|
SWPFHA
~ TxPFHA Board Members Joint Meeting Attended:
SWPFHA: TxPFHA: Typist Comments:
Lunch began at 11:00 am, meeting actually began approximately 45
minutes afterward. Speakers: Ed: Let's begin our
opening statements, discuss TxPFHA & SWPFHA common goals. I
talked to TX group representatives after Board Meeting in Atlanta. We
talked about possibly meeting. Some SWPFHA members discussed meeting with
TX first, but declined in order to meet with own group first. We
understand TX put off application for membership until Oct. Mickey:
Primary goal of TX, we want to talk in ways two associations could come
together in any way shape or form. Ed:
I came to this meeting with some specific ideas, some may be agreeable,
some may be totally unacceptable to either group. My (list) could be a
starting point. Carlos:
TX members need a chance to understand. One thing I asked as Pres for each
board (of SW) member to submit each individual proposal together, to be
presented to TX. Currently getting all information together to combine to
present. All are not here, (Asked at Glen Rose show and just hadn't had
time to compile answers nor receive all replies.) Mickey:
(spoke, typist missed it..
Asked when that data would be available. Carlos mentioned accompanying
some horses to Germany and trying to work around that schedule. exact dialogue missed.) Ed:
I'm presenting my ideas today. Hopefully this will be a starting
point. John
(To Mickey) What are you looking for, or to gain specifically? Mickey: We want to bring
all Paso folk together, help SW any way we can. But beyond that, we�re
not looking for anything. Carlos:
I've been a member of SW for number of years, and have seen more unity in
the past 2 years than ever before. Interest in promoting the horse, which
is why we�re where we are. We understand how hard you are working,
excellent way of promoting the horse. Want to know what managerial issues
in order to promote the horse together. The way you�re promoting it,
there is no question in our mind that this is a benefit. How can we go
along to help keep promoting the horse in this manner. Mickey:
Continuing to meet like this (is helpful). It�s not very expensive for
any individual to become members in either assoc., allowing members to
have full membership in both. Restructuring membership to allow both. Elaine:
We need to discuss Ed�s proposal packet. Ed:
reading from notes (passes around Ed's personal handout sheet of ideas). Taking
point by point: taking it under advisement and go forward. Suggesting to
enter an affiliation agreement. To avoid conflict and competition to allow
us to further our common goal of promoting and demonstrating the Paso Fino
horse. A shame that we had two organizations in the same geographical area
competing over the same issues and goals. In public, representing the best
interest of the horse to those people. This is not a good thing to be
doing to promote our breed. We all like to do the same things with our
horses, trail ride, CTR, tho our family focus has been to show and breed
the PF horse. My suggestion is, one thing brought out in PFHA membership,
this is not unique. These issues we�re facing are common to every other
region. Some more than others but it�s present. Some suggestions from
Great Lakes and others, broken into subchapters to accommodate those in
their groups. More common interest than those at large. They
cover a large territory and serve to affiliate each other, organize trail
rides, parades, clinics, things more accessible to those that reside in
their locale. Some of the things we were encouraged to begin doing from a
couple of the other PFHA Board delegates, TX has take steps to begin
separate entity and structure. It is wise of SW to suggest TX to maintain
separate identity yet .. Mickey:
Two separate regions? Carlos: One region but two
organizations. Of 90 members
if only 10 are SW members, then 80 members would still get SW vote. All
stay under SW umbrella from PFHA standpoint. Yet from our own standpoint
two separate clubs. Ed
quotes from literature: Numbered
points. (reads his handout in entirety). Mickey:
Does #5 indicate that SW would not do what TX does in # 6, and vice versa. Typist interjection, from Ed Smith's
handout: �
#5: In this affiliation. SW
would continue to emphasize and promote thePaso as it has in the past, and
as it continues to see as in it's best interest in the future. SW would
continue to focus on showing and competing the Paso Fino, along with the
other activities SW has, and in the future might desire to undertake. �
#6: TX would continue it's
efforts and emphasis to promote the aspects of pleasure ownership,
pleasure riding, trail riding, and competitive trail riding. TX would
continue with it's emphasis on the social aspects of parades, trail rides,
fun shows, and other social gatherings, along with the other activities TX
has, and in the future might desire to undertake. Ed:
No restrictions, if each group wants to do those things individually. you�ve
formed your group, the strength you have right now, are SW weaknesses. SW would continue managing shows, maybe not managing other
activities. If either wanted to volunteer to show, they would backed and
encouraged. Ed:
breaks down costs to each group (#9). Matching funds from each group. Typist interjection: �
#9: As part of the reciprocal
benefits, we would combine our efforts to put out a joint newsletter
(bi-monthly), web site, and Houston R&LS booth under the name of TX
& SWPFHA. Each group would give editorial input into the content of
the newsletter and to the web site with articles, calendar of events, etc.
