Pony News

General Meeting Results

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Newfoundland Pony Society
General Meeting
August 26, 2007, 2pm

St. John's Racing and Entertainment Centre, Lakeview Ave, Goulds

Minutes

Call to order

President, Mac LeMessurier, called the meeting to order. Welcoming remarks were made and members of the executive introduced. Mac LeMessurier also introduced Dr. Hugh Whitney, Provincial Veterinarian, NL Department of Natural Resources, as the facilitator of the meeting.

Acknowledge of Quorum

President Mac LeMessurier requested that Beverley Stevens provide a count as to the number of members present and the number of proxies received. There were 32 members present and 40 proxies for a total of 72. The President Mac LeMessurier explained that a quorum had been established as the minimum requirement of 25 had been exceeded.

Approval of the Agenda

President, Mac LeMessurier, requested that a motion to approve the agenda be brought forward.
A motion to accept the agenda was made Harry Hutchings Otto Warren, seconded
Motion passed

Vote on motions proposed by Council

As an introduction, the President, Mac LeMessurier provided the membership with the rationale behind the proposed consititutional changes. He indicated that the intent was to streamline the voting process for the AGM and other general assemblies, particularly to address the challenges of last year, where a great deal of time was focused on procedural matters vs. on pony society meeting.

The President also provided the membership with information regarding the next AGM which is scheduled for November 25th with the location to be determined but possibly to be held once again at the St. John's Racing and Entertainment Centre, Lakeview Ave., Goulds.

Discussion was then held as to most appropriate methodology to address the proposed changes as the proxy form did not specify sub clauses. On the advise of member Jack Harris, a lawyer, it was determined the most appropriate format to pursue would be to read and discuss each clause/ sub clause and to not assume that everyone has read them.

Constitutional Clauses

Clause 4.1
The existing clause and proposed changes were read out loud
No discussion ensued
A motion to accept the proposed clause was brought forward
Larry Fahey Beverley Stevens, seconded

Clause 4.5
The existing clause and proposed changes were read out loud
Clarification was sought by Debbie Bray re: effective dates in order to confirm the June 30th date, this was confirmed by President Mac LeMessurier
A motion to accept the proposed clause was brought forward
Harry Hutchings Kay LeMessurier, seconded

Clause 4.6
The existing clause and proposed changes were read out loud
No discussion ensued
A motion to accept the proposed clause was brought forward
Chris Gallant John Trent, seconded

Clause 4.7
The existing clause and proposed changes were read out loud
No discussion ensued
A motion to accept the proposed clause was brought forward
Harry Hutchings Maureen Fahey, seconded

Clause 4.8
The existing clause and proposed changes were read out loud
No discussion ensued
A motion to accept the proposed clause was brought forward
Craig LeMessurier Chris Gallant, seconded

Clause 5.4
The existing clause and proposed changes were read out loud
Clarification was sought by Debbie Bray whether or not honorary members have the right to vote, it was determined that they are only allowed to vote provided that they have purchased a full membership, if they have not they retain their honorary membership but do not have voting rights.
A motion to accept the proposed clause was brought forward
Kay LeMessurier Harry Hutching, seconded

Clause 6.1
The existing clause and proposed changes were read out loud
No discussion ensued
A motion to accept the proposed clause was brought forward
Harry Hutchings Craig LeMessurier, seconded

Clause 6.3
The existing clause and proposed changes were read out loud
No discussion ensued
A motion to accept the proposed clause was brought forward
Chris Gallant Debbie Bray, seconded

Clause 6.4
The existing clause and proposed changes were read out loud
Clarification was provided by President Mac LeMessurier that this was to ensure that the personal agendas could not unnecessarily lead to the calling of general meetings
A motion to accept the proposed clause was brought forward
Jack Harris Larry Fahey, seconded

Clause 6.5
The existing clause and proposed changes were read out loud
Clarification was provided by President Mac LeMessurier as the new changes will allow for phone conference, better accommodating members who are located outside the island of Newfoundland
A motion to accept the proposed clause was brought forward
Harry Hutchings Debbie Bray, seconded

Clause 6.6
The existing clause and proposed changes were read out loud
Clarification was sought by Chris Gallant regarding the maintaining "secret ballot" in the wording of the proposed changes. It was felt that some members may feel uncomfortable if a show of hands is the only methodology available. Harry Hutchings indicated that he had no issues with a secret ballot but felt that there needs to be the overarching premise that the process has to remain streamlined, therefore whatever is proposed it has to ensure that the process is not bogged down. Jack Harris proposed the following change in wording to the proposed clause to as follows:
Voting at General or Annual General Meetings will be carried out by a show of hands, or by secret ballot if 2/3's of those voting members present so decide...(the rest of the proposed clause remained unchanged)
A motion to accept the proposed changes to the proposed clause was brought forward
Chris Gallant Jack Harris, seconded
A motion to accept the proposed clause was brought forward
Michelle Reid Beverley Stevens, seconded

Other items raised

During the course of meeting the only other items for which clarification was sought was the following:
Chris Gallant questioned whether or not there was anything in the constitution allowing for the appointment of independent scrutineers now that the new voting procedure was to be in place. it was clarified by both Jack Harris and President Mac LeMessurier that the new clause 4.d allowed for this appointment.

Clarification was sought by Jack Harris regarding the nomination deadline for the positions to be voted upon at the next Annual General Meeting. He noted that the deadline is September and wanted to know how this was to be achieved. President Mac LeMessurier indicated that the nomination committee was waiting for the results of today's meeting and that would be contacting the membership individually over the next couple of days to see who were interested in putting their names forward. He also indicated that the seats that are to be voted upon are as follows: Vice President, Website coordinator, Membership coordinator, and Councilors at large.

