UNITED STATES AMATEUR DRESSAGE FEDERATION

[rosinante]

Remember that when we had Gladstone, Le Goff & De Nemethy, that “show” was run by the USET and the wealthy patrons that subsidized that organization…totally separate from the then AHSA and its affiliate USDF…

Then…stuff happenned…the AHSA-USET bruhaahaa brougth us to the USEF…which now brings us to the USEF-USDF confused roles…

All the talk about getting competitive internationally belongs in the USEF High Performance Division…a sandbox where the bulk of the people riding in dressage competitions today do not play.

The USDF has many roles to play…education is a big one. But if they want to contribute to international competitiveness, then the role of the USDF should be to fill the pipeline of dressage riders as full as it can…such that the maximum number of potential candidates can arrive at the door of the USEF HP Division…we need to remember that when the US had national remount stations the government funded the US “horse” program…which speaks to the seriously large dollars that would be involved…maybe someone knows Bill Gates and can ask for a donation.

Also remember that Le Goff & De Nemethy ruled for about 20 years. That amount of time gave a solid base for developing both riders and horses.

[DressageGeek_Ribbon]

Rebecca - CONGRATS on your daughter’s accomplishments! Believe me - I know how incredibly rigorous and demanding those programs are -you must be beaming!!!

And Coreene - you rock!!

I am an amateur. I enjoyed helping out my GMO. I enjoyed showing. But I simply can’t reconcile spending $500 or more for a two day rated show at this point. More than a month’s board in one fell swoop. I’d rather spend the money at a clinic, or on more lessons, because that’s the whole point of it, for me, the training.

And I would much rather support an organization who recognizes that there are many of us in the trenches who feel the same way.

[rosinante]

If one looks at the history of riding in the US, one sees attempts at creating “national” schools…Morven Park (created in the 1960’s and called Morven Park International Equestrian Institute) headed by Maj. John Lynch, Cavalry, ret., and the Potomac Horse Center (headed by Betty Howett). Morven used to hold 9-month courses for training instructors which were then certified to Levels A, B, C. The PHC offered a 12-week “horsemasters” class and was qualified to offer the British Horse Society BHSAI and BHSI examinations.

Dressage never had coaches of the tenure of De Nemeth or Le Goff. DeNemethy was coach from 1955-1980…I believe Bengt Ljungquist was a USET coach, but his tenure was prematurely ended by his untimely death…and I can’t remember any really prominent “fulltime” USET dressage coaches after that.

So…where are Gladstone, Morven and PHC now???..as in where are those facilities with respect to their initial purpose?

It has been about 50 years since the establishment of those facitilites. It has been about 65 years since the disbandment of the horse cavalry.

[Hazelnut]

Truthfully, Rebecca’s assessment of the situation is correct. USEF and USDF are not listening to the AA’s and just forging ahead, NO MATTER WHAT.

I look at how many GMO’s are not publisizing the qualification proposal to allow their members to comment. Howdo I know? I looked. I updated the emails of the presidents of the GMO’s for a BB member, so I looked what’s out on the web…very little.

I contacted the president of my GMO (a judge) to offer to write an article for the newsletter so the members could have an opportunity to respond to this proposal…she basically patted me on the head and told me USEF is handling this, USDF is not asking for responses and there is nothing to respond to at this time. Then she proceeded to review the proposal from the convention and tell me how this is going to benefit dressage in the US. When I suggested we let the GMO membership know about the proposal so they could have input; not necessary, there is nothing to comment on…

She then went on to say that if I was worried about getting my bronze medal (I wish),that I have two years and to step it up because if I have my bronze I will be grandfathered in to ride at third level. :mad:

SAD…So I’ll join your grass roots organization! Lord knows I will never be an Olympic contender…so USDF obviously isn’t interested in me and maybe doesn’t really need my cash dollar either.

PS forgive the spelling, I have no idea how to spell check on this program.

[rebecca_yount]

We will be sending an article and analysis to all the GMO presidents and Participating Member delegates. It is almost ready and we have already presented to PVDA and will present to the Region 1 meeting on 3/16.

They will receive information to put in their newsletters if they would like to, and suggestions for how to get feedback from their membership.

There is currently no new “draft” to look at but the USEF Dressage Committee has said they are sending one post haste.