TX could take the lead in managing the newsletter and to the web site. Sw
would contribute a certain dollar amount, to be determined in the
negotiations, per year toward this effort. $________ for the newsletter, $
_______ for the HRLS booth,
and $___ for the web site.
(It is my personal suggestion that the amount to be contributed by SW be
not greater than $1,800.00 per year for the three aforementioned items).
TX could contribute an amount equal to, less than, or greater than the
amount contributed by SW. John:
We didn�t know what costs, budget, so this was not something we�re
prepared to deal with at present. This wasn't something that should be
mentioned at this point in time. Carlos:
We need to discuss costs because each club has reciprocal benefits
overall. Your group is putting out a quality newsletter, but it's probably
done using personal computers and newsletter editing programs? So we don't
know costs there nor web site costs. Ed:
SW has a set fee (up to $1800 annually) that TX either matches, or
if project only requires set fee and SW has covered that TX would not need
to add matching funds. At the
PFHA board level, SW continues to represent the interests of both groups. We
take the costs of representation to the board level, taking your interests
into consideration. Now SW is 4th largest region. Told that our
interests W of Mississippi are a lot different from the needs of those
regions East of Miss. Rule change proposals and policies that would
adversely affect those to the west of certain regions. Two largest regions
are Fla, GA, S C., etc., they wield the �big stick� (the main
interests are showing). Other things affects your interests other than
showing and these have the political pull within the group itself. Richard
(Ledbetter); When I was in
FL. region, numerous barns didn�t show at all. They wanted to have Pasos
for fun. Not represented because they don�t have the numbers even as
part of their own region. We�d like our own representation in that area.
Ed:
Who represents one represents both (regions). Carlos: How could we get
PFHA to put on more sanctioned trail rides here? (topic came up while
chatting with Suzanne (Seal)). There�s no saying we�re going to be
against it as SW. We don�t have to split every vote on everything you
bring unless it�s something SW just doesn�t want.
Ed:
Vote would have to be split
if each club designates their desires one way or another. Carlos:
Nothing in either bylaws, saying you could not be on board or hold office
in either / both groups. Mickey:
Your bylaws don�t explicitly state that. Carlos:
Only stipulation is you can�t run for office until you�ve been a
member for a year. John:
An affiliate member that is for someone who is a member in Deep South to
qualify for high point in their shows, etc., lesser fee. Nonvoting. David: We're members of several regions as we may show in
those areas and can use points as members, but we don't vote those regions. Mickey:
if a TX member who joins SW also, would be a full voting member. Ed:
If agreement is met if it requires amending bylaws, that�s no problem. Mickey:
If TX members became SW members also, full membership ? Voting
within the region vs PFHA voting. Nationally it doesn�t count. National
vote supersedes local. Carlos:
If you become a region,
then no you won�t have full voting in SW. Mickey and Cathy: We
understand this. Cathy: We understand
voting at PFHA level. Originally we asked for two proposals.
We�re
asking you to take into consideration that we�re looking at both issues
and consider both and do not take offense that we want to become a region.
