What comments do you have about the proposed Rules & Regulations revision?
A Few Comments
Hi Everyone,
Regarding the mention under “IX Changes of Horses” letter “G,” “…OHA reserves the right to sell the member’s horse at public auction…” I request that we don’t include selling a horse at auction as a possibility. I believe that auctions often land horses in terrible and even horrifying conditions–on a crowded trailer bound for slaughter/feedlot. A positive message of selling the horse to an appropriate home would be a much more positive message.
And, under “F. Riding Partner Membership,” “3.c.” it would be fantastic to re-word this as Eddie suggested and as has been the practice–allowing release of liability and temporary riding partner applications to be completed and left in the binder for the membership secretary. This makes it possible for our friends and extended family to visit our horses with us–a lot of fun for all.
Thanks!
Wed, 10/10/2012 – 01:23 — paintedrider
releases and riding partners
I believe the idea that we have come up with is that riding partner applications and checks are to be mailed to the treasurer, Eddie, or OHA P.O. box.
The release of liability forms are to be left in the white shed in a binder. That way it is on OHA property and not a posssibility to be lost. I will pick up the releases periodically. And, I might add, when filling in the releases please write clearly and make sure you put which OHA member you are with, some forms I have don’t have this.
I strive for our beautiful and congenial pasture again.
Thanks,
Heidi
Wed, 10/10/2012 – 00:49 — Arthur-Stanley
Auction – Really – That’s not even legal?
What I found to be most disturbing was that anyone who is a member of this club would proudly advocate first kicking someone out, and then giving them 15 days to find a place to go or taking someone’s beloved horse and sending it to auction. Really? Is this the kind of club we want?
I have carefully read all of the comments, feedback and ideas here – and while I agree with almost all of the feedback (especially Morris’s and Eddie’s) I think there are a couple other things that are blatantly missing.
- Where is the cooperative spirit invoked – we are about having fun last I checked, and yes – you can write that in!
- What about providing examples of what constitutes an evictable offense (i.e. shooting another member’s horse, intentionally running into their car, killing their pet… etc…) outrageous acts that willfully and intentionally endanger others- not , the ooops – my horse kicked the water trough type an out of control board would dream up. And then – and only if a board voted the person out through propper channels – they should automatically grant the member an automatic appeal, before terminating them, to the membership.
Even then – I find it sad so much energy is wasted on enforcing for the “what ifs” and regulating against the what if somebody some day does something bad …. – Why are we wasting so much time and energy on this? What are we trying to fix that we’ve had problems with – Is it really the membership or was it the leadership?
When an organization faces multiple repeated threats of lawsuits, experiences unusual high attritionit is time to stop and ask why…. The answer is never the employees.
However, I have renewed hope for our new board!
Tue, 10/09/2012 – 21:39 — georgiawilliams
The best cooperative is one in which members cooperate
Whoever wrote this sentence that opens each Forum subject – hit the nail on the head: “The best cooperative is one in which members cooperate”
From MLK: “… The good and just society is … a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truth of the individualism and collectivism”
~ MLK, ” Where Do We Go From Here?”
We can debate specifics – that needs to be done – the overiding thing, IMHO, is to support the horses, embrace diversity in people and horsemanship styles and be kind to each other. We are here to have fun.
Tue, 10/09/2012 – 17:07 — Cheryl Ann Fulton
sending a horse to auction/slaughter
I think the following change concerning removing a horse is a bit draconian and could be abused by the Board.
-
- The Board may, at its discretion, request removal of a horse from the property, for example if a horse poses a danger to members of the Association, other horses, or the property If the Board decides that a horse must be removed, the Board will send the member written notice by certified mail to remove the horse within 15 days. If the member fails to remove the horse within this time period, the horse may be removed by OHA and placed in an alternative pasture or stable. OHA reserves the right to sell the member’s horse at public auction and to retain monies so acquired to cover outstanding board, fees and penalties.
The removal of a horse should not be solely at the Board’s discretion. I think some validation for the need for removal of a horse from a neutral, independent professional should be sought by the Board first.
I strongly oppose giving OHA the right to sell the horse at public auction. That is condoning the horrendous practices that most often result in such situations with the horses being sent to slaughter often in brutal circumstances. That goes way beyond being asked to tolerate different styles of animal husbandry. I don’t want to be part of an organization which condones such abuse.
