NAMHSA - April 1-30, 2014 News

News & Updates

NAMHSA News for the period of April 1-30, 2014 based on the minutes compiled by Jackie Arns-Rossi, Recording Secretary.

APRIL 1 --------------------------------------------------
Carra McClelland advised that she would be posting the April agenda soon.

APRIL 2 --------------------------------------------------
The following poll closed:
POLL QUESTION: Should the BOD discontinue using postal ballots?
CHOICES AND RESULTS
No, keep using postal ballots for the few people that still request them, 2 votes, 16.67%

Kathy Williams (R2)
Lyn Norbury (R5)
Abstain, 0 votes, 0.00%
Yes, discontinue the postal ballot option, 10 votes, 83.33%

Stacy Quick (R1)
Pauline Entin (R3)
Natalie Kilpatrick (R4)
Jackie Moore (R6)
Annette Dean (R7)
Chris Wallbruch (R8)
Niki Hertzog (R9)
Kate Cabot (R10)
Sandra Gibson (R11)
Tom Dean (VP)
Carra McClelland and Jackie Arns-Rossi discussed when the implementation would take place. Jackie decided that the start of the new show year, May 1, would be optimal. Eleanor Harvey and Pauline Entin agreed.

Carra McClelland posted a summary of changes for the Minimal Guaranteed Class list. There was minimal discussion regarding the optional nature of the proposed database.

APRIL 3 --------------------------------------------------
Chris Wallbruch asked regional reps to send out an announcement about volunteers for the MSOTY committee. She advised that she would be soliciting for members, one from each region.

Carra McClelland posted the April agenda:
Ongoing:
NAN MGC approval· NAN Prep
Database Discussion
Agenda:
NAN Packet Approval
One Person, One Vote
Message Board
Code of Conduct

Carra McClelland moved to accept the MGC, Sandra Gibson seconded. Eleanor Harvey called for discussion. Members of the BOD responded that they were ready to vote. Tom Dean asked for unanimous consent to move things along to which Eleanor Harvey replied that if all 12 members didn't vote within 24 hours the motion would fail, so a short term poll would be best in this situation.

APRIL 4 --------------------------------------------------
Natalie Kilpatrick asked for any known, upcoming MailChimp announcements that needed to be scheduled as she would be working long hours over the next two weeks. She advised that MC emails could be scheduled years in advance so she could set up routine announcements at any time. Chris Wallbruch asked for a call for MSOTY Committee Members to be sent out every year on April 1.

Chris Wallbruch announced that she was still looking for MSOTY Committee Members from Regions 1, 2, 3, 7 and 11.

Carra McClelland posted the amended MGC and asked that Jackie Arns-Rossi start a poll to approve it.
Should the BOD approve the 2014 NAN MGC as detailed in message 50001?
· Abstain
· Do not approve the 2014 MGC
· Approve the 2014 MGC as written in message 50001

Carra advised that she was allowing discussions for the final 3 NAN Bid locations through Monday at 5PM CDT.

APRIL 5 --------------------------------------------------
Pauline Entin uploaded a document comparing the three 2015 NAN Bid locations.

APRIL 6 --------------------------------------------------
Chris Wallbruch advised that she still needed members from regions 1 and 2 for the MSOTY committee. Later in the day she found the volunteers she needed.

APRIL 7 --------------------------------------------------
The following poll closed:
Should the BOD approve the 2014 NAN MGC as detailed in message 50001?Abstain (0 votes, 0.00%)
Do not approve the 2014 MGC (0 votes, 0.00%)
Approve the 2014 MGC as written in message 50001 (11 votes, 100.00)
· Stacy Quick (R1)
· Kathy Williams (R2)
· Pauline Entin (R3)
· Natalie Kilpatrick (R4)
· Lyn Norbury (R5)
· Jackie Moore (R6)
· Annette Dean (R7)
· Chris Wallbruch (R8)
· Niki Hertzog (R9)
· Sandra Gibson (R11)
· Tom Dean (VP)

Carra McClelland was out sick and advised that NAN prep needed to continue.
Jackie Arns-Rossi posted the first draft of the 2014 NAN Packet and moved to accept the packet. Jackie Moore seconded and editing/discussion of the packet began.

Stacy Quick suggested adding gift certificates for IMs that could be purchased for hobbyists to give to others. Jackie Arns-Rossi advised that she would pass this onto Carra McClelland to be added to the agenda.

Kathy Williams uploaded a comparison chart for the three 2015 NAN Bid locations.

Eleanor Harvey notified the BOD that Mary Thomson, bid liaison for the Palm Springs, CA 2015 NAN Bid had posted that someone on the NAMHSA BOD had contacted her hotel representative. Eleanor explicitly advised Lyn Norbury that this was unacceptable and that each hotel should not have to be told not to discuss the bids with anyone from NAMHSA aside from the contact person on each bid. Eleanor continued that we would discuss each bid on the list based on the information contained in each bid, but that there was no reason to be calling unless explicitly instructed to do so by the NAMHSA President.

APRIL 8 --------------------------------------------------
Carra received an email from a hobbyist interested in serving as the Sponsorship Chair.
Carra McClelland posted an email to the BOD on behalf of Mary Thomson, the Palm Springs, CA Bid Liaison, lodging a formal complaint against Lyn Norbury, the Region 5 Representative and Tulsa, OK Bid Local Liaison, that Lyn had contacted her hotel and convention center without authorization asking for pricing details. Carra noted that Lyn had been told in 2012 not to contact bid hotels when she did so with the San Jose, CA bid. Lyn was placed on immediate, indefinite moderation on NAMHSA-BOD and NAMHSA-DISCUSSION. Because of the severity of the infraction Carra asked for Lyn's resignation and would give her until 4PM CDT (approximately 24 hours) to respond.

APRIL 9 --------------------------------------------------
Carra advised the BOD that it had come to her attention that the request of Lyn Norbury's resignation had leaked outside the BOD by Lyn, herself. She reiterated that the emails contained within the BOD Yahoo! Group were not for public consumption, but for the BOD's eyes only.

Sandra Gibson asked for verification that someone outside of the BOD had access to Lyn's email address and, thusly, her emails. She felt that it would be inappropriate if it were someone, especially a hobbyist, besides a spouse having access to a BOD member's email. Natalie Kilpatrick confirmed that Lyn's email account had in the past been accessed by another hobbyist citing a message from a year ago by a fellow hobbyist to notify Carra that Lyn didn't have access to her email account. She admitted that it most likely went unnoticed, but it did verify that a non-BOD member did have the opportunity to view BOD emails.

