The Intent of Proposal says in part: “The creation of a division within the NRHA that allows those not involved with a Professional Trainer (spousal or significant other or immediate relatives) or Non-Pro with earnings over $25,000 to have a fair and equal program to compete in. This would create a larger “grass-roots” program to draw from as participants, which will increase the other divisions at a later time when experience and confidence rises. Why play if a trainer’s spouse, partner or family member is going to win?”

Surprise, surprise: I don’t always agree with the decisions made by the NRHA, but I do believe the organization has done an outstanding job of providing classes that are all-inclusive and give everyone a place to start, a place where they can become experienced and confident – before they move on up.

That starts with the long list of “Entry Level” classes (Category 10), progresses to the Rookie divisions then on to the Limited Non-Pro, Intermediate Non-Pro, Non-Pro and don’t forget, the Prime Time Non-Pro and Youth divisions.

When Bob and I started showing in the '70s, there were two classes offered: Open and Amateur (that’s what the Non-Pro was called way back when). There was also a Ladies class. That came to be because “spouses of professionals” were not allowed to compete in the Amateur class. That changed in 1981.

Honestly, at the time I thought the reining world as we knew it was coming to an end. It didn’t. Main reason: this is not a black and white issue. There’s a little thing involved called “talent.” Some have it – some don’t.  The folks you see in the winner’s circle, the people this rule proposal wants to exclude from the “Amateur” division, have it – big time!

“Why play if a trainer’s spouse, partner or family member is going to win?” Because as reiners, we love the sport, because we are always striving to perfect our skills, because moving up to the next division is a feather in our Stetsons, because placing second to a bona fide NRHA Non-Pro superstar is an achievement – something to be proud of. We gave them a run for the money.

Does the trainer's spouse, partner or family member have an advantage? No more so than wealthy reiners with money to spend. Perhaps the NRHA should base its divisions on IRS filings. I’d like that!

What’s your spin?

“On February 2, 2012, Allen Mitchels filed suit against the National Reining Horse Association due to actions taken by its Board of Directors on January 21, 2012. By advice of legal counsel, NRHA will not comment on the specific of the lawsuit as long as the matter is in litigation.”

“…actions taken by its Board of Directors on January 21, 2012” were as follows:

“The NRHA received a complaint concerning Allen Mitchels along with others. The matter was investigated in a fair and reasonable manner by an outside firm, independent from the NRHA.

“Facts were gathered from numerous witnesses by the independent investigators. Allen Mitchels was afforded opportunity to present information, was represented by legal counsel during the investigative process. The facts gathered from the investigation were reported to the Board of Directors by the independent investigator. Allen Mitchels presented information at the meeting of the Board of Directors and was excused from the meeting while the matter was discussed.

“The Bylaws of the 2012 NRHA Handbook, Article VII, Section 10; states:

Any Officer, Director, or the president of the Reining Horse Sports Foundation may be removed from the Board of Directors by a majority vote of the Board of Directors whenever, in its judgment, the best interests of the association would be served thereby. However, such removal shall be without prejudice to the contract rights, if any, of the person so removed.

“Pursuant to the above Bylaw the following is recorded concerning Allen Mitchels:

On motion duly made, seconded and passed by a majority vote of the Board of Directors of the National Reining Horse Association, Allen Mitchels:

1. Is removed as President of the NRHA.

2. Is removed from the Teaching Panel,

3. Is removed from the Judges Committee,

4. Has his judge’s privileges revoked for a period of five (5) years,

5. Has a lifetime ban on appointment or election to a position of authority within the NRHA.

6. At the end of five (5) years, Mr. Mitchels may reapply and retest for his judging privileges, pending a letter of apology is to be written to the Membership and the Board of Directors for his actions.”

Just as the NRHA will not comment on the specifics of the lawsuit, it did not in any way elaborate on the findings of the independent investigation. However, the association has kept its members apprized of the events as they unfolded. Obviously, they will continue to do so. And that’s a good thing.

What’s your spin?

I can’t argue with the premise. This is a very important meeting for the NRHA, the sport, the judging program and the membership. It definitely is the responsibility of all elected board members to attend. They must objectively and without bias listen to the findings of the independent firm retained by the NRHA to investigate the allegations outlined in the first anonymous letter. It is then their responsibility to assess the facts and act accordingly – one way or the other.

What’s your spin?

January 18, 2012

National Reining Horse Association

Board of Directors

3000 NW 10^th Street

Oklahoma City, OK 73107

Dear Board of Directors:

You will be soon called to voice your opinion on a crucial and historic moment for the NRHA. As you are aware, the NRHA Executive Committee has initiated an investigation into the alleged improper action of the NRHA President Mr. Allen Mitchels. The membership of the association, and really the entire equestrian sporting industry, has been waiting and watching to see what you as an elected board will decide on this topic at your next board meeting.  All eyes are on us and your decision will be the benchmark in the next chapter of the NRHA. You, as an elected representative, have the opportunity to either chart the course of success or a path of mediocrity for the NRHA for a decade to come.

