What comments do you have about the proposed Rules & Regulations revision?<\/p>\n
Hi Everyone,<\/p>\n
Regarding the mention\u00a0 under “IX Changes of Horses” letter “G,”\u00a0 “…OHA reserves the right to sell the member\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Thanks!<\/p>\n
Wed, 10\/10\/2012 – 01:23 \u2014 paintedrider<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
I strive for our beautiful and congenial pasture again.<\/p>\n
Thanks,<\/p>\n
Heidi<\/p>\n
Wed, 10\/10\/2012 – 00:49 \u2014 Arthur-Stanley<\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Even then – I find it sad so much energy is wasted on enforcing for the “what ifs” and regulating against the\u00a0 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\u00a0was it the leadership?<\/p>\n
When an organization\u00a0faces multiple repeated threats of lawsuits, experiences unusual high attritionit is time to stop and ask why…. The answer is never the employees.<\/p>\n
However, I have renewed hope for our new board!<\/p>\n
Tue, 10\/09\/2012 – 21:39 \u2014 georgiawilliams<\/p>\n
Whoever wrote this sentence that opens each Forum subject – hit the nail on the head: “The best cooperative is one in which members cooperate”<\/p>\n
From MLK: “… The good and just society is \u2026\u00a0 a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truth of the individualism and collectivism”
\n~ MLK, ” Where Do We Go From Here?”<\/p>\n
We can debate specifics\u00a0 – 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.<\/p>\n
Tue, 10\/09\/2012 – 17:07 \u2014 Cheryl Ann Fulton<\/p>\n
I think the following change concerning removing a horse is a bit draconian and could be abused by the Board.<\/p>\n
The removal of a horse should not be solely at the Board’s discretion. \u00a0I think some validation for the need for removal of a horse from a neutral, independent professional should be sought by the Board first.<\/p>\n
I strongly oppose giving OHA the right to sell the horse at public auction. \u00a0That is condoning the horrendous practices that most often result in such situations with the horses being sent to slaughter often in brutal circumstances. \u00a0That goes way beyond being asked to tolerate different styles of animal husbandry. \u00a0I don’t want to be part of an organization which condones such abuse.<\/p>\n
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. \u00a0Is that considered a “style of animal husbandry” we are expected to tolerate as OHA members?<\/p>\n
Tue, 10\/09\/2012 – 20:24 \u2014 paintedrider<\/p>\n
Of course we don’t agree with sending a horse to slaughter!<\/p>\n
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”<\/p>\n
Mon, 10\/08\/2012 – 21:16 \u2014 morris<\/p>\n
Feedback on new rules<\/strong><\/p>\n I do not think the board should adopt the revised rules I was on the rules committee but do not agree some Expulsion of a horse\u2014<\/strong>this rule was adopted from the Criteria for Termination\u2014<\/strong>the list is too strict in Board Discretion\u2014<\/strong>the power to terminate a Recusal of board members\u2014\u00a0<\/strong>Much of the discussion of the Board\u2019s Furthermore the recusal clause is included only in the Procedure for termination of members\u2014<\/strong>the rewriting of these rules has eliminated the necessity, which was at least In addition the rewrite of this section does not remedy a key problem with the old rule on this\u2014the Board can meet in secret and take Power of the Board to terminate\u2014<\/strong>we have to avoid the reflexive kind of action that happened last time. Eddie\u2019s suggestion Reconsideration–<\/strong>Finally there should be reconsideration of some of the rules previously adopted by the last board. One “. \u00a0As of NOW there will no longer be a one month grace period for This rule seems totally unnecessary to me, and it and a few That January 2011 paragraph continued:<\/p>\n “Additionally, any hours done in Sept will be credited to that fiscal Again this rule seems counterproductive in that it is a disincentive for anyone who Other rules adopted at the following board meeting, IMHO, deserve reconsideration:<\/p>\n Gifting hours\u2014<\/strong>Banning the longtime allowance of gifting excess hours from one member to another is also a Associate member hours–<\/strong>We have had some wonderful associate members who have taken on great amounts of Physical work–<\/strong>The requirement for 10 hours of physical work on the pasture seems to make sense, Suggested criteria for new members\u2014<\/strong>it was suggested this (IIIA2) be moved to the procedures, since it is not actually a rule but Records\u2014<\/strong>the old item 5E has been omitted without notice. It <\/p>\n Morris<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mon, 10\/08\/2012 – 18:31 \u2014 KimZvik<\/p>\n I am scared to even open my mouth because of my probationary status. \u00a0However, I have been urged by Georgia and Eddie to do so and reassured that I would not be punished further.