I would also like to know how the committee – Heather, Morris, Linda, Heidi, and whoever else, came up with this and if they all condone sending a horse to slaughter. Is that considered a “style of animal husbandry” we are expected to tolerate as OHA members?
Tue, 10/09/2012 – 20:24 — paintedrider
removing horses and members
Of course we don’t agree with sending a horse to slaughter!
As far as what you wrote “The removal of a horse should not be solely at the board’s discretion” should absolutely apply to members also, “The removal of a member should not be solely at the board’s discretion”
Mon, 10/08/2012 – 21:16 — morris
Rules revisions
Feedback on new rules
I do not think the board should adopt the revised rules
without more careful consideration than discussion at the upcoming meeting
allows. Only one current board member was involved in the rules committee that drafted most of these revisions, parts of which were not unanimously approved by the rules committee itself. Eddie has pointed out a whole set of provisions that should be added to either the rules or the procedures,
–provisions that neither the previous Board or the rules committee ever
discussed. But careful consideration should go a lot further than that.
I was on the rules committee but do not agree some
suggested changes, some of which I disagreed with at the time, others of which
I have thought more about and have changed my mind about.
Expulsion of a horse—this rule was adopted from the
Horse Hill (in Mill Valley) rules. Their pasture is on Marin Water District
land open to the public to hike through, so a horse that bites or kicks people
endangers their lease. This rule makes sense there, in other words, but our
situation is quite different, and we have never had a horse that needed to be
expelled. Particularly onerous is the option to send the horse to auction,
where it could be purchased and sent to Mexico for dog food. I don’t think OHA
should be involved in this, and don’t think this new rule is at all
necessary—if a horse is that much of a problem, the owner will almost always
figure out what to do.
Criteria for Termination—the list is too strict in
my humble opinion. For one thing a person who is cited for violation of an
EBMUD or City or County violation has only been accused, not convicted, of bad
behavior. Conviction should be required before OHA decides to expel them if
that is the only criteria being considered. Furthermore, expelling people who
are 3 months behind on their board, or who are 1 hour short on their work hours
for 2 years is unduly harsh. Yes, the rule says “at the board’s discretion” but
that still allows it.
Board Discretion—the power to terminate a
membership or expel a horse is “at the discretion of the board.” This was added
ostensibly to prevent arbitrary action, for a violation that technically could
be cause for action, but might not rise to that level when all facts are
considered. But this wording also allows action when it is clearly not
warranted, at the board’s discretion. It was argued that this was also tempered
by the recusal provision, but that is problematic too as worded.
Recusal of board members— Much of the discussion of the Board’s
powers was tempered by the insertion of this provision. The Board will be fair,
it was stated, because prejudiced members will recuse themselves. But that is
like counting on Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases where his wife is
raising funds to promote one side of a case before him. In the Rules Committee
it was proposed that the Board, by a majority vote, also have the power to
recuse a member who is too involved with an issue at hand, and we were told
this additional safeguard would be put before the board. I see no evidence that
it was, and it should be included in any new rules.
Furthermore the recusal clause is included only in the
section about disputes between members, with no hint that it might apply to
discussion of discipline.
Procedure for termination of members—the rewriting of these rules has eliminated the necessity, which was at least
implied in the old rules, that a repeated violation of the same rule
would open the door to Board action. The rewriting allows a second letter to be
sent, and then termination for violation of any rule, including those totally
unrelated to the issue at hand. This is kind of like California’s 3 Strikes
law, which mandates life in prison for a third offense of shoplifting. This wording needs to be tightened up to be clear that we are looking at a repeated violation of the same important rule.
In addition the rewrite of this section does not remedy a key problem with the old rule on this—the Board can meet in secret and take
action against someone without giving them notice that such a discussion will
take place, and without giving them a chance to dispute the charges. If we had
learned anything from the last occurrence, we should have learned that a
provision of this sort is essential to any appearance of a just decision.
Power of the Board to terminate—we have to avoid the reflexive kind of action that happened last time. Eddie’s suggestion
that a 2/3 majority be required is a step in the right direction, but with a
strengthened recusal clause, and totally interested people not participating,
why not require a unanimous decision? If recusals reduce the number of board members below 5, how about
appointing disinterested general members to fill out the committee considering
termination? I feel it is more important to have a process whose integrity
cannot be questioned than it is to quickly expel someone, even a troublemaker.