Clarification was sought as to whether the membership would be receiving a copy of the new amended constitution. President Mac LeMessurier indicated that a copy of the new amended constitution would be sent to every member with the next newsletter.

Vote on the motions proposed by Council and results of vote
The vote was conducted by Dr. Hugh Whitney
Each motion received unanimous support with the 32 members voting to accept the proposed changes. A count of the proxy votes also indicated unanimous support for the changes with all 40 agreeing to the proposed changes. The total count in support of the proposed changes was 72 (unanimous)

Report on Council Activities to Date
President Mac LeMessurier provided an update regarding council activities to date. He indicated that the calendars are available and he encouraged the membership to actively pursue selling them. He identified that every calendar sold is profit for the society thanks to the generosity of Fortis. Currently there are 5,000 calendars printed with over 2,000 sold at $5.00 a piece.

President Mac LeMessurier also highlighted that the Fortis contribution also enabled for the development of highway road signage as well as pamphlets

President Mac LeMessurier indicated that the funding raised will be utilized to: promote the breed at events such as the Royal Winter Fair, apply for breed status; and cover registration / DNA costs for those that cannot afford the fees

Debbie Bray gave a brief overview of registration stats: 12 new registrations have been received, 6 ponies have transferred, 4 deaths have been recorded and although the exact number of births could not be remembered Debbie Bray did indicated that over 90% of all births have been colts. Debbie Bray indicated that a more detailed report will be in the next newsletter.

Clarification was sought by Debbie Bray regarding new registrations with President Mac LeMessurier indicating that some ponies can be grandfathered in, providing requirements are met as outlined by ID committee.

The Heritage Animal Act of NL: Past, Present and Future

Dr. Hugh Whitney provided an overview. A copy of his speech is attached as appendix to these minutes.

Other business

Dr. Hugh Whitney and President Mac LeMessurier highlighted that they have approached Memorial University's Department of History, and that they have been successful in attracting a student to pull together an archival document regarding the Newfoundland Pony. This document will also include the development of a calendar. In addition to having the documentation, it was indicated that this will be digitized and available on the website.

President Mac LeMessurier in coordination with Harry Hutchings also indicated that in discussions with chief archivists at the Rooms and Memorial's NL Collection both have indicated that they would be interested in having increased archival material relating to the ponies (as currently they have very little).

In addition, President Mac LeMessurier also indicated they have received funding to have the registration of animals digitized which would also be made available to the archives.

Closing Remarks

President Mac LeMessurier thanked all members for participating in the meeting and called for motion to adjourn the meeting

Adjournment

A motion to adjourn the meeting was proposed Dawn LeMessurier Debbie Bray, seconded
Motion passed

Appendix A

Speaking notes of Dr. Hugh Whitney

The Heritage Animal Act of NL: Past, Present and Future

I have been asked to address the Newfoundland Pony Society. This is to give my view of the past, present and future of the Newfoundland Pony.

My first contact was in 1994 when I was asked to help carry out the unanimous decision of the House of Assembly, as put forward by MHA Jack Harris, to recognize the contribution of this pony to the history of rural Newfoundland.

One of the first people I met and worked with on this idea was your current President Mac LeMessurier who was Secretary/Treasurer of the society at that time.

As it wasn't clear how the motion was to be carried out, we discussed the various roles of the pony society and the provincial government. Eventually the Heritage Animals Act was passed and it was time to recognize a group to represent the interests of this animal.

Though I had a sense of the different interests that surrounded the pony I hadn't anticipated the level of these differences that I was going to face. However we managed to make it through that period and recognized the NPS as the group that would work for the preservation of the pony.

Since those days the ups and downs have continued with many talented people contributing a lot of their personal time, effort and money to this purpose.

However, many of the original questions remain:

1. What is a Newfoundland Pony?

2. Should it be identified as a distinct breed under the Animal Pedigree Act or should it remain as a variety of pony types that goes no further than the Heritage Animals Act?

3. Is the Newfoundland Pony a part of Newfoundland's history alone or also part of Canada's history?

I think the challenge to you as a society is to first identify where you want to be 20 years from now and how you will get there.

Will you be able to make the big decisions necessary to create that future or only those that get it through another year?

Will your work be remembered in 20 years or not? When the next book is written on the Newfoundland Pony what will the judgment be on your work?

The Heritage Animals Act was intentionally written so that other animals with a historical attachment to this province could be recognized. The most obvious second choice has always been the Labrador Husky. There is currently a Labrador Husky Society that is going through the same issues that you went through in your early years. Are there enough still around to form a nucleus for breeding? Are there enough people interested to save the animal? Can anyone define what a Labrador Husky is or does it vary from community to community?

Early on in my experience with the Newfoundland Pony, I realized that there are three phases to the life of these animals. Necessity, nuisance and nostalgia. The Labrador Husky was a necessity for draft purposes in Labrador before motorized vehicles like the skidoo, or for the Newfoundland Pony the tractor.

Nuisance came when the husky was no longer needed for draft purposes but were still kept around by those people who had always had them in their families. This lead to problems of noise, outbreaks of rabies, and tragically in 1998 to the death of two members of a family who were picking berries on an island on which there were Labrador Huskies. Though the Newfoundland Pony had no such tragic history, they were a nuisance in many communities where they continued to roam in herds. Ponies collided with cars, gardens were ruined and cemeteries disturbed.

The stage of nostalgia is upon both animals now. Many were lost either to the meat truck for the pony or to the gradual or accelerated destruction of the huskies, particularly since 1998.

The future of each is in the hands of those who have taken up the interest in protecting it.

Good luck

Back to Pony News