[AlpacaTalk] Re: Show Division
You have me confused on this one. Could you please define
further "private corporation" and its significance within the 501c(5)
and "public interest organization within the same. From a layman's
standpoint (me), it would seem that they are not exclusive of each
other. Is it not possible to be a private corporation and also be a
public interest organization? If you could provide the legal
definitions from the 501c(5) rules, and the source document, that
would help me.
Thanks.
Joyce
--- In AlpacaTalk@yahoogro
>
> 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
[mailto: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'
be
> 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'
the "right
> 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%
ups.com,
> gatewayfarm <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In AlpacaTalk@yahoogro <mailto:AlpacaTalk%
ups.com,
> 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 10:24 AM
0 comments