Reconsideration–Finally there should be reconsideration of some of the rules previously adopted by the last board. One
of these was inadvertently omitted from the draft of the new rules, because I
somehow missed it in my review of previous rules changes and nobody pointed it
out. From the January 2011 minutes:
“. As of NOW there will no longer be a one month grace period for
completion of work hours as this practice has created even more work to effect
accurate record keeping. Get your hours in by Sept. 30!!!”
This rule seems totally unnecessary to me, and it and a few
others adopted then and at the following meeting are the reason why I proposed
a 30 day comment period before new rules could be passed by the board, a
procedure adopted by the November 2011 annual meeting.
That January 2011 paragraph continued:
“Additionally, any hours done in Sept will be credited to that fiscal
year – no more discretionary crediting of WH to the following year (again, this
past practice creates more work for record keepers).”
Again this rule seems counterproductive in that it is a disincentive for anyone who
has already fulfilled their work hours requirement to undertake any new tasks
in the month of September, instead of waiting for October to start meeting the
next year’s mandated hours.
Other rules adopted at the following board meeting, IMHO, deserve reconsideration:
Gifting hours—Banning the longtime allowance of gifting excess hours from one member to another is also a
disincentive for someone who has completed their hours to continue doing OHA
hours before the year has ended. Gifting hours in the past was usually done as
a favor to members who for whatever reason had not completed their hours, but
had done other kinds of favors for the person who had excess hours. As a result
the total number of hours required of the membership were completed, instead of
collecting cash instead from members who were short on hours. I believe getting
the work done is more important than collecting cash.
Associate member hours–We have had some wonderful associate members who have taken on great amounts of
OHA work, and that should be encouraged. But we should not require it, IMHO,
because we need eyes and ears at the pasture. An associate member who comes up
when others are not there fills an important role just by going up there. If
they later decide to chip in at work parties or other ways, great. But this
requirement makes anyone who wants to sponsor an OHA horse think twice about
the time required to do that . Let’s get them up there, and most of them will
get involved on some level.
Physical work–The requirement for 10 hours of physical work on the pasture seems to make sense,
but discriminates against anyone who has physical limitations for whatever
reasons, be it injuries, age or someone who has to travel a lot. Members should
be encouraged to contribute in whatever way they can, but not required to work
in certain ways. Tri Cities Horsemen chose a few years ago to give up their
EBMUD pasture in Martinez because the physical work load required by EBMUD
demands for new fencing and other improvements was too much for an aging
membership. We should be careful that we do not put ourselves in a similar situation, with or without outside
demands.
Procedures
Suggested criteria for new members—it was suggested this (IIIA2) be moved to the procedures, since it is not actually a rule but
a suggested guideline. Again this was to be put before the board, but there is
no indication that it was.
Records—the old item 5E has been omitted without notice. It
stated that “a list of needed pasture repairs is kept in the white shed and
appended to the minutes of each Board meeting.” The rules committee discussed whether we should omit this procedure, or follow it, as we did for many years, but have not for a few years
now. We did not make a decision on that, AFAIK. I think having it in the minutes is especially useful to remind
people of what needs to be done, and to give them ideas on how to fill their
work hours requirement. Each item can be noted “ask______ for details” and the
list can be quickly updated as projects are completed and new ones become
appropriate.
Morris
Mon, 10/08/2012 – 18:31 — KimZvik
Rules and Problem Horses
I am scared to even open my mouth because of my probationary status. However, I have been urged by Georgia and Eddie to do so and reassured that I would not be punished further.
Here is an interesting article:
https://www.boardroommagazine.com/ppmarch-april08.pdf
Today, we have 4 horse openings, do we want more? The yellow proposals all but guarantee that members and horses can be kicked out of OHA more easily at the discretion of the board. Can OHA afford this?
Discretion?
It is interesting that 3 words discretion were added to the rules when they do not appear in the by-laws or in any prior version of the rules. I urge members to only agree to this in a general membership meeting format with a vote of the general members. The board is at conflict if they alone vote on whether they get discretion or not.