Kathy Williams asked that the BOD perform in a responsible fashion and allow both parties to have their say before passing judgment as had been done in an earlier Region 5 case involving the non-admittance of minors to a particular show holder’s shows. She believed that if there was acceptable evidence that Lyn's actions had caused the Palm Springs bid any harm that she was sure punishment would be handed down. She reiterated to the group that we were still using the figures that Mary (Thomson) had quoted and none other. Eleanor Harvey responded to Kathy that Mary had asked for Kathy to support her complaint to the Board regarding Lyn's call to Palm Springs. She also noted that Lyn had been asked to engage with the issue but had, so far, not yet responded. Eleanor clarified that this was not the first time Lyn had stepped out of line, reminding the BOD that Lyn had called the San Jose, CA venue two years earlier and was told not to do it again citing a breach in protocol and repeat offense. Because the effort was "nipped in the bud no way exonerates the behavior or removes the infraction." Carra replied stating that she had copies of the emails that Mary had sent to Kathy from the Palm Springs Convention Center. Kathy responded that Mary had not sent her any emails, only made a public accusation. Carra replied that Mary had specifically requested Kathy's attention to the matter. Kathy responded that she had not taken sides and had no information other than Mary's public accusation. She also stated that there is no written protocol for handling the NAN bidding process, that there should be and that every BOD member should abide by it. Because there is no written protocol there is nothing to hold Lyn's feet to the fire. "There is no written policy that says Lyn (or anyone) cannot contact the facilities to confirm a quotation." Because Lyn had done this prior the BOD should have taken the action necessary to createa formal set of rules on how NAN sealed bids are handled. She expressed her amazement that there was not a set of formal rules and argued that it would solve a lot of future problems. Erin Corbett responded stating that it was a "sad state of affairs when a hobby Board has to create policies to corral one Board member's terrible behavior." She argued that it was common courtesy, common sense and being considerate of the people you serve with. Kathy responded to Erin's comment believing that if the BOD felt the breach was that important that the BOD should have formalized a NAN bid policy at that time. She stated that in able to hold someone accountable to the rules that there actually need to be rules. Eleanor rebutted that the policies and Bylaws covered broad swaths of acceptable and unacceptable behavior and that they don't get into specifics regarding breaches. "The President sets the tone and the agenda and it's the Board's responsibility to discuss and vote on those things. Carra specifically asked Tom as VP to handle contact with the bidders and their liaisons. It is reasonable to assume that when she did so she was precluding the rest of us from stepping in and doing that job." Eleanor was also interested in handling the issue as calmly and thoroughly as possible, but suggesting that every potential infraction should be written into policy document was "asking a bit much."Kathy agreed that calm and thorough would be good, as well as honestly and fairly. That having a written policy or procedure for handling NAN Bid selection was not asking much and that "not having one is remiss, especially given the fact that the same 'breach' has happened twice, now." Dayle Steinke argued that the breach occurring with the same person was not a case of the policy not being clear as much as one person working in her own agenda, rather than working to make the hobby better.

Eleanor Harvey posted a copy of the Region 2 Yahoo! Groups email from Mary advising Kathy that she was lodging a formal complaint against Lyn and asked her to forward the email to the Board of Directors; and that Kathy had, in fact, responded to that email. Eleanor cited that this was confirmation that Kathy had been made aware of Mary's situation and that it was expected that she, being Mary's rep, would bring it to the Board.

Kathy responded to Eleanor stating that Mary has her attention, but that she didn't have any proof of harm to her Palm Springs bid, and that she would like to see that prior to passing judgment. Eleanor asked Kathy to review BOD Yahoo! Group archives from 2012 where the breach occurred on the San Jose bid and that "Lyn was absolutely aware that this was a breach of protocol and was told explicitly NOT to do this. She is a rational adult. She knows how to follow clear instructions. Except that here she deliberately chose not to."

Kate Cabot asked Kathy if she did not intend to put her region member's complaint before the Board and accused her of not acting as a representative of her region if she were not willing to do this. She clarified that by Kathy's logic that "since there is no specific written rule against this kind of thing, then anything goes. Am I hearing this right?"

Kathy responded that she did not need to place the complaint before the BOD because Carra had already accepted and acknowledged the complaint both publicly and on the BOD list and asked that Kate stop stirring the pot.

Sandra Gibson accused Kathy of being equally guilty of stirring the pot at this point pointing out that "the rest of us had for the most part been respectfully quiet. Lyn has not even responded. But you came in to act as her defender without having seen her public response. You act like you have outsider information." Sandra also pointed out that since she had done it before and was told before that it shouldn't need to be re-indicated to her that she is not to interfere with other bids and felt that it is common sense not to interfere with competitor bids.

Kathy assured Sandra that she had no outsider information, that she hadn't even seen the email proof that was supposedly out there. She hadn't heard Lyn's side of the story and asked if Lyn was being moderated. "Can she even post?" She reiterated that she simply asked that the BOD not place judgment until both sides had been heard, that she was defending a fair hearing which she hoped would be universally supported rather than vilified.

Eleanor confirmed that Lyn was, in fact, on moderation, however any post she made on the matter at hand would be approved since Carra had specifically asked Lyn to respond.Kathy acknowledged this and waited to hear Lyn's response.

Sandra again stated that the BOD has been waiting for Lyn's response and explanation as to why she interfered with the bidding process a second time after being specifically told not to the last time. "You coming forward probably stirred the pot more than us being silent did."

Eleanor expressed her disappointment that Lyn had been online in the past 48 hours but had chosen not to be present on the BOD.

Carra McClelland uploaded the first round of emails regarding the unauthorized calls made to the Palm Springs location.

Shortly before 4PM CDT Lyn Norbury responded that she had called Palm Springs because she had a generic question about taxes and surcharges, and at this point she hadn't even spoken with the sales team at the Convention Center.

When she asked about the taxes and surcharges the salesman never specifically mentioned surcharges, but did tell Lyn there were taxes and other charges (she couldn't recall which), but that taxes, etc. hadn't been included in the bid amount. He calculated the amount into the bid and told her it would be roughly $1,500 more than the original bid amount; and that by adding a table count to 180 would add another $500, but that no additional chairs were needed since there were already 250 in the bid, that she had not skewed Mary's numbers, nor had she ever even tried to skew them.

Sandra Gibson asked why, after being told two years ago that it was not okay to do so, why she would do it again. "What is your justification?"

At this time Carra McClelland furnished the email from the Palm Springs Convention Center where the salesman stated that Lyn had asked about 300 chairs and 200 tables, not the 250 and 180, respectively, that Lyn mentioned asking about in her response.

Lyn, again, laid claim that Mary had not added any taxes/surcharges to her bid total as she'd claimed in the last post, that tables/chairs only added $342.50 to her bid amount, and wanted to know why there was a nearly $2,000 difference in Tom's figures for the hall/table/chairs.

Carra advised Lyn to stop stalling while Natalie Kilpatrick reminded Lyn that the Palm Springs bid was not under discussion, but that the contact Lyn made was.

Carra then noted that 22 minutes had passed since the deadline she'd issued to Lyn Norbury the previous day calling for Lyn's resignation and it had gone unanswered. Carra stated that "she has now ignored a direct request from the President of NAMHSA, not for the first time." After being asked to resign after a formal complaint was lodged against her for calling the venue of a competing bid where she was named Local Liaison, Carra noted that this was a repeat offense of 2012 with San Jose, CA where then president, Teresa Buzzell explained it was wrong and explained the proper channels for gathering information.

Carra also pointed out that with the numbers the sales manager at Palm Springs mentioned in his email, it appeared that Lyn was attempting to make the Palm Springs bid less viable. "During this time it became apparent that Lyn had also shared details of the email asking for her resignation with a party that is not on the Board of Directors. The entire Board of Directors has been reminded on many occasions not to do this, as we need a level of confidentiality to operate."

In Carra's final words, she clarified that Lyn would remain on moderation for her (Palm Springs) actions and that no more messages of Lyn's on the subject would be approved until she sent the message that she gave the deadline for.

Lyn responded with a "No."

Her response to the formal complaint was that Carra did not allow her to offer her side of the story; that she "had already been tried and convicted when that post was sent. When an accusation is made anyone should have the right of defense, even repeat offenders. I have had none." She doubted it would change anything on the matter but wanted it included for the record.