While Mr. Mitchels has been suspended from his role as NRHA President during this investigation, it is possible that some amount of effort has been made to curb the extent of which his actions might be viewed as punishable. For this reason, you as a Board of Directors must ask yourself only one question: Did Allen Mitchels circumvent the association rules and gain access to officials in a way that other owners of futurity horses could not? It is widely known and highly witnessed that the answer is yes, he did break the NRHA rules.

With the potential finding of guilt (should there be such a finding) several actions can then be considered, such as:

*  How can the association send a clear message that they are working to correct the mistakes that have been made in order to gain back the trust of the membership and potential members?

*  Is there a precedent for the removal of a license for an NRHA licensed judge when such a rule is broken?

*  Can the daily business operations and leadership structure of the NRHA be effectively conducted with the current public opinion as related to this issue? Can this public relations problem for the NRHA be managed or mitigated so that the NRHA can set about on the path to rebuilding?

Those are the considerations that the membership is expecting you to act upon. A soft vote, a vote in favor of leniency or an absence or abstention of vote, will be considered unacceptable by the membership and look highly unfavorable for our association in the eyes of our peers and potential sponsors in the equestrian community.

Some of you may have been following the Quarter Horse News blog related to this topic. If you have not, you should take the time to read the comments and responses among members and interested parties. They are a window into the feeling among your constituents. The blog can be found at:  www.QuarterHorseNews.com and then click on “Pat’s Blog” then choose the headline “Controversy”.

The purpose of this letter is to ensure NRHA EC and BOD members fulfill their fiduciary duties to the organization and its members. We realize that you may already have strong opinions about the question at hand.  That said, we challenge you to think and really examine what is the best thing to do for the members, the association, the sport and most especially the horses we all love.

The fact that so much of the attention to this matter has come from anonymous correspondence is a sign of a deeper, much more sinister line of corruption in our industry.  Since when have the outspoken people in our industry been afraid to talk? Is it because in this environment, the voicing of your opinion equates to direct negative retaliation? People are concerned about the impact this retaliation has on their livelihoods and remain anonymous because they’ve lost confidence that the board of directors will protect them in such a case. "No action" by the BOD and EC is a punishment sentence to anyone who stands up on the issue. A reading of the comments on the blog listed above makes this case very well.

Our group's intent is to provide information that can be substantiated without any one person or persons being named.  We also only selected to outline issues that could easily be substantiated without an inference of subjectivity. The actions of the NRHA President places into question NRHA's judging system, the rules put in place to preserve the integrity of the sport, and most importantly the perception that NRHA has simply become an "Insiders Club."

The allegation that NRHA has become an "Insiders Club" is easily shown by the fact that ONLY Mr. Mitchels was permitted and apparently not questioned about having contact with the judges during the NRHA Futurity.  His actions, (whether his intentions were to influence the judges or not), were accepted ONLY because of his position with NRHA.  Rules, regulations, and protocols have simply been broken by Mr. Mitchels with no apparent corrective action from NRHA – until now.  You as a Board of Directors get your chance to set the path straight once again.

You may hear from the opposing view that…

* Mr. Mitchels’ actions should be dealt with leniency because of his time involved in the industry. To be clear, no elected official, no matter their status should be allowed to act outside of the rules of the association. As a matter of fact, our top leaders should be held to a stricter standard. Even with that said, Mr. Mitchels spent the majority of his career in the reining industry (and prior to ever being elected to leadership) as a well-paid position as NRHA Director of Judges, thus verifying his complete knowledge of the rules.

* Mr. Mitchels did not have influence over the judges although he was in the judge’s room. While even members of the NRHA Executive Committee are aware of traceable leads to witnesses of fraternization between Mr. Mitchels, other easily researched and substantiated leads that will likely lead to witnesses include:  Michelle Wrigley, director of judges and any of the contracted staff that reports to her – will know that Mr. Mitchels was in the judges room and had influence over the judges.  Melanie Rinehart – show manager for the event will know that Mr. Mitchels required the staff to house him at the sequestered hotel that is used for judges and that judges traveled to and from the event with Mr. Mitchels.

That said, we as members are counting on the Executive Committee, and therefore you to conduct a complete inquiry with Mr. Mitchels himself and the judges to see at what level there was fraternization. Once it is confirmed he is in the room, the rule was broken. From there, it will be up to you to determine how deeply rooted the fraternization might be.  In addition to breaking this rule, Mr. Mitchels’ actions as an owner of a Futurity horse jeopardized the integrity of the judges at the event and the whole judging program.

You may hear that past presidents of the NRHA have been related to Futurity entries. While it may be true that past presidents of the association have been owners, closely related or even exhibitors of Futurity horses, none have gained access to the judges in such an unprecedented and unfair way as Mr. Mitchels. Now, the entire judging system which was once the envy of the horse industry is cast in doubt. For this reason, Mr. Mitchels should resign his post immediately.

We appreciate your consideration of this request and we know that you will do the right thing when asked to take action on this, the most important vote of your term as a member of the board of directors.

Respectfully Submitted,

Concerned NRHA Member