If you applied this discretion, I would have been kicked out a year ago. Now, many members may say “exactly” but remember that my alleged crime for which a judge absolved me of was outside the gates not in and I was never cited. Also, I am the member who noticed OHA was on fire and started evacuating the herd in 2009, called a vet when another horse was dying in 2002, and have made many other valuable contributions to OHA.
Problem Horse Clause
If we applied this problem horses rule, the following horses may have been kicked out of OHA:
– Riva – kicked Marcia in chest and Marcia was airlifted out by helicopter for medical attention
– Cooper – kicked Sara in chest and she recovered on site
– Corizon – ran 2 horses into fence causing extensive ligament damage to both horses
– Kajima – got over fence on to San Pablo Dam Road could have killed a driver
– Miki – got over fence to Tilden Park could have gone to South Park Road and killed a driver
– Kisa – broke through ring pasture fence causing fence damage
– Ballou (Heather’s old horse) – bent and broke Pear Orchard gate
– Dee – ran through Forest rope fence breaking insulators
As for Horse Health, this is another problem as if we strictly applied it, the following horses may be kicked out:
– Heather – old and sometimes underweight
– Ginger – old and sometimes underweight
– Remick – old and sometimes underweight
– Echo – old and sometimes underweight
– Macho – sarcoid cancer lesions
I would urge that only the blue clauses (last year’s approved changes) be approved and we wait until the membership meeting for the others.
Members have decided not to stay at OHA and that is very alarming. This includes Chris, Trina, Jan, and Gailyn. With these “yellow” rules and the latest trend in member attrition, we put OHA at risk.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Zvik
Mon, 10/08/2012 – 15:43 — Cheryl Ann Fulton
suggestions for R&R changes
Rules & Regs
-
- Currently, 25 work hours are required each year from each proprietary and probationary membership with one horse and 40 from each proprietary and probationary membership with two horses.
I suggest changing this to 24 for one horse (2 hours per month) and 36 for two horses (3 hours per month). Since work hours were added for Associate members there are more work hours being done so the reduction for two horses should be fine. When members give up spaces the Treasurer has to calculate dues refunds and work hours owed. Round numbers are much easier to work with.
- X) Dogs B) I think the Board should check with EBMUD to see if it is possible to get permission to have dogs on leash by the pond but at least 15-20 feet from the pond itself. Also to see if we can have dogs off lease in other areas besides the one fire road.
XIII) A) 7) Performs acts that jeopardize the health, safety or well being of horses, people or dogs owned by other OHA members.
Procedures
Table of contents pages are not correct
2) Horse health
- a) i) add (2) (c) West Nile recommended (Most vets are recommending West Nile twice a year.)
5) Records a) Four lists are maintained at all times by the Membership Secretary. The waiting lists are reviewed annually by the Board.
- 7) CLEANLINESS
- Corrals and paddocks will be cleaned daily while occupied and immediately upon vacancy. If hay has been stored at the pavilion sheds the area used should be swept out and cleaned after vacating.
Something needs to be added about keeping water troughs clean and empty when not in use.
10) f)
-
- Members are responsible for providing at least two flakes of hay per day when their horses are enclosed in a stall, a corral or the Ring Pasture if enclosed there for more than a very short exercise period.
add n) Members may store bales of hay for personal use in the pavilion sheds if there is space. If a member needs space in the shed for a horse that is in a stall hay stored there for horses not in stalls must be moved. (Or something like that.)
Mon, 10/08/2012 – 15:24 — ereiter
work hours
In adding up work hours, I think some of the recently added rules maybe should be reconsidered.
- Hours due Sept 30 — go back to due Sept 1?. I think the old way may be better, and would be very little more work for Treasurer. Work hours due on Sept 1, but there is a grace period until Oct 1. So hours can be tallied before the annual meeting, members who have enough work hours can get started on their next years (as it is, no incentive to put in hrs in Sept if they don’t count), and we do get work from those who are short hours.
- Work hours can’t be gifted. Several members didn’t realize that was now a rule, and would like it reconsidered.
- Six hours work for Assoc Members. This one is a bit of a pain to track; Assoc Members do not always keep good track. Not sure either if we want to bill the Assoc Member for $15/missing hour.
- 10 hrs work on pasture. This is a bit vague, adds to the job of the Treasurer, and maybe is not worth it. Does physical work on a TWHA work day count? Participating in herd move as extra person?