<\/p>\n Here is an interesting article:<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.boardroommagazine.com\/ppmarch-april08.pdf<\/p>\n Today, we have 4 horse openings, do we want more? \u00a0The yellow proposals all but guarantee that members and horses can be kicked out of OHA more easily at the discretion of the board. \u00a0 Can OHA afford this?<\/p>\n Discretion?<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0 I urge members to only agree to this in a general membership meeting format with a vote of the general members. \u00a0The board is at conflict if they alone vote on whether they get discretion or not.<\/p>\n If you applied this discretion, I would have been kicked out a year ago. \u00a0Now, 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. \u00a0Also, 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.<\/p>\n Problem Horse Clause<\/p>\n If we applied this problem horses rule, the following horses may have been kicked out of OHA:<\/p>\n – Riva – kicked Marcia in chest and Marcia was airlifted out by helicopter for medical attention<\/p>\n – Cooper – kicked Sara in chest and she recovered on site<\/p>\n – Corizon – ran 2 horses into fence causing extensive ligament damage to both horses<\/p>\n – Kajima – got over fence on to San Pablo Dam Road could have killed a driver<\/p>\n – Miki – got over fence to Tilden Park could have gone to South Park Road and killed a driver<\/p>\n – Kisa – broke through ring pasture fence causing fence damage<\/p>\n – Ballou (Heather’s old horse) – bent and broke Pear Orchard gate<\/p>\n – Dee – ran through Forest rope fence breaking insulators<\/p>\n As for Horse Health, this is another problem as if we strictly applied it, the following horses may be kicked out:<\/p>\n – Heather – old and sometimes underweight<\/p>\n – Ginger – old and sometimes underweight<\/p>\n – Remick – old and sometimes underweight<\/p>\n – Echo – old and sometimes underweight<\/p>\n – Macho – sarcoid cancer lesions<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Members have decided not to stay at OHA and that is very alarming. \u00a0This includes Chris, Trina, Jan, and Gailyn. \u00a0With these “yellow” rules and the latest trend in member attrition, we put OHA at risk.<\/p>\n Respectfully submitted,<\/p>\n Kim Zvik<\/p>\n Mon, 10\/08\/2012 – 15:43 \u2014 Cheryl Ann Fulton<\/p>\n Rules & Regs<\/p>\n I suggest changing this to 24 for one horse (2 hours per month) and 36 for two horses (3 hours per month).\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Round numbers are much easier to work with.<\/p>\n XIII) A) 7) Performs acts that jeopardize the health, safety or well being of horses, people or dogs owned by other OHA members.<\/p>\n Procedures<\/p>\n Table of contents pages are not correct<\/p>\n 2) Horse health<\/p>\n 5) Records a) Four lists are maintained at all times by the Membership Secretary. The waiting lists are reviewed annually by the Board.<\/p>\n Something needs to be added about keeping water troughs clean and empty when not in use.<\/p>\n 10)\u00a0 f)<\/p>\n add n) Members may store bales of hay for personal use in the pavilion sheds if there is space.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 (Or something like that.)<\/p>\n Mon, 10\/08\/2012 – 15:24 \u2014 ereiter<\/p>\n In adding up work hours, I think some of the recently added rules maybe should be reconsidered.<\/p>\n Mon, 10\/08\/2012 – 15:35 \u2014 paintedrider<\/p>\n I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THIS EDDIE<\/p>\n Mon, 10\/08\/2012 – 03:32 \u2014 ereiter<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 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?<\/p>\n Mon, 10\/08\/2012 – 01:25 \u2014 georgiawilliams<\/p>\n First, thanks for the committee and I have been at OHA for over 30 years. I have seen a diverse number of I am not the only one. Frankly, I do not have time With long term history in mind, I object to the following changes:<\/p>\n Object to:<\/p>\n NOTE: This has NEVER been necessary. Why is this coming up now?