RE: [AlpacaTalk] Re: Show Division
It seems the first question that needs to be answered would be, Is AOBA
really a private corporation or is it a public interest organization?
AOBA's Articles of Incorporation require it to remain 501c5 non-profit
agricultural organization. AOBA's Purposes for which the corporation is
organized are as follows: to promote public awareness and membership
appreciation of the alpaca's unique qualities; to educate the membership on
the care and breeding of the alpaca; to promote the growth of the Alpaca
industry as a whole; to foster the establishment of the breed outside of its
native land by encouraging husbandry and breeding practices based upon, but
not limited to, herd health, overall soundness and wool production; and to
establish and maintain an alpaca registry.
According to AOBA's Articles of Incorporation it's only allowed to act in
furtherance of its purposes. But even then limitations are declared such
as, the "no part of the net earnings shall inure to the benefit of." as well
as "shall not carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried on
by a 501c5 nor in any activity of any type that will impair or terminate
AOBA's 501c5 status." (Article V - Limitations on Purposes and Powers)
So is AOBA a public interest organization since they represent the alpaca
communities' interests or are they a private corporation? Who else
represents the alpaca community more completely on a national level than
AOBA?
All the best,
Ana
Floyd and Ana Romanik
Indian Summer Alpacas
Chepachet, Rhode Island
Phone: (401) 568-7759
_____
From: AlpacaTalk@yahoogro
Behalf Of Joyce Maley
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:13 PM
To: AlpacaTalk@yahoogro
Subject: [AlpacaTalk] Re: Show Division
If the bylaws say there should be one level of membership then to
stay within the spirit of the organization'
only one level of membership. However, there is no rule that says
anyone has to stay within the spirit. It is only required that we
stay within the letter of the law. By adding things on that does not
effect voting status, that is probably how the people that pay more
money can obtain additional benefits that are not available to those
who just have the standard voting membership. I don't think it is a
rules issue; I believe it is an attitude issue. Whoever we elect
will be the people whose attitude counts. There is no requirement to
look out for the little guy.
In the US we are kind of spoiled. We have a Constitution that
basically says everyone should have equal opportunity, that
government should try to do the "right thing" and that people should
play fair. That is not required of private organizations. Even
though our parents probably reminded most of us that life isn't
always fair, we still seem to think it should be. [For example, if
the majority of US citizens voted to put an extra federal tax on all
Texas residents, it probably wouldn't happen because it would be
considered unfair. However, if a 2/3 majority of the AOBA membership
voted to no longer register ARI alpacas if they are born to two ARI
alpacas in New Zealand, then they probably could do that, even though
it might be damaging AOBA members who reside in New Zealand. [Yes,
they might get sued, but if they can prove it is in the
organization'
not violate the bylaws and it is not taking away anything the member
already has.] Unfortunately, if you read AOBA's bylaws (and most
other organization'
thing" or being fair. Just like most other private organizations, it
is NOT required to support all members nor is it required to act in
the best interests of all members. It can implement anything that
does not violate the bylaws, or anything that the majority (sometimes
2/3 majority depending upon the issue) asks for, even if it damages
other members. For us to argue that something is unfair, to me, is a
loosing argument as fairness is not required.
I feel that by keeping the entry level dues low, AOBA has developed a
way to keep a monopoly on representing US alpaca interests. I think
that if an organization tried to truly have one level of membership,
they would have to ask for much higher dues, and therefore it would
be less competitive. That could result in multiple organizations
cropping up to both represent alpaca owners and to provide other
showing outlets. Frankly, I think that was a very savy move on
AOBA's part. That does not mean that I agree with it, as I believe
very strongly in fair play and doing the right thing for everyone.
Regardless of the motive behind it, AOBA membership with different
levels of add ons is another example how the rich get richer and the
poor get poorer in our market ecomony, and there is no law against
that. Small farms just have to work smarter if they don't have the
funds to get into the more elite programs of AOBA.
Joyce Maley
Hurricane Alpacas
http://www.myalpaca <http://www.myalpaca
--- In AlpacaTalk@yahoogro <mailto:AlpacaTalk%
gatewayfarm <no_reply@..
>
> --- In AlpacaTalk@yahoogro <mailto:AlpacaTalk%
Heather Zeleny <alpacatalk@
> wrote:
> >
> > I have no idea, it just looks like changes are made without any
> prior
> > notice to members. I haven't seen a vote put up to members except
> > "voting" for board members in ages.
> >
> > Heather
> >
>
> An increase in dues would take care of many problems.
>
> There should not be, in my opinion, show division members,
marketing
> division members, farm members, association members, etc.
>
> Of course, being able to "join" the show division without being a
> member only perpetuates the system of multiple forms of membership.
>
> Those that support the current system argue that people that don't
> show shouldn't have to pay for something they don't use. That
might
> harken back to the days of ALSA administration of shows, when the
> AOBA membership dues did not cover showing.
> d
> However, now the shows are administered by AOBA, the privilege
should
> be covered under one dues structure.
>
> So then the question becomes, would you pay higher dues if it
> provided show and marketing division privileges? If so, how much
> higher? $350-500/yr?
>
> Would you vote for a 200% increase in dues if it brought equitable
> privilege to all AOBA members?
>
> I know I pay over $600/yr for one organization I belong to, and I
> seldom complain about it. I think that AOBA dues are artificially
> low, and that all the levels of membership are a way to raise
> necessary funds. Even if the marketing division were disbanded I
> suspect that current dues would not cover operating expenses.
>
> How would you vote?
>
> John Merrell
> Gateway Farm Alpacas
> http://www.gateway- <http://www.gateway-
> Alpaca, a natural elegance...
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
posted by Chaddo at 1:18 PM
0 comments