[ShotenStar]

@Hazelnut;3055622

…

I contacted the president of my GMO (a judge) to offer to write an article for the newsletter so the members could have an opportunity to respond to this proposal…she basically patted me on the head and told me USEF is handling this, USDF is not asking for responses and there is nothing to respond to at this time. Then she proceeded to review the proposal from the convention and tell me how this is going to benefit dressage in the US. When I suggested we let the GMO membership know about the proposal so they could have input; not necessary, there is nothing to comment on…
…

Hazelnut, that is an appalling attitude for a GMO president (judge or not) to have towards a member’s concerns.

Those of us who are working on this issue are primarily in search of a DATA-DRIVEN answer. If the DATA indicates that a qualifying process will yield positive results, then that becomes a path to consider. It’s this willy-nilly making decisions without sharing the underlying data (if there even is any …) that makes my teeth grind.

star

[SGray]

@rebecca yount;3055714

We will be sending an article and analysis to all the GMO presidents and Participating Member delegates. It is almost ready and we have already presented to PVDA and will present to the Region 1 meeting on 3/16…

will you also post it here? please

[slc2]

“She then went on to say that if I was worried about getting my bronze medal (I wish),that I have two years and to step it up because if I have my bronze I will be grandfathered in to ride at third level”

Are they telling us to get in there and do all that bad abusive riding BEFORE the rule is passed so we can get a medal?

Fascinating…

[rebecca_yount]

I think the day is soon approaching when GMOs will be held accountable for their responses to member concerns. Which is as it should be–the GMO and delegates to the USDF convention are there to represent the concerns of the membership, whatever those may be. The only reason anyone thinks they don’t have to present what the members want is that they have not heretofore been held accountable. Those days are OVER.

Your GMO president is correct in that there is no draft presently but it should be sent to the GMO presidents soon and should be presented to the GMO membership for comments. Our GMO is planning to put it on their website and email it out to members, as well as facilitate comments by members. That’s the way it should be done. Just because rule changes got through US-EEEEEEEE-F in past years without the general membership knowing anything (or much) about it does NOT make it okay to do it that way now. That is almost what happened with the Dressage Rule Change Proposal but we saved it–now this is the time and this is the year (really have to do it before August) when we must gather feedback. People need to study the USDF and USEF bylaws and rule change procedures to determine how the process should work and what recourse there is to influence the process.

It is not acceptable for a GMO to refuse to accept comments from members if they are presented appropriately. The GMO is there to serve the members and must do so.

[slc2]

I don’t know where one could possibly find a better person than rebecca to lead an effort toward organizational accountability and membership-centric goals. well done.

is it possible that some of this ‘elitist’ stuff is getting pushed out because the effort to create an international dressage team and a foundation for that team for the future, has been negatively effected by the uset-usef ‘merger’?

“When it got to $80,000, Debbie said, um…”

man…and I thought that was just some auction brouhaha, like the guy at <farm name removed>, wanting to PRETEND to put a nice horse in the sport horse auction, when in reality it was already sold, and have fake bidders jumping up and down waving their tickets…

[Velvet]

Just a thought on GMOs. I’ve been involved in a few of them. Based on my experiences, most are pretty darn good. But the few that are bad usually need to just be pulled. How do you do that? I mean, they are the representative group to the USEF and USDF? How can you get that removed and form another (and hopefully better) group? (Usually you can’t get rid of them by taking over the board. The bad ones I’ve seen are so incestuous it’s ridiculous. And I’m assuming that might the be problem identified out here.)

[Equibrit]

Is there anything stopping you from organizing an AMATEUR GMO?
http://www.usdf.org/docs/about/about-usdf/governance/PoliciesAndProcedures.pdf
Page 17.

You would get and amateur voting presence that way.

[Cowgirl]

[QUOTE=slc2;3055911]
Are they telling us to get in there and do all that bad abusive riding BEFORE the rule is passed so we can get a medal?[/QUOTE]

LOL! No, but you have plenty of time to take a second mortgage on your home and buy a schoolmaster so that you can grandfather in!

[sm1]

[QUOTE=rebecca yount;3055949]
I think the day is soon approaching when GMOs will be held accountable for their responses to member concerns. Which is as it should be–the GMO and delegates to the USDF convention are there to represent the concerns of the membership, whatever those may be. The only reason anyone thinks they don’t have to present what the members want is that they have not heretofore been held accountable. Those days are OVER.