<\/p>\n Objection: I hear this was from Horse Hill – stringent because they are open to the public. We are not.<\/p>\n MAYBE we can have something for a case of an extremely errant horse but most XII)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Board Action Upon Violation by Member of Rules:<\/p>\n Objection: Consider Also, are XIII) A & B\u00a0 Termination I heard this was sentence “The Board may terminate …” was vague on The Grievance Procedures, have the same issue. The accused could suffer harm going through the process, unjustly.<\/p>\n The accusers (if they are on the Board) are both Judge & Jury. The RE:\u00a0 Being terminated because of being I was not on the R & R committee. When I first saw the rules I was Recuse: If one does not recuse themselves, I probably have more to say but have to get back to my personal tasks. Georgia<\/p>\n Mon, 10\/08\/2012 – 04:24 \u2014 paintedrider<\/p>\n 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!<\/p>\n Sat, 10\/06\/2012 – 00:33 \u2014 ereiter<\/p>\n CURRENT: Only mention of Signed Releases is under Riding Partners<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u201cFees and signed Release of Liability forms must be received by the Secretary prior to the Riding Partner being allowed on the property.\u201d<\/p>\n Though there is this under Proprietary Members SUGGEST:\u00a0 Under Safety, or under a new heading (Forms and Releases?)<\/p>\n All\u00a0 OHA members, including all family members \u2013 anyone who enters OHA property \u2013 must sign a Release of Liability Form.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n \u201cAll 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\u201d<\/p>\n Our current Horse Health form requires only the statement by the owner that horse is in good health and up to date on vaccinations.<\/p>\n Do we also require a veterinarian certificate?\u00a0 I think so, but then why have the horse health form?<\/p>\n How long does a horse need to be off pasture before we require a new form?\u00a0 That is, I have nevet gotten one for Sassy when she is in Point Arena for July\/August.\u00a0 But Pasha did need one when she returned.\u00a0 What about horses off for 3-4 months in the winter?<\/p>\n How about:\u00a0 \u201cAll 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.\u201d<\/p>\n III.\u00a0 TERMINATION<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Also, being “cited” is not same thing as “convicted”.\u00a0 But here, I can’t think of right words (don’t like :”convicted” either)<\/p>\n Mon, 10\/08\/2012 – 04:08 \u2014 paintedrider<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n I guess this has set a precedent and all new horses need to have current vaccinations upon entering OHA with a vet’s certificate.<\/p>\n Sat, 10\/20\/2012 – 23:37 \u2014 ereiter<\/p>\n “”Dues will be prorated for both incoming and 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….<\/p>\n The last 3 treasurers are Cheryl, Morris and Bev James.\u00a0 I have asked Cheryl; she prorates all new dues and all refunds (at $1.80\/day)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" What comments do you have about the proposed Rules & Regulations revision? A Few Comments Hi Everyone, Regarding the mention\u00a0 under “IX Changes of Horses” letter “G,”\u00a0 “…OHA reserves the right to sell the member\u2019s horse at public auction…” I request that we don’t include selling a horse at auction as a possibility. I believe… Read More »OHA Rules & Regulations Revision 2012<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":1089,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/orindahorsemen.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1099"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/orindahorsemen.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/orindahorsemen.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/orindahorsemen.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/orindahorsemen.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1099"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/orindahorsemen.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1099\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1100,"href":"http:\/\/orindahorsemen.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1099\/revisions\/1100"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/orindahorsemen.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1089"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/orindahorsemen.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/orindahorsemen.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/orindahorsemen.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nwithout more careful consideration than discussion at the upcoming meeting