We want to work with SW whichever way we go.. Carlos:
If you reapply, if PFHA chooses to grant you a regions we�ll support
you. What we�re hoping is to get together and finding some grounds that
would prevent you from becoming a region. Our voting priviliges would be
cut in half. Richard
(Ledbetter): TX
geographical area has xxx members. If TX goes to PFHA with voting for a
topic, and SW voting for same topic, voting the same way, what�s the
difference? Cathy,
By working with SW, we get together to appeal to other regions as a larger
power. We�ve
seen a significant number of members rejoin PFHA. We�ll have more
interest than less, more overall votes at the top then less. Ed; I disagree. Only a
finite number of people are eligible for membership, not the growth
you�re seeing. You�re going to have a moderate growth rate. Some range
of limitations after you�ve
gotten the interest back to rejoining. Mickey:
A large number of owners who�ve never considered joining who might if
they had a local �fun group�. Carlos:
Bottom line is basically you�re not going to commit to any agreement
until the Oct meeting. Cathy: What we�ve said, we�re looking to going forward,
we can�t give an answer until we meet with our own members for their
opinions. We
asked Ed to come to us with two proposals. (either way) at the same time
we�re going to keep our forward momentum and motion going. Mickey:
Can I add? We do want to take whatever SW feels as appropriate, one or
both, but Cathy is saying we have talked to our membership and they feel
we should go forward to become a region. Ed:
After getting a feel of the different dynamics of it, the plan I put forth
tries to bring forth both interests of each region. All the things you do
as a region of PFHA except we combine voting privileges. Carlos:
I�m not asking you to commit, but we do need to know going into this
afternoon, but you�ve done the work, and continue to do so. Some people
who�re not here may not understand. The moment we�re 2 regions people
will stop interest in either. Cathy:
This is something our region has discussed, we�d have one delegate to
represent two regions. Talked about Ed represent both, we pay half, etc.
as it became clear, we realized it wasn�t going to work. Ed:
PFHA won�t allow two regions one delegate. Carlos:
I feel from the things we�ve shared today its not going to be much
different, all becomes managerial issues. Two regions working together,
maybe SW isn�t willing to split costs for certain issues. Ed:
Great Lakes calls subchapters, their board represents all their collective
interests. They have a method of taking that into account. Ken:
Chapters are geographic area, not interest divisions. (as opposed to
function) This
is a functional division. I�ve been around PFHA a long time, I�m
concerned about this functional separation not addressing what I think one
of the issues SW has which is geographical. Both boards consider
geography? (Still
saying one region.) Should it not be considered whether this functional
separation is going to strengthen or weaken us? Ed:
Ownership is concentrated in this area and South down to Houston. I
see in this instance, we have 2 entities that are already up and running,
with their own officers, boards, as to what they�re trying to
accomplish. May be unreasonable to ask the two to get back together to
form one entity reorganize into subchapters. Would take a big step for
both. We need to come to some understanding in writing or whatever to show
focus in one area or another. Carlos:
When we approach a new member, we need to create a form or application.
For new members to have the opportunity to be members of both or just one,
etc. The State of Texas �.
(interrupt) John: Interjection
I understand a proposal about how we might proceed forward. Why is
that a one way proposition? Why should I not expect a proposal from your
group, say a reciprocal proposal? Darla: TX wants to be it's own region. But we're here to
listen to SW proposal as you requested. Mickey:
Members have made it clear we�d like to have regional status. But it�s
not necessary to continue the efforts of this (TX) group. Should we not
get affiliation we�ll still be a horse group of some sort. John: To hear that
clarifies something. If there were terms and issues you could say "if
you�d do this we�d feel justified in not pursuing our regional
status." If there is
nothing that we can do now, then we agree to meet in Oct. Mickey:
We have no other means than membership dues. A lot of our group came in as
lifetime but that�s not happening annually. Expenses often come out of
private pockets. Elaine:
To me this looks good (Ed�s proposals). Both groups can work really
well, where one falls short the other can pick up. A lot of cynicism in TX
that they don�t feel their issues would be addressed. My first thought
is I like it. It sounds good. I don�t want to lose the numbers either. I
thought we could share a delegate. Cathy:
You (John) used the words "nothing" Carlos earlier said
"impossible." We want to hear, listen, consider the proposal, we
want to go to our members. Our Board is trying to keep thinking
positively. We feel like the votes at the top of PFHA are an issue,
whether we�re one or two regions. We�re also not just votes with PFHA,
but meeting members' at the bottom needs also. All of us can agree,
promoting Paso Fino is the real issue. We�d
like to see SW succeed & how we can help their shows, having
volunteers. Our goal is more owners, more growth of the breed and I think
we all can agree with that. Ed:
You keep saying there are almost 500 owners, are they registered PF
owners? We
can determine how many owners but it�s a finite number. As PFHA records
indicate. But that�s your most fertile ground. Once that happens, your
new interest groups will be outside the breed owners. Competing over the
same group of people that are out there. Cathy:
To me it�s exciting the number of people that are out there, maybe not
500 but more than any of us realize. The potential of growth for all
areas, pleasure, shows, stallions used, etc. We have an aggressive
marketing plan to promote the interest in the breed that very few other
regions have. We�ve
got them interested, going to different farms, may not be our farms. We
don�t consider it as competition, but as a benefit to all Paso breeders.