- Remind people that doing an extra feeding only counts for 45 minutes. People are taking an hour (which would make bookkeeping easier)
- Work hour for moving an extra horse at a herd move. Liz has asked to have that one re-visited.
Mon, 10/08/2012 – 15:35 — paintedrider
work related
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THIS EDDIE
Mon, 10/08/2012 – 03:32 — ereiter
Procedures about releases
- i) The membership becomes effective when the Membership Secretary notifies the member that the paper work has been received. This must happen before the Temporary Riding Partner can visit the pasture.
This doesn’t work particularly in the case when someone wants to come an consider buying a horse. Suppose A wants to buy a horse. He meets the owner at the pasture, fills out all the forms, but now they need to be taken to the Membership secretary before the horse exam can continue. We need something more flexible here?
Mon, 10/08/2012 – 01:25 — georgiawilliams
Changes necessary for me to be comfortable with the R & P’s
First, thanks for the committee and
Heather for undertaking this task. They worked hard of this. However, I have some concerns and do
not want to pass the current version of the R & P’s.
I have been at OHA for over 30 years. I have seen a diverse number of
members who have been able to work things out. Once, when I was disabled
I was “talked about” by members (I was disabled, twice) and felt the
pain of being targeted. Even though I did my hours, paid my dues, saw my
horse and had good sponsors there were “new” members who thought I was
not up there enough. If they had been in charge I could have been kicked
out according to the rules at the time.
I am not the only one.
Any one of you could be targeted by being a new parent, getting new job,
getting old, making a mistake (if you are not popular), or having
financial troubles. In other words, by life. We are members up here for
as long as we can. It might be impossible to get back in. At any time
you could be the target. Do not let the rules put so much power in one
groups hands where you can be harmed.
Frankly, I do not have time
to look at this with a lawyer-like mind. I am on another deadline … I
am forced to comment now however. And, sorry it is a “book” but the
work (thanks for getting it this far committee!) is not done yet.
With long term history in mind, I object to the following changes:
Object to:
- IX) Changes of horses, part G:
Removal of horses
NOTE: This has NEVER been necessary. Why is this coming up now?
Objection:
Any horse that damages property (and) the owner is not “popular” can be
asked to be removed. This puts “Judge & jury” in the hands of one
Board. I can think of instances where rails were broken, Herd “bosses”
kick other horses, troughs broken, fences breached etc. (normal horse
issues usually dealt with by being fixed by the owner or simply
absorbed) Forcing a horse to leave puts undue financial hardship on the
owner. Some sort of mitigation should be written into this rule before a
“a Board may, at its discretion request removal a horse …” Heck, you
bring in a new horse and this stuff happens all the time
I hear this was from Horse Hill – stringent because they are open to the public. We are not.
MAYBE we can have something for a case of an extremely errant horse but most
people would “pull” an errant maverick horse if it was a ton of trouble –
on their own. This is probably unnecessary.
XII) Board Action Upon Violation by Member of Rules:
Objection:
Too much power in the hands of the Board. Although elected, it is mostly an
unknown how they would treat any member. I have been very surprised by
how people actually thought – behind closed doors. Problem: Board
members could be biased (or just fed up). These rules have them act as
Judge & Jury. W/o police charges – their evidence is not necessarily
true. I FAR prefer a jury of peers, a committee drawn from the members
to weigh charges. If we cannot do that we at least need cooling off
periods & some way of talking over issues.
Consider
Redwood Rangers solution to personality conflicts: This is a big place,
if you cannot get along, stay away from each other.
Also, are
these broken rules several rules or a repeated violation of one rule? I
do not have time to look through this and am forced to conjecture
because of the comment deadline.
XIII) A & B Termination
Same objection:
I think some sort of mitigation should be written into this sentence:
“The Board may terminate an individual’s membership at its discretion.”
At the LEAST it should say “After following (exhausting) the procedures in XII: The Board may …”
Again, I think a “jury of peers” should precede any actions of the Board.
I heard this was sentence “The Board may terminate …” was vague on
purpose so the Board would NOT have to terminate, or have a hard-line
response for an ordinarily good member that was having a hard time.
Never-the-less that sentence – apart from the original intent can be
taken the opposite way and ALLOW termination at the Boards discretion.
The Grievance Procedures, have the same issue. The accused could suffer harm going through the process, unjustly.