Lyn went on to describe in detail her communication with the Palm Springs sales teams, how she had contacted the Renaissance first and then been referred to the Convention Center. After getting a return phone call from the salesman for the Convention Center he told her, without hesitation, the bid price that was quoted in Mary's bid information did not include tax/surcharge and that adding that would bring the total up almost $1,500. She states that she then asked if that included 180 tables, which it did not; it included 150 tables. For the extra 30 tables it would be $500 more. She wrote the information down, read the figures back to him to verify them, thanked him for his time and told him to have a good day. "That was it."

Lyn also stated that Mary's claims of her padding the amounts of tables and chairs were incorrect; that she gave him exactly the amounts that Tom had given. That Mary had claimed she'd called the hotel *and* convention center, when in fact she'd only called the hotel where her original question was generic, "Are there applicable taxes/surcharges on your meeting room rental?" She stated that "they were the ones who brought Mary's bid into the conversation. I never called the convention center, he called me. If he had doubts, he should have asked Mary before calling me. I never mentioned Mary's name. Mary claims I represented myself to be working with her on the bid to get information. I did not. I have no idea what the emails say, but Mary's public posts of 'the smoking gun' emails indicate they gave her false information to what actually was actually said."

She continued that Carra had only given her less than 24 hours to respond. Since her post was sent at 4:22PM CDT and Carra had only given her until 4PM CDT the next day, "that deadline had already passed before it was sent. I now have until 4PM today. I still think that is not enough time to consider my answer and fully think everything through, but I will adhere to that."

Eleanor asked Lyn to forgive her for sounding blunt, but asked what she would need to fully consider the matter that would take longer than 24 hours, that the situation was pretty cut and dry. She agreed that Lyn's side should be heard, but that she "should be willing to abide by the determination that this was, in 2012, a violation of the directions given by the (then) President about contacting another venue, and remains a violation in 2014." Eleanor clarified that the "explanations may shed light, but they do not absolve you of your transgression no matter what your intent may have been."

Eleanor encouraged Lyn to bring anything else she had forward, that "if there is any more to this that you have not brought forward, this would be the moment."Jackie Moore agreed with Sandra's stance, stated that she didn't really care what questions were asked or who volunteered what information, but that "what possible justification could there be for Lyn to call the venue at all?"

Carra McClelland uploaded the latest version of the 2014 NAN Packet and called for final edits. After some edits, Carra moved to accept the packet as the final versions. Stacy Quick seconded. Carra advised that in 24 hours acceptance of the packet would go into vote.

APRIL 10 --------------------------------------------------
Carra McClelland uploaded the latest version of the 2014 NAN Packet. She also created a poll for the BOD to accept or reject the NAN Packet. Later that day, Carra also updated the breed cross reference list.

APRIL 11 --------------------------------------------------
Carra McClelland advised that there were 12 votes in the poll but that because she closed it early Yahoo lost all of the poll results, so she asked the BOD to recast their votes. Jackie Arns Rossi reminded the BOD that this had happened in December as well.

Carra McClelland introduced the next agenda item which was, “One person, one vote.” The vote would eliminate more than 1 vote for individuals who held multiple memberships. Natalie Kilpatrick asked for clarification as to why members were allowed multiple votes in the first place and it was explained that historically only show holders were allowed to vote until the individual members were added.

APRIL 12 --------------------------------------------------
Natalie Kilpatrick approached the BOD asking their opinions of two shows being held at the same venue/date by two different show holders and their potential for problems. None were found.

APRIL 13 --------------------------------------------------
The NAN packet was formally accepted and uploaded to the site. Natalie Kilpatrick requested the URL so that she could send out a press release directing potential NAN entrants to the packet. Amy Peck posted the newest list of NAN Qualifying Shows.

APRIL 14 --------------------------------------------------
Danielle Miller advised that she had some thoughts on the changes to the membership program currently under discussion and asked for time to put together a formal presentation. Further discussion of membership changes were set aside to begin selecting the 2015 NAN Location.

APRIL 15 --------------------------------------------------
Carra McClelland moved that the Board select a location for the 2015 NAN, Natalie Kilpatrick seconded and voting would begin on Friday at 3PM CDT.Final deliberations began regarding the location of the 2015 NAN. Concerns over the proposed Chairs were discussed. Danielle Miller asked for opinions on a potential IM who was currently living in England for 3 years but normally lived in Region 5, using Region 5 for their address. Jackie Arns-Rossi pointed out that while NAMHSA had international members in the past, these were assigned to their own section and not a region, that they were not allowed to vote in regional rep elections, but could vote for Vice President. Jackie felt that if the Board were leaning to limiting people to only holding membership in the location they actually lived in, then to be consistent, this person would need to be considered an international member until they came back home to Region 5.

APRIL 16 --------------------------------------------------
Carra McClelland advised that the public database discussion period was over and outlined the next steps. Once the committee was ready to present it to the BOD, the BOD will then vote whether or not to present it to the membership for voting or if it needs to be revised again.

APRIL 18 --------------------------------------------------
Discussions regarding the proposed 2015 NAN locations continued throughout the day, ending with a poll being created by Jackie Arns-Rossi to choose between Tulsa, OK, San Jose, CA or Palm Springs, CA. Stacy Quick proposed a standard template for future NAN bids to aid in gathering information on various bids so that they could be easily compared. Natalie Kilpatrick recommended allowing an option to submit additional information in PDF or PowerPoint format. Kathy Williams suggested adding a written quotation and contract as part of the bid requirements.

APRIL 21 --------------------------------------------------
Carra McClelland posted the following email: We, the undersigned Individual Members of NAMHSA Region 5 do hereby propose that the Board of Dir ectors (BOD) implement a vote for the immediate removal of one Lyn Norbury as our Regional Represen tative. We also propose a special election be held in order to provide our Region with a representative w ho will better represent the interests of our region as a whole, be a productive Board member, and follo w established BOD protocols. Herewith are the reasons for our request:

• Approaches issues with a combative mentality, as seen in interactions on NAMHSA-Discussion and in the NAMHSA News releases.

• Refuses to engage with her region through YG or FB to explain issues pressing to the region, and demands that constituents contact her privately regarding issues, rather than posting them publicly on YG or FB for open discussion.

• Refuses to poll her constituents to see where their concerns and interests lie (see recent discussions re: the Database, National Tagging System, MailChimp List, etc.).

• Claims that her views reflect the region, when it is clear they do not always align; in addition, refuses to elaborate when directly asked why she voted in a way with which the majority of the showers in the region disagree.

• Has said publicly (see R5 YG) that the majority of members in the region do not show and therefore showers’ opinions are not as important or do not carry as much weight in her decision making processes regarding the region as a whole.

• Has not demonstrated the ability to work with a group or compromise her stance on situations to allow the group to move forward.

• Calling the Palm Springs venue (after being instructed by a past president that proper channels were not followed when she did it before, and that she should not have done it) demonstrates her willingness to subvert procedures in order to get ahead with personal agendas.

• Due to the above action, has, to our dismay, probably eliminated Tulsa from consideration as the host city for NAN 2015, and we feel will also cause Region 5 to be looked upon unfavorably for future Independent NAN bids.

• Personally attacks constituents who ask her to publicly explain her views or why she voted in a manner opposite to that in which her region expected (see emails forwarded to both Carra and Tom from Jamie A. Stine).