\nallows. Only one\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Eddie has pointed out a whole set of provisions that should be added to either the rules or the procedures,
\n–provisions that neither the previous Board or the rules committee ever
\ndiscussed. But careful consideration should go a lot further than that.<\/p>\n
\nsuggested changes, some of which I disagreed with at the time, others of which
\nI have thought more about and have changed my mind about.<\/p>\n
\nHorse Hill (in Mill Valley) rules. Their pasture is on Marin Water District
\nland open to the public to hike through, so a horse that bites or kicks people
\nendangers their lease. This rule makes sense there, in other words, but our
\nsituation is quite different, and we have never had a horse that needed to be
\nexpelled. Particularly onerous is the option to send the horse to auction,
\nwhere it could be purchased and sent to Mexico for dog food. I don\u2019t think OHA
\nshould be involved in this, and don\u2019t think this new rule is at all
\nnecessary\u2014if a horse is that much of a problem, the owner will almost always
\nfigure out what to do.<\/p>\n
\nmy humble opinion. For one thing a person who is cited for violation of an
\nEBMUD or City or County violation has only been accused, not convicted, of bad
\nbehavior. Conviction should be required before OHA decides to expel them if
\nthat is the only criteria being considered. Furthermore, expelling people who
\nare 3 months behind on their board, or who are 1 hour short on their work hours
\nfor 2 years is unduly harsh. Yes, the rule says \u201cat the board\u2019s discretion\u201d but
\nthat still allows it.<\/p>\n
\nmembership or expel a horse is \u201cat the discretion of the board.\u201d This was added
\nostensibly to prevent arbitrary action, for a violation that technically could
\nbe cause for action, but might not rise to that level when all facts are
\nconsidered. But this wording also allows action when it is clearly not
\nwarranted, at the board\u2019s discretion. It was argued that this was also tempered
\nby the recusal provision, but that is problematic too as worded.<\/p>\n
\npowers was tempered by the insertion of this provision. The Board will be fair,
\nit was stated, because prejudiced members will recuse themselves. But that is
\nlike counting on Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases where his wife is
\nraising funds to promote one side of a case before him. In the Rules Committee
\nit was proposed that the Board, by a majority vote, also have the power to
\nrecuse a member who is too involved with an issue at hand, and we were told
\nthis additional safeguard would be put before the board. I see no evidence that
\nit was, and it should be included in any new rules.<\/p>\n
\nsection about disputes between members, with no hint that it might apply to
\ndiscussion of discipline.<\/p>\n
\nimplied in the old rules, that a repeated violation of the same <\/strong>rule
\nwould open the door to Board action. The rewriting allows a second letter to be
\nsent, and then termination for violation of any rule, including those totally
\nunrelated to the issue at hand. This is kind of like California\u2019s 3 Strikes
\nlaw, which mandates life in prison for a third offense of shoplifting.\u00a0 This wording needs to be tightened up to be clear that we are looking at a repeated violation of the same important rule.<\/p>\n
\naction against someone without giving them notice that such a discussion will
\ntake place, and without giving them a chance to dispute the charges. If we had
\nlearned anything from the last occurrence, we should have learned that a
\nprovision of this sort is essential to any appearance of a just decision.<\/p>\n
\nthat a 2\/3 majority be required is a step in the right direction, but with a
\nstrengthened recusal clause, and totally interested people not participating,
