Motions for mid-year meeting

[Deanna German <finishis2win@columbus.rr.com>]

Motion 1: I like this one...
Motion 2: Doesn't DNF in the current codes cover this? I'm not against
adding a DQ designation if someone REALLY thinks it's needed.

Motion 3: WHAT THE HECK? and Where did this come from? Why would we want
this? I just do not understand this and do not support it.

Here's the motion for anyone who didn't go look:
"Motion: Access a per rider fee to the National Championship
Ride for the use of the AERC name. A fee of $20 per starter
for each distance would be paid to AERC in addition to any
normal ride fees and sanction fees. AERC would also not
participate in any other income or expenses associated
with the ride. 
Presented by:  Vicki Rutter, National Office Committee Chair"

Motion 4: OK
Motion 5: OK
Motion 6: not enough information
Motion 7: yeah, sure
Motion 8: agreed
Motion 9: I support this, but don't some criteria need to be set up?
Motion 10: I fully support the intent, but as long as we're proposing a new
rule, shouldn't the language be more specific than "The Vet Committee
recommends that the rules be amended to state that 50-mile rides or rides of
similar distance (example 50-60 miles) which are not classified as a
multi-day event be required to have at least two veterinary
checks within the ride"? I get hung up on the whole "similar distance thing
when it would be so easy to designate a mileage range and number of checks.
Motion 11: yeah, sure
Motion 12: OK
Motion 13: I'm not necessarily against an alliance with Australia's
endurance organization, but to what end? I agree with point one, but it
needs to be more specific. "Priorities" could equal "racing over a technical
trail" or it could be resistance to the FEI's proposal of minimum times
because the horse is clearly not the priority under those circumstances.
"Protocols" could mean dress code or it could mean vet standards. Needs to
be more specific. Also, who are the member countries? I've got a feeling
that the priorities and protocols of the US, however one chooses to define
them, are in direct opposition to those elsewhere.
Point 2: I'm against endurnace riding becoming an Olympic sport. I see
nothing good for the horses coming out of that.
Point 3: Nice idea, but how?
Conclusion: Motion 13 should not be adopted in this form.
Motion 14: absolutely
Motion 16: no objection
Motion 17: OK, but 4,5, and 6 aren't clear to me
Motion 18: OK
Motion 19: OK
Motion 20: Is there a compelling reason to change this? I kinda like
following the weight div. point standings
Motion 21: I'm all for whatever promotes knowledge and education
Motion 22: Agreed. This is why I'm asking for clarification on some of the
other motions.

Deanna (NE reg.)
AERC #M30478