The reasons cited above provide ample evidence of the extent and severity of these transgressions, and cause for her immediate and uncontested removal from the NAMHSA Board of Directors.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Signed,
Jamie A Stine (TX)
Vicky Norris (TX)
Shannon Southard (TX)
Candy Evans (LA)
Gay Mahlandt (KS)
Janna Ragsdale (AR)

Carra then called for Lyn's voluntary resignation (again), advising she would give her until 1130 AM CDT on 4/22 to respond to the request.

Lyn was then taken off of moderation so that she could respond to the email.

APRIL 22 --------------------------------------------------
The poll for the 2015 NAN location concluded with the winner being Palm Springs, California.
-Palm Springs, CA (8 Votes, 66.67%)
· Stacy Quick (R1)
· Pauline Entin (R3)
· Natalie Kilpatrick (R4)
· Annette Dean (R7)
· Chris Wallbruch (R8)
· Niki Hertzog (R9)
· Kate Cabot (R10)
· Sandra Gibson (R11)

-San Jose, CA (4 Votes, 33.33%)
· Kathy Williams (R2)
· Lyn Norbury (R5)
· Jackie Moore (R6)
· Tom Dean (VP)

-Tulsa, OK (0 Votes, 0%)

Lynn Weber cited Lyn Norbury's failure to vote for Tulsa as an example of her failure to discuss NAMHSA decisions with her region. Lyn replied that she had voted for Tulsa and then changed her vote to support San Jose. She believed that Palm Springs received unfair advantages from the time the bid was turned in three days after the deadline. Because Mary was contacted privately while the bid discussion was in progressed with questions about reducing the show hall size to get reduced costs, Lyn believed that she was given an unfair advantage over the rest of the bids that weren't given the same opportunity. She also accused Palm Springs of having many hidden and unexplained costs and that even after all of these negative things were pointed out to the BOD PS still received 8 votes over SJ's 4. Lyn also stated that it was her belief that Tulsa only made it into the top three because it was the most logical choice and that there was never really any intent to consider it as the final selection and that from the very beginning of the discussion everyone was all about NAN in California since it had been so long since NAN had been in California.

Lynn Weber responded questioning Lyn's non-vote for Tulsa despite knowing Region 5's wishes; that she would have rather seen her one, lone vote for Tulsa rather than for her to vote against it citing that Cassie and Daralyn would not be happy that she didn't support it. She also noted that all three finalists were given the opportunity to tweak their bids accordingly negating any "so-called advantage you claim Palm Springs had... You are not working for your own region." Carra McClelland advised that the following hobbysists had contacted her to add their names to the Region 5 Petition to remove Lyn Norbury as their representative while reminding the BOD that the opportunity for Lyn to voluntarily resign was only an hour away.

· Sharron Dunning-Frank
· Tami Blankenship
· Christie Partee
· Tracey Keeling
· Chloe Hinton
· Laura Skillern
· Lynn Weber
· Dianne Wiley

Lyn Norbury replied to the petition in Region 5's Yahoo! Group and the Board of Director's Yahoo! Group:

Ok, so I guess I am going to approach this issue with a "combative mentality" as I usually do when I feel I am being attacked for voicing my opinions. If I respond, I am considered combative, if I don't respond I am considered shady and secretive. I would think the region "as a whole" would want me to stand up for what the majority of the region "as a whole" wants. NAMHSA News releases are compiled from the NAMHSA minutes. The authors of both of these articles are biased in their reports and manipulate what is released. I am not allowed to elaborate on R5 list what is said on the BOD.I have never "refused" to engage with my region to explain anything, as long as the discussion remains civil and I am not being attacked for my opinions or beliefs, or called a liar just because some of you aren't willing to accept what I have to say. I tried to "engage" on FB until I was constantly being attacked by the same few people at every post I made, including my show advertisement. There are plenty of posts to verify this, remember, someone saved screen shots of the entire thread, as did I. I even started a separate thread for the NDS topic, but no one posted there, they only wanted to post to my show thread. I posted to R5 YG trying to explain my vote (I believe it was the MailChimp vote) to my region in which Jamie Stine immediately took the liberty of forwarding it to ND list. I posted another response that someone took upon themselves to forward to ND. Do you still wonder why I choose not to post on YG or FB? Then after this, *I* get accused of being combative? I was only trying to keep the discussion on R5 YG where it was appropriate. And yes, I did quit posting to R5 FB (especially show ads) because it turned out to remind me why I didn't do FB to begin with, for the same reason so many others don't do FB. And by the way, FB is not a required site for NAMHSA related discussions, so my communication through that is not even an issue at all. I have never "demanded" that anyone respond to me privately regarding any issue. I have, as many other reps have done, offered that option if they don't want to post publicly but still want their rep to know their opinions. Many people in R5 won't post publicly for fear of getting attacked for having a different opinion as those more vocal about issues or topics. I have had many comments from R5 members who will not post publicly. You (Jamie) have written private emails to me yourself offering your opinions, I don't know that I have ever even *asked* you to, much less *demanded* it of you.

Reiterating here...Not doing something is not the same thing as "refusing" to do something. If polling my constituents is a requirement and not starting a poll is the same as a "refusal", then EVERY Region 5 rep since NAMHSA's beginning is guilty of the same offense. There has only been one Region 5 Rep that has EVER started a NAMHSA related poll on R5 YG since NAMHSA's beginning, and that was back in 2007. I have stated before, I don't have to start a poll to see where the interests of the majority of region members feel about any issue. In fact, a poll can be voted on by anyone who is a member of the R5 YG list, not just those who actually live in R5, so my way of finding out how the majority of the region feels about anything is more accurate. I read posts made to the different groups that are from all hobbyists who live in R5, I talk to people at shows I attend, I get emails from those who don't want to post publicly. I consider EVERYONE in my region and their opinions, not just paid NAMHSA members. If you live in Region 5, you have a voice and a right for that voice to be heard in whatever manner you choose. If your choice is to email me privately, I honor that confidentiality and keep it private.

I have never claimed that my views reflect the region. My personal opinion may not always align with the majority of the region, but when I say specifically that the majority of the region is for or against something, it is based on information I have gathered from the many resources I mentioned in my last paragraph above. What is clear to me is that those who have been outspoken on issues seem to think their opinions represent the majority of the entire region. There are six people who have signed this petition, some of those same ones have been posting negatively (to put it mildly) about me since the Jacklyn Catena saga, and more recently since I took over 2 of her shows, and even more so since I have posted negatively about the NAMHSA Database proposal. There may be others who have decided to jump on the band wagon since then, but every action against me so far seems to have been initiated by you, Jamie Stine, including this petition.I don't know what you are specifically referring to here, but I know I would never say anything like that. I don't even know where you or anyone would get such an idea from ANYTHING I have ever said publicly or otherwise. The showers opinions are those I would value most, *if* importance was placed in any one area. Please give direct reference to this allegation so I can read it myself. I *have* said that the majority of *showers* in the region are not paid NAMHSA members. The rights and wants of the "average shower" are what I have defended the most.

I have often offered compromises in BOD discussions. As I made vague reference to in the first post regarding this petition, there is a pattern with BOD members not getting along. It is not just me that seems to have a problem with it. I could name at least 6 other reps that have been treated rudely and bullied by the NAMHSA leaders and other region reps on the BOD. Some are no longer on the BOD and have quit because of this, I chose to stay to represent (and defend if necessary) my region as a whole to the best of my ability.