\nwhy not require a unanimous decision? If recusals reduce the number of board members below 5, how about
\nappointing disinterested general members to fill out the committee considering
\ntermination? I feel it is more important to have a process whose integrity
\ncannot be questioned than it is to quickly expel someone, even a troublemaker.<\/p>\n
\nof these was inadvertently omitted from the draft of the new rules, because I
\nsomehow missed it in my review of previous rules changes and nobody pointed it
\nout.\u00a0 From the January 2011 minutes:<\/p>\n
\ncompletion of work hours as this practice has created even more work to effect
\naccurate record keeping. \u00a0Get your hours in by Sept. 30!!!”<\/p>\n
\nothers adopted then and at the following meeting are the reason why I proposed
\na 30 day comment period before new rules could be passed by the board, a
\nprocedure adopted by the November 2011 annual meeting.<\/p>\n
\nyear – no more discretionary crediting of WH to the following year (again, this
\npast practice creates more work for record keepers).”<\/p>\n
\nhas already fulfilled their work hours requirement to undertake any new tasks
\nin the month of September, instead of waiting for October to start meeting the
\nnext year\u2019s mandated hours.<\/p>\n
\ndisincentive for someone who has completed their hours to continue doing OHA
\nhours before the year has ended. Gifting hours in the past was usually done as
\na favor to members who for whatever reason had not completed their hours, but
\nhad done other kinds of favors for the person who had excess hours. As a result
\nthe total number of hours required of the membership were completed, instead of
\ncollecting cash instead from members who were short on hours. I believe getting
\nthe work done is more important than collecting cash.<\/p>\n
\nOHA work, and that should be encouraged. But we should not require it, IMHO,
\nbecause we need eyes and ears at the pasture. An associate member who comes up
\nwhen others are not there fills an important role just by going up there. If
\nthey later decide to chip in at work parties or other ways, great. But this
\nrequirement makes anyone who wants to sponsor an OHA horse think twice about
\nthe time required to do that . Let\u2019s get them up there, and most of them will
\nget involved on some level.<\/p>\n
\nbut discriminates against anyone who has physical limitations for whatever
\nreasons, be it injuries, age or someone who has to travel a lot. Members should
\nbe encouraged to contribute in whatever way they can, but not required to work
\nin certain ways. Tri Cities Horsemen chose a few years ago to give up their
\nEBMUD pasture in Martinez because the physical work load required by EBMUD
\ndemands for new fencing and other improvements was too much for an aging
\nmembership.\u00a0 We should be careful that we do not put ourselves in a similar situation, with or without outside
\ndemands.<\/p>\nProcedures<\/h2>\n
\na suggested guideline. Again this was to be put before the board, but there is
\nno indication that it was.<\/p>\n
\nstated that \u201ca list of needed pasture repairs is kept in the white shed and
\nappended to the minutes of each Board meeting.\u201d\u00a0 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
\nnow. We did not make a decision on that, AFAIK.\u00a0 I think having it in the minutes is especially useful to remind
\npeople of what needs to be done, and to give them ideas on how to fill their
\nwork hours requirement. Each item can be noted \u201cask______ for details\u201d and the
\nlist can be quickly updated as projects are completed and new ones become
\nappropriate.<\/p>\n\n
Rules and Problem Horses<\/a><\/h3>\n
suggestions for R&R changes<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
work hours<\/h3>\n
\n
work related<\/h3>\n
Procedures about releases<\/h3>\n
\n
Changes necessary for me to be comfortable with the R & P’s<\/h3>\n
\nHeather for undertaking this task. They worked hard of this. However, I have some concerns and do
\nnot want to pass the current version of the R & P’s.<\/p>\n
\nmembers who have been able to work things out. Once, when I was disabled
\nI was “talked about” by members (I was disabled, twice) and felt the
\npain of being targeted. Even though I did my hours, paid my dues, saw my
\nhorse and had good sponsors there were “new” members who thought I was