The accusers (if they are on the Board) are both Judge & Jury. The
accusers are the ones an accused member has to appeal to. Meanwhile the
accused member is “harmed” by possibly having to remove their horse(s)
and incur heavy financial costs. What they are accused of may not be
true! He said/ she said does not hold up in a court of law – It should
not hold up at OHA.
RE: Being terminated because of being
“Cited” for some infraction. Cited is an accusation, it is not a
conviction. Cited is not a high enough standard for termination.
I was not on the R & R committee. When I first saw the rules I was
shocked by the proposed power of the Board. I made some objections but
was boggled – After the meeting I called some members of the committee,
HOW did you let this happen? They said they were not there or were
overruled or rendered ineffective. Not all committee members approve of
these Rules section.
Recuse: If one does not recuse themselves,
others should be able to vote to recuse them. Everyone thinks they are
“right” in their thinking and may not realize they are prejudiced.
I probably have more to say but have to get back to my personal tasks.
Again, sorry for the long opinion. I do not have time to research or
refine it.
Georgia
Mon, 10/08/2012 – 04:24 — paintedrider
rules and procedures
Definitely a “jury of peers”. Board members have too much power. Board members should be a trusting member of OHA with an un-biased opinion who wants to do the best for the organization, NOT a member who wants to be on the board to satisfy their own agendas, (we have already gone through this)., and it was exhausting and a lot of wasted money that could have been used for productive improvements to our pasture that benefitted everyone!
Sat, 10/06/2012 – 00:33 — ereiter
Releases, Horse Health, and Board vote for termination
- RELEASE FORMS
CURRENT: Only mention of Signed Releases is under Riding Partners
(a) “Fees and signed Release of Liability forms must be received by the Secretary prior to the Riding Partner being allowed on the property.”
Though there is this under Proprietary Members
“Upon acceptance of an offered space and before receiving a key, the probationary member must sign a membership agreement and a liability form for each member of their immediate family that will be present at OHA, and will have sent the stated fees”
SUGGEST: Under Safety, or under a new heading (Forms and Releases?)
All OHA members, including all family members – anyone who enters OHA property – must sign a Release of Liability Form. This form must be either with the Membership Secretary or in a file on OHA property (with notification to the Membership Secretary) before any person can enter property leased by OHA.
- HORSE HEALTH forms –also not clear (as previous Membership Secretary).
“All new incoming horses must have a vet check before arrival at the pasture, including all vaccinations listed in the Health Care section of these Rules, worming and overall certification of good health. A Horse Health form must be completed and filed with the Secretary”
Our current Horse Health form requires only the statement by the owner that horse is in good health and up to date on vaccinations.
Do we also require a veterinarian certificate? I think so, but then why have the horse health form?
How long does a horse need to be off pasture before we require a new form? That is, I have nevet gotten one for Sassy when she is in Point Arena for July/August. But Pasha did need one when she returned. What about horses off for 3-4 months in the winter?
How about: “All new incoming horses, and any horse that has been off OHA property for more than three months, must have a certificate of health signed by a veterinarian, stating that the horse is up to date on worming and vaccinations and is in overall good health.”
III. TERMINATION
I would recommend that any Board vote to terminate a membership (or to ask a horse to leave OHA property) should require a 2/3 majority vote of the Board.
Also, being “cited” is not same thing as “convicted”. But here, I can’t think of right words (don’t like :”convicted” either)
Mon, 10/08/2012 – 04:08 — paintedrider
vet certificate
I know when I brought Magpie in, her owner had done all of her vaccines as she does with all of her horses. Even so, I had to have them all re done by my vet two weeks later, since Cathy didn’t keep the vaccine bottles with lot #’s.
I guess this has set a precedent and all new horses need to have current vaccinations upon entering OHA with a vet’s certificate.
Sat, 10/20/2012 – 23:37 — ereiter
One more rule to re-consider
“”Dues will be prorated for both incoming and
outgoing members if the
payment date falls within 90 days of June 15 or December 15”
Does this really mean prorate new dues and refunds for 90 days on each side of 6/15 and 12/15? Which would be 360 days each year….
The last 3 treasurers are Cheryl, Morris and Bev James. I have asked Cheryl; she prorates all new dues and all refunds (at $1.80/day)