My call to Palm Springs had nothing to do with trying to "subvert procedures in order to get ahead with personal agendas". I don't know how I could explain my reason for calling without divulging BOD discussion, but it was about fairness for all bids that had been submitted. My initial call was only to inquire if there were taxes/surcharges applicable to their meeting room rental in general. I did not try to inflate the bid as Mary accused me of doing. I did not try to change anything about her bid. I did not at any point represent myself to be working with Mary on the bid as she claims.

Even though the Tulsa bid made the cut for the final three, there was never any probability of Tulsa getting the bid. Of all the bids submitted, the Tulsa bid was the most logical choice for the third selection.

I did post publicly on R5 YG, which was the appropriate place for the post, to explain my views and why I voted the way I did regarding the MailChimp issue. Apparently you (Jamie) were not satisfied with my explanation or where I posted it to. You chose to forward it to ND list which I am told is inappropriate. My personal attack on you was a response to your action, not because I was asked to explain my views. I only see that a few R5 members questioned or contested my vote, again you are considering the opinions of a few to be what the entire region expected. I posted to R5 YG again to explain my views and why I voted the way I did on the NAMHSA Database Proposal, and again, someone took it upon themselves to forward it to ND. Both of those posts were Region 5 discussions meant for Region 5 YG only. Sara posted an apology saying she had made a mistake, I accepted her apology and we called a truce. You never did mention that yours was a mistake or never offered an apology. You never even responded to my polite private email to you. Yes, I would like to see the emails you forwarded to Carra and Tom. Maybe the rest of the region would like to see them too. The "accusations" cited above are not providing any "evidence" of transgressions. They are merely accusations. I see no proof. I see nothing in any of the things that you (Janie) say I have done severe enough to warrant my "immediate and uncontested removal".

Carra, you have my answer to the request for my resignation regarding the Palm Springs issue. You never offered proof that I did what Mary accused me of doing, nor did you allow me benefit of my own defense against her accusations. You deemed me guilty and asked for my resignation based solely on her accusations. Now the same thing is happening again with this petition. You are again asking for my resignation based on the accusations of a few without proof and without me being given benefit of my own defense. Do we live in a democracy, or is NAMHSA a dictatorship? I will not resign under these terms and conditions. If you and the petitioners want me off the Board of Directors, it will have to be a majority vote from Region 5 members. And it is a shame that not *all* hobbyists, showers, and collectors that live in Region 5 will have a voice in who they have representing them.

Lyn Norbury
Region 5 Rep

Carra McClelland moved to accept the petition from Region 5 to remove Lyn Norbury from office and was seconded by Kate Cabot. Carra called for discussion to start with it concluding at 4:30PM CDT on Thursday.

APRIL 23 --------------------------------------------------
Amy Peck advised that there had been printing errors on a batch of NAN Cards. Instead of reprinting the cards, Amy instructed the show holder to make a note of the error on her results so that future results checking would reveal the explanation. Lynn Weber made the correction to the web site, as well. Four BOD members, Kathy Williams, Pauline Entin, Kate Cabot and Eleanor Harvey all agreed that it made sense to release the NAN location for 2015 prior to this year's annual meeting once all of the contracts were signed. *Note - the contracts could not be signed until after NAN 2014 which is why the location was not revealed until such time, and even then with a tentative date pending the contract signing.

APRIL 24 --------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Harvey reminded the BOD that if they had any questions, comments or statements on the petition from Region 5 that now was the time to make them. Without any talk, the period of discussion was up and Carra McClelland started a poll.

Lyn wrote to the BOD as the poll went up that she was under the impression that any complaint against anyone had to be investigated with provable evidence of the alleged infraction.

Eleanor Harvey responded to Lyn that the BOD had in it’s possession emails from the convention center that supported Mary Thomson’s case against her. She also enclosed documents that support the allegations laid out in the Region 5 petition. Eleanor stated that these were not simple accusations, but backed up by evidence that to date Lyn had not contested.

Lyn replied that she had indeed contested the validity of the documents, both on the BOD and the Region 5 Yahoo! Group.

Jackie Arns-Rossi asked Lyn what she was contesting; the screenshots? The email from the Palm Springs Convention Center naming her and giving them a description of their conversation? She re-iterated that what Lyn did, even if immaterial, was unethical and she had been told not to do it two years ago and that is where she’d gone wrong. Jackie asked to see Lyn’s evidence.

Natalie Kilpatrick sent the following email:I've sat quiet on this, but before this is all over I need to point out the discrepancy in numbers quoted throughout Palm Springsgate.

First, the original bid contained 250 chairs and 120 tables as state in 'NORTH AMERICAN NATIONALS BID PROPOSAL FOR 2015.docx' found in the Palm Springs bid folder.

Upon Mary's accusations that Lyn had tampered with the numbers, Lyn replied in message 50119 that she'd only inquired about 250 chairs and 180 tables. This directly contradicted Mary's statement that Lyn had asked for a higher number of chairs than Tom had asked Mary to bump the number up to (250 and 180, respectively, in message 49747) as indicated in the email forwarded from Mary in message 50120.

After this Carra forwarded the email from Ron Palmtag dated April 8th, message 50121, which stated that Lyn had, in fact, asked for 300 chairs and 200 tables.

I don't speak for anyone else, but I assume others may share my thoughts in believing that Lyn would take the costs associated with 300 chairs and 200 tables and bring those numbers back to the BOD, thereby artificially inflating the cost of a Palm Springs NAN in turn hurting its chances for success. The thing about this whole situation that bothers me most isn't that Lyn contacted the PSCC after being explicitly advised not to do so years earlier, but the fact that Lyn lied to us. She had the opportunity to tell us the truth, but instead of telling us that she'd asked for a quote on 300/200 she'd asked about 250/180.

That blatant, documented lie is what I cannot get over.

This is not my sole reason for choosing to side with the Region 5 Members in a vote to remove Lyn from the NAMHSA Board of Directors, but it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Despite her abrasive attitude, constant misinforming of Region 5 Members (I had to tell her twice, once on Facebook and once on ND, that the Database proposal would be going to the membership for a vote, not the BOD, for implementation, only to see her post to the BOD's YG days later the same misinformation), rejecting her constituents opinions and suggestions unless they aligned with her own (because the people who agreed with her would only communicate verbally, thus removing any evidence of their opinions) and a number of other reasons.

I am not the Region 5 Rep, but I do talk to many; many that are unhappy to put it lightly. Livid would probably be a better word to describe their anger.

Members' aren't only a part of a hobby, but they are a part of a micro economy which revolves around our hobby. Members, and nonmembers alike, spend countless hours and dollars to create their own empires within the hobby to make it to the top. When their Representative blatantly disregards the written, documented, proven opinions of her constituents it has the potential to affect them, not only emotionally, but financially as well.

After following all of the conversations on the Region 5 Yahoo! Group and numerous members asking for Lyn's resignation publicly, even after the privately filed petition was presented to both the BOD and R5 I can do nothing but shake my head and wonder.Why is a person who is so publicly despised by her region so desperate to retain a position she is, in my opinion, no longer meant to occupy? Is this a game to you? Do you sit back and laugh at us every time we write an email laced with disgust towards your attitude? Is that your intent? It's almost unfortunate that the rest of the BOD won't stoop to your level and play your game so that you can see how unattractive your morals really are when mirrored by an opposing opinion. I don't expect to get straight answers to any of the questions above, and, frankly, at this point I no longer care.

I've voted to uphold the Region 5 proposal not only for Region 5's sake, but for the sake of NAMHSA as a hobby and economy as well.

