that won't be around to pay the piper in a couple of years. The distribution of memberships and regions is totally archaic. It worked for a small number of years at the beginning, but who can forget the chaos between Piedmont and Atlantic. Remember when Atlantic imploded? And how about the boundry wars between Gulf and Deep South?

My opinion it should be entirely revamped. The way it is right now, folks think the only way to do this is through a BOD meeting or rule proposal at the membership meeting. Well, I want to call a special meeting, the quorum is 30% by presence or representation. The way PFHA does this now, is a "membership" meeting is still really a BOD meeting unless you send in a proxy. A BOD comes in with YOUR vote in a BOD meeting or a membership meeting.

I've found several models used by different horse associations that describe in detail how a region is formed. NONE, ZERO, has to do with what a BOD member or another region wants. It's an administrative plan set into place to address growth and expansion of the corporation, to INCREASE member numbers. All use a system to give equitable representation. There's one plan that will split a region up depending on membership numbers and geography. One association has adopted a formula devised by some statistical measure that it refers to when membership grows. PFHA? No they ax regions and try hostile take overs.

I remember when the European group wanted a region--that was a job! Right now, we are allowing a handful of people to stop expansion and growth of PFHA. It goes AGAINST the very mission statement PFHA has on it's first page of the rule book! Now how's that for self-destructive behavior? And why is this?

[Rusel]

Candice... PFHA is NOT a Florida not for profit organization. They were incorporated and given their 501c status under the laws of Tennessee.

[Candice Burger]

They are recorded in Florida as a Florida not-for-profit. Checked it yesterday.


Under the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. They file annually.

Stand corrected. They are a "foreign" corporation in the state of Florida.

Here's the info.
http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=P19417&n2=NAMFWD&n3=0000&n4=N&r1=&r2=&r3=&r4=PASOFINOHORSEASSOCIATION&r5=

Interesting note where PFHA may be required to follow Florida Corporate Law. http://www.gtlaw.com/pub/alerts/2003/rosneri_05.asp

[Rusel]

If I translate that correctly if an individual is sued in his/her capacity and wins the suit then the organization is required to repay all court and attorney fees. (Unless they have a good attorney who collects the fees thru the court from the other counsel) But IF the company has each employee sign a waiver prior to any court case then the company should be covered and not have to pay. BUT..... Courts normally will not recognize such frontal waivers......

BUT WHAT Section 607.0850(3) does not inform you of.... is that.... if the organization of PFHA, as a business doing business in the state of Florida, is sued by an individual/or/organization and PFHA LOSES..... then EVERY INDIVIDUAL.. who is named in the suit [and the elected officers of the association, whether named or not] will also be held personally and financially responsible.

Isn't that a sweet kicker..... but there is always a way around those things.... just PFHA hasn't been smart enough to look at it.... let along figure it out...!!!

[Candice Burger]

Bump