Ed:
If we can�t find a way to affiliate and work together, we�ll be at
some point in competition. Some time PFHA will expect you to put on a
show. Mickey,
Carlos and Cathy: No they
don't. Carlos:
That is important in my
mind to find some working relations with SW. Cathy:
A lot of people have been lax in their membership but we're reaching these
people in a different way. Ken:
A lot of things Cathy is saying are the actual areas weakened in SW in the
last couple of years, they don�t solicit membership. You have to enforce
yourself. Where are the people? We don�t go out and ask them. You join
SW and you literally have to push yourself in front of people. Some
people that spent the weekend at my place, (we had a trail ride at my
house). Some people had a great turnout at Glen Rose but show was not a
fun show. Not enough (non-competitive) activities. Old
days, at every show, at the end there would be some fun classes. Carlos: We did have fun events at Glen Rose but they were
held after the regular show. Elizabeth:
Where? Where were the volunteers from your group to help with our
show? Cathy:
You may have had TX members as volunteers, but they're all still SW
members also. TX isn't a group yet, we've only been getting people
together since first of this year. With
this new group, we have a fresh start in enthusiasm and excitement, even
in participating in the shows. Now the number of people are growing as the
enthusiasm grows. We're
promoting activities which will only help promote show participation in
the long run. Ed:
I don�t want to kill anyone's enthusiasm. Going to ask TX to give up
their separate group as a region would kill off their drive. By the same
token, if we don�t go with each other, we may have more hard feelings,
step on each other's toes, competing with each other. Suggesting it�s
not too late to remedy that. I�m trying to promote something that takes
into everything you�ve already accomplished. (Refers to his list). Carlos:
You want 2 proposals, we will discuss those solutions, we�ll promote the
horse together. We don�t know whether memberships will accept joint
proposals, We
do have SW elections coming up, if you have members interested, please
suggest to them to run for our office. In Oct., we don�t know what is
going to happen. Nominating
committee is, Ken Sanders, George Self, Nancy Flick and Dan Mobley. Richard
(Ledbetter): Your major
opposition is fear of breaking down the voting block of PFHA. David:
Overlapping interests, competing for new members. We�re not opposed to
new regions geographically. New regions are healthy for PFHA. Confusing
issues come from overlapping membership. Cathy:
What I'm hearing is that if we get geographical boundaries you'll be for
us. Do you not realize that competition can be a good thing for both
regions? Ed: It�ll create separation and it�ll end up at some
time at cross- purposes with each other. Carlos: Let's
finish this, we both have the same principles, taking it to our members.
(We will) Let you know how our meeting took place. Cathy:
Even if we were an offical region, SW gets the vote automatically. Unless
they (members) specifically request TX as their voting region on their
application. We felt we're being aboveboard all the way. Ed:
PFHA�s perspective in my view, they let one region in on that basis. I
don�t like it because now we have regions that have status that are not
on the same basis with each other. I opposed it at our meeting. Voted
against it. We
need to maintain uniformity in the way we present to PFHA. A positive way
to solve the issues in some degree. Still don�t think it�s right (two
regions). John:
I am reiterating my point that SW does not have the total responsibility
to come up with ideas about how you�ll refrain from pursuing your
separate identity. Carlos:
(replied, typist missed comments.) Cathy:
SW wants TX to join them. That's
why you are coming to us with the proposals. TX is going forward one way
or the other. Meeting ended at 1:30. SW members joined
their club members at a 2pm meeting in Willis. |
| � 2001 TxPFHA | Updated: July 22, 2007 |