\nnot up there enough. If they had been in charge I could have been kicked
\nout according to the rules at the time.<\/p>\n
\nAny one of you could be targeted by being a new parent, getting new job,
\ngetting old, making a mistake (if you are not popular), or having
\nfinancial troubles. In other words, by life. We are members up here for
\nas long as we can. It might be impossible to get back in. At any time
\nyou could be the target. Do not let the rules put so much power in one
\ngroups hands where you can be harmed.<\/p>\n
\nto look at this with a lawyer-like mind. I am on another deadline … I
\nam forced to comment now however. And, sorry it is a “book” but the
\nwork (thanks for getting it this far committee!) is not done yet.<\/p>\n\n
\nRemoval of horses<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\nAny horse that damages property (and) the owner is not “popular” can be
\nasked to be removed. This puts “Judge & jury” in the hands of one
\nBoard. I can think of instances where rails were broken, Herd “bosses”
\nkick other horses, troughs broken, fences breached etc. (normal horse
\nissues usually dealt with by being fixed by the owner or simply
\nabsorbed) Forcing a horse to leave puts undue financial hardship on the
\nowner. Some sort of mitigation should be written into this rule before a
\n“a Board may, at its discretion request removal a horse …” Heck, you
\nbring in a new horse and this stuff happens all the time<\/p>\n
\npeople would “pull” an errant maverick horse if it was a ton of trouble –
\non their own. This is probably unnecessary.<\/p>\n
\nToo much power in the hands of the Board. Although elected, it is mostly an
\nunknown how they would treat any member. I have been very surprised by
\nhow people actually thought – behind closed doors. Problem: Board
\nmembers could be biased (or just fed up). These rules have them act as
\nJudge & Jury. W\/o police charges – their evidence is not necessarily
\ntrue. I FAR prefer a jury of peers, a committee drawn from the members
\nto weigh charges. If we cannot do that we at least need cooling off
\nperiods & some way of talking over issues.<\/p>\n
\nRedwood Rangers solution to personality conflicts: This is a big place,
\nif you cannot get along, stay away from each other.<\/p>\n
\nthese broken rules several rules or a repeated violation of one rule? I
\ndo not have time to look through this and am forced to conjecture
\nbecause of the comment deadline.<\/p>\n
\nSame objection:
\nI think some sort of mitigation should be written into this sentence:
\n“The Board may terminate an individual\u2019s membership at its discretion.”
\nAt the LEAST it should say “After following (exhausting) the procedures in XII: The Board may …”
\nAgain, I think a “jury of peers” should precede any actions of the Board.<\/p>\n
\npurpose so the Board would NOT have to terminate, or have a hard-line
\nresponse for an ordinarily good member that was having a hard time.
\nNever-the-less that sentence – apart from the original intent can be
\ntaken the opposite way and ALLOW termination at the Boards discretion.<\/p>\n
\naccusers are the ones an accused member has to appeal to. Meanwhile the
\naccused member is “harmed” by possibly having to remove their horse(s)
\nand incur heavy financial costs. What they are accused of may not be
\ntrue! He said\/ she said does not hold up in a court of law – It should
\nnot hold up at OHA.<\/p>\n
\n“Cited” for some infraction. Cited is an accusation, it is not a
\nconviction. Cited is not a high enough standard for termination.<\/p>\n
\nshocked by the proposed power of the Board. I made some objections but
\nwas boggled – After the meeting I called some members of the committee,
\nHOW did you let this happen? They said they were not there or were
\noverruled or rendered ineffective. Not all committee members approve of
\nthese Rules section.<\/p>\n
\nothers should be able to vote to recuse them. Everyone thinks they are
\n“right” in their thinking and may not realize they are prejudiced.<\/p>\n
\nAgain, sorry for the long opinion. I do not have time to research or
\nrefine it.<\/p>\n\n
rules and procedures<\/a><\/h3>\n
Releases, Horse Health, and Board vote for termination<\/h3>\n
\n
\n\u201cUpon 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\u201d<\/p>\n\n
vet certificate<\/h3>\n
One more rule to re-consider<\/h3>\n
\noutgoing members if the
\npayment date falls within 90 days of June 15 or December 15”<\/p>\n