Lyn Norbury responded stating that if she’d inquired about 200/300 that there would have been a significantly larger discrepancy than $50. The numbers that she’d stated above were 180/250. She accused Natalie of assuming that she was the one lying when it should be considered that Ron is mistaken or lying, himself, to “cover his own butt for giving out information over the phone without even verifying who I was or getting approval from Mary.” She also stated that her original call was just to ask if there were taxes/surcharges applicable to their meeting room rental and that is all she asked, never having asked anything about Mary’s bid in particular until he started volunteering the information. She also wanted it noted that if she were being sneaky that she never would have left her name and phone number with him.

Lyn continued asking the BOD to check some of Mary’s posts on N-D and see how many times her story changed; that in one of her posts Mary claims there are no taxes/surcharges. She claimed that Mary’s show hall cost was $7,887.50 whereas Tom’s total was $9,807.50. She wanted to know if those extra 60 tables cost over $1900 and claimed Mary was blatantly lying.

Next Lyn began discussing how she was attacked on her own show’s ad thread, not the people of Region 5, that all she’d done was post her show ad describing what she wanted to try with an EMCAT/3x5 Card hybrid. She stated that she’d asked nicely for people to move their NDS discussions elsewhere and even created another thread to move the discussion off of hers. Since everyone had refused to move their discussion she deleted her show ad. She claimed that that thread should be used as evidence to reflect more on how Natalie and the rest treated her and her show ad, not to prove how Lyn was abrasive to them, and that she’d only been responding to an attack that had already been instigated.

Lyn also insisted that she reads all of the posts on the lists and takes them all into considerations, not just the ones who post their opinions on the list and that she doesn’t know how many times she has to reiterate this; that she has emails from several members, even paid NAMHSA members, who let her know their opinions. She also stated that she never disregards public written opinions, but that she does add private written opinions to them as well as the ones she talks to at shows who don’t post their opinions on a public forum.

Lyn also claimed that there were more Region 5 members supporting her than there were those publicly opposing her, that she only recalls two people asking for her resignation publicly; Sharron Dunning and Heather Gearhart. She stated that when she receives supportive emails from Region 5 and other regions it gives her confidence and that Natalie should be more concerned with the opinions of her region rather than Lyn’s region.

Lyn accused Natalie of setting her sights on eliminating Lyn with her opinion that Lyn should not occupy her position, and that it wasn’t until Natalie started her campaign against her that she was despised and sarcastically congratulated Natalie. Lyn stated that Natalie had said some pretty nasty things about her that weren’t deserved, asking, “Wasn’t it you that called me a COW right here on this list?” (** Editor’s note, it was not Natalie, but Lyn had been called a cow on the list earlier by another BOD member as recorded March 24, 2014**). Lyn emphasized that none of this was a game to her and that she had never laughed at any of Natalie’s disgusting emails and public posts, but that Natalie is one of the main ones who gives her her attitude in the first place.

Chris Wallbruch wrote that in her opinion it would be disrespectful to vote no in the current poll and it was not for her to say whether or not a rep is qualified to lead in a certain region. Since she didn’t live there, show there or judge there she didn’t have the right to say that she knew better than Region 5 and vote against the Region’s right to decide.

Kathy Williams asked that the way the poll was written if they were supporting or not reporting the request of the 5 people in Region 5 to remove the current rep and then conduct a replacement election for a new rep. If the poll had been written to allow the current members of Region 5 to vote to decide to remove their current rep then she would agree with Chris, but that’s not how the petition is written. She agreed that the decision should be Region 5’s to make, but that the petition from a limited number of people was not a region-wide vote.

Jackie Arns-Rossi informed the BOD that the way a rep is removed is that the BOD is petitioned (the region asks for the BOD’s permission to vote the rep out). The BOD then votes to give the region that permission (the current poll), and that the current vote in progress in no way guarantees that Lyn will be replaced, but only if her region votes her out will she be, and if not she will continue to serve.

Eleanor Harvey reiterated what Jackie said stating that the motion is to uphold the Region 5 petition to remove and replace their rep through a special election, and that can’t happen unless the BOD approves sending the ballot to Region 5 with that option. Petitioners making up the required 10% of the voting members of that region submitted a petition to remove their rep and replace her through a special election. A Board vote to upload (or not) that petition de factor requires a vote to remove the rep at the Board level, thereby triggering a ballot to the entire voting population of the region to determine if the recall is successful. If someone were to implement a different procedure for replacing a rep during the middle of a term that would need to go on a future agenda to amend the Bylaws.

Pauline Entin asked for further explanation citing the bylaw: "Upon evidence of a representative's unwillingness or incapacity to serve, the Representative shall be removed from the Board of Directors by a majority vote of the member shows and individual members in that region. Such a vote may be initiated by the majority consent of the Board of Directors or by petition from ten percent or more of the member shows or individual members in the Representative's region." Pauline continued that Eleanor indicated that the petition was, in fact, signed by at least 10% of the region’s voting members so she was unsure of what was actually being voted on, that they Bylaws say the vote to remove the rep may be initiated by majority consent of the Board *or* petition of at least 10% of the regions voting members and that given we have a qualifying petition, “do we have a choice?” Jackie Arns-Rossi explained that the last time the BOD tried to remove Lyn Norbury it was determined that the process could not go forward on a simple Board vote. The Board could vote to remove, but the ultimate decision lay with the region. What had happened last time was the Board initiated the vote and the region said no. This time, the region came to the Board asking that the Board allow them a chance to remove their rep. Because Region 5 had approximately 30 members at the time, of the 5 signatures on the petition, 3 of those were current, paid, NAMHSA members (10%). If the Board felt that the petition was brought forward by 3 people unhappy with Lyn and did not feel she was a true problem that the Board could vote to reject the request and move forward without wasting time to run an election every time it is just a handful who are truly disgruntled.

Pauline thanked Jackie for her explanation Kathy Williams disagreed with the process being attempted despite the explanations given. She stated that the Bylaws state that there are only two causes for removal of a rep; unwillingness or incapacity, both of which Lyn was not guilty of. She also quoted the Bylaws stating that a rep will be removed “by a majority vote of the member shows and individual members in that region” not by a vote of the BOD. She cited that the BOD could initiate the vote in the region to remove the current rep only. She believed that the BOD’s attempt to shorten the process by voting Lyn out ourselves was not in compliance with the Bylaws, that our vote should only be to turn the removal vote over to the R5 members. Once that is done, if Lyn is voted out, we should proceed with the standard process of holding a replacement election.

Sandra Gibson clarified that the BOD is not voting Lyn out but voting to allow her region to vote her out. Kathy Williams replied stating that the poll should clearly state that, but instead the poll references the petition which asks the BOD to remove Lyn ourselves. That is why it is unclear. The fact that it is very serious business means there should be no confusion that we have acted appropriately and in compliance with our Bylaws.

Erin Corbett proclaimed that as our Parliamentarian, it is Eleanor who should be trusted to guide us through the Bylaws and procedures. She agreed with other Board members that the poll is completely straightforward and that the petition is from Region 5 asking for their chance to vote out their rep, that it’s not the BOD’s place to deny them their request.

Sandra Gibson asked Kathy if she’d read the petition in full, that there was no confusion in the poll’s question, “Should the Board of Directors uphold the petition sent by Region 5 as outlined in message #50268?”

