|
THE DEBATE
Three rule change proposals are
on the table in 2008 which, if passed, would mandate an
annual NRHA Professionals membership for any rider
who shows in any
Open NRHA class,
Open aged event or
Open Freestyle competition. The exception would only be
NRHA Non Pro and Youth Non Pro card holders.
Another related rule change
proposal would double the current
NRHA Professionals dues from $25 to $50 annually.
As of spring 2008, the NRHA Website listed 209 NRHA
Professionals. At $25 per membership, that was $5,225
in revenue generated by that program. We attempted to
find in past NRHA Professionals meeting notes where
NRHA Professionals funds were budgeted, expensed or
accounted for, but found nothing.
If the numbers submitted by the 2006 Finance Committee are
correct, approximately 2,500 individuals participated in Open, Intermediate Open, Limited Open and
Rookie Professional classes in 2006. Multiply that
number by the proposed $50 NRHA Professionals Membership Dues, and that totals $125,000 in revenue.
(NOTE: it is logical to conclude that a portion of those
entries were carded non pros or youth, and thus would not be
required to join NRHA Professionals)
The proposals, as stated on NRHA's Rule Change Proposal
Forms, do not address the need for the revenue, where the
revenue would be utilized, nor which value center within the
Association will gain benefit.
DUAL MEMBERSHIP
Some feel that mandating this proposed NRHA Professionals
membership - over and above the current NRHA Open
annual membership fee of $95 - reeks of the mandatory dual
membership which was rejected in the failed Strategic Plan
of early 2007, and again regarding Bylaw J at the 2007
general election.*
The apparent intent of the
proposed NRHA Professionals membership requirement seems to be to
regulate NRHA professionals' Code of Conduct and behavior
within the industry. However, the Code of Conduct
included in NRHA's Non Pro Declaration accomplishes a
similar purpose with a ONE-TIME initial fee. Unless a
Non Pro membership expires, the fee is never assessed again.
Note that both professionals and non pro members are subject
to standard disciplinary procedures for violations of NRHA
Rules.
Many Open riders with past NRHA Professionals memberships have not renewed in subsequent years, stating no
notable benefit of membership. However, there is
definite discrimination by NRHA administration between members VS non members.
For instance, The Reiner Magazine's policy is to NOT
publish articles on trainers who are not NRHA Professionals members.
WHAT ABOUT RIGHTS?
Another unique consideration is
the rights of reining horse trainers who are NOT
NRHA Professional members. There is an additional
proposed rule change that is bedfellow to the mandatory
membership requirement. This proposal not only
outlines
NRHA Professionals conditions, i.e. what constitutes an
NRHA Professional, but goes so far as to state that;
-
"Advertising
as a trainer/instructor in NRHA media requires
membership in the NRHA Professionals",
-
"The
Professional Committee will screen all applicants. The
Professional Committee can require at any time a
Professional to submit his/her card for review of
applicability. The Professional Committee can refuse a
Professional card to anyone deemed not in compliance
with the eligibility criteria set forth in the NRHA
Handbook."
-
and "Professional
status will be granted on a temporary basis and is
subject to revocation pending publication in the NRHA
Reiner and approval by the Professionals Committee.
Professional status will be null and void and any
Professional earnings and prizes will be forfeited if it
is determined that the applicant is not eligible under
the NRHA Professional conditions, as defined in the NRHA
Handbook. Failure to comply with the application
requirement as specified in this Handbook may result in
disciplinary action."
Open riders pay their standard
NRHA dues and/or lifetime memberships. Should they be
required to also submit themselves to the scrutiny of an
NRHA committee? And if they chose not to join, should
they be denied the privilege of advertising in the
association's own publication? And above all, should
they be subject to disciplinary action?
THE REAL QUESTION
The real question is what is the
motivation behind these proposals? Is it simply to increase
overall revenue for the NRHA? Is it to discourage
trainers from other disciplines from showing in Open NRHA
classes? Is it to try to reintroduce the previously proposed
and substantial increase in NRHA
Open membership dues in a camouflaged
package? Or is it an attempt to make NRHA a more
exclusive, elitist performance horse association?
As was the case with several
past controversial rule change proposals, many associations
may be recommending that the Board of Directors NOT approve
this one.
What do you think? TAKE
THE POLL on the rule change page!
all related rule
change proposals & polls:
*Bylaw
J called for an end to the dual membership requirement of
Reining Canada in addition to regular NRHA membership for
Canadian NRHA exhibitors. Despite the Bylaw J passing
at the 2007 NRHA General Election, the NRHA Board of
Directors voted shortly thereafter to impose a dual
membership requirement for Canadian NRHA exhibitors who
wished to participate in the NAAC Affilliate Circuit Series.
As of spring 2008, it appeared that of the 1,100 NRHA
members in Canada, fewer than 400 had elected to join
Reining Canada.
|