Your GMO president is correct in that there is no draft presently but it should be sent to the GMO presidents soon and should be presented to the GMO membership for comments. Our GMO is planning to put it on their website and email it out to members, as well as facilitate comments by members. That’s the way it should be done. Just because rule changes got through US-EEEEEEEE-F in past years without the general membership knowing anything (or much) about it does NOT make it okay to do it that way now. That is almost what happened with the Dressage Rule Change Proposal but we saved it–now this is the time and this is the year (really have to do it before August) when we must gather feedback. People need to study the USDF and USEF bylaws and rule change procedures to determine how the process should work and what recourse there is to influence the process.

It is not acceptable for a GMO to refuse to accept comments from members if they are presented appropriately. The GMO is there to serve the members and must do so.[/QUOTE]

Yes, “The GMO is there to serve the members and must do so.”

Politically speaking there may be people inside that want to speak up but don’t want the political consequences. What do I mean? Take a solid stand and you may be suprised at the pockets of support.

USEF and USDF By-laws: if one can’t operate within them one does not deserve to serve on any committee or head a GMO. A non-profit can lose a lot by not operating within the by-laws, upper management would rather ditch the dead wood then be called into account on a state or federal level by not operating legally within their bylaws.

[sm1]

[QUOTE=Equibrit;3056540]
Is there anything stopping you from organizing an AMATEUR GMO?
http://www.usdf.org/docs/about/about-usdf/governance/PoliciesAndProcedures.pdf
Page 17.

You would get and amateur voting presence that way.[/QUOTE]

Well, that wouldn’t cut it for me because I need to represent my horses across North America. Anyway, I’d much rather smack the idiots over the heads who feel they can run their own private Idaho using ammy horses and ammy members’ fees (no disrepsect to Idaho). I’ve been around my horses and riders too long and I see they deserve much better then what the DC has been dishing out.

[Touchstone_Farm]

hazelnut, since when should a president control the total content of the GMO newsletter? It’s the membership’s newsletter! Our only “guidelines” for content (besides good taste!), is that the articles aren’t self-promotional; in other words, instructors shouldn’t write an article touting themselves or trainers/agents shouldn’t tout their training/importing. (Articles that are educational in nature…here’s what I learned at a clinic are encouraged!) Of course, anyone can purchase an ad! So when the info comes out (per Rebecca), submit it to your newsletter, mail to your members or email it to them to pass it along. The prez should not be the gatekeeper. (We also have a newsletter committee in case anything is questionable so one person doesn’t have to have the sole responsibility to include or not include an article.)

[Hazelnut]

@Touchstone Farm;3057857

hazelnut, since when should a president control the total content of the GMO newsletter? It’s the membership’s newsletter! Our only “guidelines” for content (besides good taste!), is that the articles aren’t self-promotional; in other words, instructors shouldn’t write an article touting themselves or trainers/agents shouldn’t tout their training/importing. (Articles that are educational in nature…here’s what I learned at a clinic are encouraged!) Of course, anyone can purchase an ad! So when the info comes out (per Rebecca), submit it to your newsletter, mail to your members or email it to them to pass it along. The prez should not be the gatekeeper. (We also have a newsletter committee in case anything is questionable so one person doesn’t have to have the sole responsibility to include or not include an article.)

I am in total agreement.

[DJ1]

I think that it is an idea whose time has come. If you made it the Pro-Am, we could even certify our own instructors and judges, eventually.

While I understand the need for some people to LIVE dressage, not everyone has that need.

When I lived in Germany, it seemed to me that there were two paths when riding; one leading to being a pro and the other to being a hobby rider. It is sort of a European concept. :winkgrin:

[Coreene]

@Touchstone Farm;3057857

hazelnut, since when should a president control the total content of the GMO newsletter? It’s the membership’s newsletter! Our only “guidelines” for content (besides good taste!), is that the articles aren’t self-promotional; in other words, instructors shouldn’t write an article touting themselves or trainers/agents shouldn’t tout their training/importing. (Articles that are educational in nature…here’s what I learned at a clinic are encouraged!) Of course, anyone can purchase an ad! So when the info comes out (per Rebecca), submit it to your newsletter, mail to your members or email it to them to pass it along. The prez should not be the gatekeeper. (We also have a newsletter committee in case anything is questionable so one person doesn’t have to have the sole responsibility to include or not include an article.)

I wish the CDS would learn that none of the newsletter readers are interested in long diatribes about shitty hotels.

[rebecca_yount]

Coreene, I guess you know that Hazelnut isn’t in CDS. We are going to send info directly to her newsletter’s editor.

CDS has published information about the Rule Change Proposal and was instrumental in providing important information to the BoD at the USEF convention. They also wrote a letter about the issue to USEF.