Eleanor Harvey advised the Board that the vote to remove a rep is initiated by the Region 5 Petition, without that there would be no region-wide vote to remove Lyn. That if the Board determined that the R5 petition was specious and unjustified that the Board can and should opt to vote down the regional request and explain to petitioners why it was rejected. Eleanor, again, stated that if Kathy disagreed with the process and preferred that there should be an automatic ballot sent to the R5 members that the Bylaws would need to be rewritten to clarify that point, but she believed that at this point in time the better path was to provide the Board with maximum oversight of the process.Kathy Williams replied that she had read the petition several times and that the poll asks us to follow the petition which asks the BOD itself to remove their rep and that it is not in compliance with our Bylaws.

Sandra Gibson replied to Kathy that as a follow up we are following our Bylaws which state, as has been stated repeatedly, that it will go to the region to vote.

Pauline Entin had a problem with the same issue at first, but that ultimately the Bylaws require us to conduct a special vote (since we have a valid petition from at least 10% of the voting members in R5) and that the petition does acknowledge that a vote by R5 membership is required.

APRIL 25 --------------------------------------------------
Lyn Norbury wrote that it was her understanding that it was the job of the BOD to verify the validity of the charges and determine whether or not the charges are deemed severe enough to warrant the removal. The BOD vote would then be whether or not to uphold the petition thereby preventing a clique from banding together to oust someone for false or trivial reasons. She cited that each of the bulleted points in the petition needed to be verified and the severity gauged.

She provided the example of “She refuses to poll her region.” Lyn admitted to never having officially polling her region, but that nobody else in the 20 years of NAMHSA had done so, either, except for Carmen in 2007. She believed that if this was enough to warrant a removal that the rest of NAMHSA reps should be removed, too. Lyn asked the BOD to find out the correct procedure on verifying evidence before proceeding.

Eleanor Harvey wrote that the Board does have evidence in the emails sent by the person Lyn spoke with at Palm Springs and that she had absolutely no reason to believe he was lying or making the numbers up since he is trying to get a contract put in place. Lyn only led him to be confused by being contacted by her, which caused him to reach out to Mary Thomson for clarification. It was on these grounds alone that the Board can request Lyn’s resignation.

Eleanor also brought up the misrepresentation of the database proposal through emails and screen shots of Facebook conversations.

Eleanor found nothing else that needed verification since everything that Carra had asked for had been received (namely the emails from the Palm Springs Convention Center). Members of Lyn’s own region had supplied emails and screen captures supporting their beliefs that Lyn had misrepresented their views which were enough to warrant a vote on the BOD and a vote in Region 5.

Finally, Eleanor stated that she was subscribed to all of the YG regional lists and had seen reps polling their regions for years.

She clarified that the case was moving forward as was laid out in the Bylaws and the outcome of the vote in progress would determine if there was a vote at the region level and that there were no reasons for further delays.

Carra McClelland uploaded an updated version of the master NAN Breeds List.

APRIL 27 --------------------------------------------------
The following poll closed:
Should the Board of Directors uphold the petition sent by Region 5 as outlined in message #50268? Yes, uphold the petition (10 votes, 76.92%)
· Stacy Quick (R1)
· Pauline Entin (R3)
· Natalie Kilpatrick (R4)
· Jackie Moore (R6)
· Annette Dean (R7)
· Chris Wallbruch (R8)
· Niki Hertzog (R9)
· Kate Cabot (R10)
· Sandra Gibson (R11)
· Tom Dean (VP)
No, do not uphold the petition (1 vote, 7.69%
· Lyn Norbury (R5)
Abstain (2 votes, 15.38%)
· Kathy Williams (R2)
· Carra McClelland (Pres)

Jackie Arns-Rossi advised that she was still printing out ballots for the regular election and would work on the Region 5 special election as she had time to do so. She reminded the Board that since they had voted to eliminate postal ballots that the Region 5 special election could be run electronically. Natalie Kilpatrick asked to have changing the show year to Jan 1-Dec 31 added to the agenda. Eleanor Harvey advised that this had been considered in the past but there were concerns about keeping interest in spring shows when they were not qualifiers for that upcoming NAN. Chris Wallbruch had concerns on how this change might affect the MSOTY program.

APRIL 28 --------------------------------------------------
Lyn Norbury asked why five of her posts to the BOD while being placed on moderation had not been approved. Carra McClelland replied that they had not been appropriate nor productive for the Board to stay on track and that the posts that were denied were belaboring a point and caused further delay of BOD business.

As Amy Peck advised she would be leaving for vacation, Lyn Norbury asking why she hadn’t received confirmation of her Independent Membership yet. Carra McClelland clarified that Amy did not have anything to do with IMs and that Lyn needed to contact Danielle Miller. Danielle stated that she had received payment confirmation from Lyn but did not have her application to process. Lyn replied to Danielle that she had sent an online form. At this point Lyn was asked by multiple BOD members to take the conversation off the BOD list since it was not BOD related. Lyn asked why people were jumping on her citing that Danielle had started this thread on the BOD list and that she had only responded. Lynn Weber corrected Lyn advising her that Amy had started the thread since she was going on vacation (and more or less told her what was just written above). Lyn asked Lynn not to speak to her as if she were a three year old, that she didn’t have to have this explained to her.

Danielle ended up privately emailing Lyn regarding the membership.

APRIL 29 --------------------------------------------------
Erin Corbett advised the BOD that due to security breaches at AOL, email from that ISP were being sent directly to many peoples’ spam folders. She specifically advised Lyn Norbury that this was an issue with her recent messages since it had been reported that people weren’t getting Lyn’s messages to their inboxes.

Lyn defensively replied that this was a case of her being overly moderated by Carra and had nothing to do with AOL.

Erin replied that she was not talking about the moderated messages, but that every post from every AOL account was going into spam, Lyn’s included.

Niki Hertzog asked for input on the 2014 NAN Auction. She’d been discussing the issues with officials in Kentucky and in order to legally run an auction in Lexington the Board had three options.

Hire an auction company
Allow Niki to set herself up as an auction house which requires an exam and $230 in fees
Run an online auction with a viewing party.

Those responding to the post favored the online auction.

APRIL 30 --------------------------------------------------
Jackie Arns-Rossi advised that the election ballot was out to the members and that she would begin working on the Region 5 special election ballot immediately. She clarified to Lyn that the special election ballot was to decide whether or not to keep her on as rep. The ballot would need to be written and approved just like every other ballot she did for the BOD and that it would be put here for approval after she was done dealing with the normal elections.

Natalie Kilpatrick asked that the special election be referred to as what it really is, a recall election, since the ballot is to recall the Region 5 Rep. Lyn replied that it wasn’t an election of any kind. Natalie posted the definition of a recall election (is a procedure by which voters can remove an elected official from office through a direct vote before his or her term has ended. Recalls, which are initiated when sufficient voters sign a petition, have a history dating back to the ancient Athenian democracy and are a feature of several contemporary constitutions) for Lyn.

Jackie Moore posted a short update from the Database Committee in regards to a slight change in the language of the proposal.Carmen Robertson posted that she was looking for Tom Dean as she needed his approval to release the financial report that she’d sent him on April 14.

REGIONAL REPORTS --------------------------------------------------
REGION 1 ------------------------- No report.

REGION 2 ------------------------- Recent Shows: On February 22, 2014 the St. Valentine’s Day Show was held in LaVerne, CA by Suzie Francis. Suzie’s first try at being a show holder was just this last October and she has done a bangup job! St. Valentine’s Day 2014 was a Peter Stone sponsored show and sold out quickly with a waiting list! A huge thank you has to go out to the Stone Company for sponsoring the show and providing great prize models! Everyone had a blast at this show. Look out for Suzie’s next show Sleepy Hollow coming up this October. On March 15 and 16 Heather Visser and her family once again opened upon their ranch home (complete with baby goat kids!) to our model horse invasion. The weather was gorgeous, the potluck lunch was yummy and the company great! Achy Acres Mini Spring Fling and Big Valley Performance shows were both a huge success. Heather is talking about having another set of shows this summer. Stay tuned for dates…Can’t wait to do it again! Upcoming Shows: The Fantastic Plastic Classic #11 will be held on April 12, 2014 in San Martin, CA. Jane Morehouse has been holding this plastic extravaganza for 11 years now! The tables will be loaded down and competition will be fierce! The potluck lunch will be awesome and Jane always has great (and usually blingy) prizes…. Come and join us! Website: http://www.fantasticplasticclassic.com The next day, the sister show that features customs and chinas will be held on April 13, 2014 in the same hall. Bay Area All Halter Custom Classic and China Show / aka Jamboree Custom Show . This is also another legacy show that is in its 11th Year… Amazing! Sheryl Leisure has graciously stepped into the show holder position for this year’s event. Thank you, Sheryl! Website: http://www.gcmhs.org/baahcccs/ On May 17, 2014, Sharon Massouris will host her mini show First Show of the New Season (FSOTNS) in Anaheim, CA. Sharon always holds this show in conjunction of the Preakness race where we all cram into her home, show beautiful models, eat a great lunch and watch the race! Don’t wait, the show fills up fast! Contact Sharon at: smhomefree at att.net REGION 3 ------------------------- No report.

REGION 4 ------------------------- No report.

REGION 5 ------------------------- Spring is definitely in the air! Red bud trees are in full bloom. Tulips and hyacinths are in a beautiful array of color in the yards all around. It is so nice to be able to be outdoors without even a jacket. I missed the February report last month when Mini Moos was held in Hurst, Texas on the 22nd. Mini Moos was an all mini halter show attended by many. Heather Gearhart hosted this mini show in a big way. In March the Mid Kansas All Cm Halter Show was held on the 22nd in Rose Hill, Kansas. Britt Carlson hosted this show. I didn't make it to this one, but I know anything Britt is ALWAYS lots of fun!! Coming in April: April 26th...Lemmonade Live in Magnolia, TX. Show holder Elena Lemm April 26th...Tornado Alley in Tulsa, OK. Show holder Lyn Norbury April 26th...Hog Wild in Tulsa, OK. Show holder Lyn Norbury April shows will mark the end of the show year to get models qualified for NAN 2014.

REGION 6 ------------------------- Hello All! March in Region 6 started out with Central Alabama Live at the Alabama Horse Fair on March 1. From all reports, this was a fun show with great competition and quite a few entrants new to model horse showing. Entrants had a great time wandering around the fair during the lunch break looking at vendors and exhibits. The following Saturday, March 8, was the fifth annual Carolina Gold Classic in Monroe, NC. With 86 entrants, this was, by far, the largest show of the region. The show ran super smoothly and had something for everyone Novice and Kids divisions, a Performance challenge, fun classes with cash prizes, a Collector class also with cash prizes as well as divisions for OF Breyer, OF Stone, OF China, CG China, CM, AR, Performance, and Limited Performance. And fantastic prizes and trophies! Congratulations to all the show staff and entrants for a super successful show! April will be another busy month in the region with Palmetto State Live in Jenkinsville, SC on April 12. Also, Morgen Kilbourn will be hosting a judging clinic at her home in NC on April 6. Ann Harris and Morgen will both be sharing their expertise with the folks in attendance. Next up on the Region 6 calendar will be MITS (Models In The Sunshine) on May 17 and 18 in Lady Lake, FL, as well as The Hollow Horse All Mini Mini Show in Cumming, GA, also on May 17. See you at the shows! REGION 7 ------------------------- We finally have spring ! The green grasses are coming up and the sun is shining. Yeah! In March we had Model Horse Mania in Nicholasville, KY, hosted by Cristy Brown. The show hall was packed full and it looked like everyone was having a great time. There were great prizes and the classes had a lot of eye candy for all of us to see. For April, we have lots of shows for everyone all over our region: April 19th – Model Horses Anonymous Live 4 in Athens, TN April 26th – Four Leaf Clover Show 2 in Xenia, Ohio April 26th – Spring Mini Show in Maumee, OH REGION 8 ------------------------- Happy spring! The daffodils are up, the robins are chirping, the grass is greening, and I think we are *finally* seeing some decent weather here in the Midwest! Region 8 put on two great shows in the month of March. First up was another one of the very popular No Frills show series (hosted by GLC in Huntley, IL) on March 15th. I judged chinas/customs/resins at this show, and the competition was absolutely amazing throughout the entire show! GLC always puts on a laidback yet fiercely competitive show, and the March edition was no exception! The following weekend, Jenna Murphy hosted her annual Show for the Cure in Elk Grove Village, IL. This is annual show where all of the proceeds are given to cancer research, and is always a very tough show! This year, almost $1000 was raised for cancer research outstanding! I also judged at this one, and the quality as always was fabulous. Thanks to both GLC and Jenna for providing two great shows! Next up in the Region 8 show docket... April 12, 2014: GLC NoFrills AllMini Show in Huntley, IL. Contact: Liz Cory. April 12, 2014: Plastic Ponies On Parade in Fenton, MI. Contact: Shelley Hogle. May 3, 2014: Stone Horses Country Fair in Shipshewana, IN. Contact: Jo Kulwicki. Please see the NAMHSA website for further details on these great upcoming shows! https://www.namhsa.org/showsbyregion.htm REGION 9 ------------------------- No report.

REGION 10 ------------------------- No report.

REGION 11 ------------------------- No report.

FINANCIAL REPORT --------------------------------------------------
MARCH Balance in BOA checking as of 3/31/2014: $65,857.01
Balance in PayPal as of 3/31/2014: $407.73
Balance in NAMHSA accounts as of 3/31/2014: $66,267.74

BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE PERIOD --------------------------------------------------
President: Carra McClelland
Vice President: Tom Dean
Treasurer: Carmen Robertson
Recording Secretary: Jackie Arns-Rossi
Region 1 Representative: Stacy Quick
Region 2 Representative: Kathy Williams
Region 3 Representative: Pauline Entin
Region 4 Representative: Natalie Kilpatrick
Region 5 Representative: Lyn Norbury
Region 6 Representative: Jackie Moore
Region 7 Representative: Annette Dean
Region 8 Representative: Chris Wallbruch
Region 9 Representative: Niki Hertzog
Region 10 Representative: Kate Cabot
Region 11 Representative: Sandra Gibson
Individual Membership Secretary: Danielle Miller
Show Secretary: Amy Peck
Member Show Results Processor: Amy Peck
Public Relations: Natalie Kilpatrick
Webmaster: Lynn Weber
Parliamentarian: Eleanor Harvey
Merit Awards Coordinator: Dayle Steinke
2014 NAN Chair: Yashka Hallein
2014 Member Show of the Year Chairperson: Chris Wallbruch
Judge's Handbook Committee: Carra McClelland

Posted 8/20/2014 by Natalie Kilpatrick, NAMHSA PR

Last updated on August 20, 2014