GSDCA-WDA BYLAW Change Proposal - Page 16

What happened this weekend?  I am not a member and do not do FB.

Reportedly, all three bylaw amendments failed.

Thank you for the information!!!  If they had passed, I think that they would have been screaming from the rooftops!!!  Since I am not a member, I did not vote.

System would not let me add this sentence to my last post that would have reduced the amount of space on this site --

What was the count of the votes?

Been wondering why there has not been any announcement of the "ballot counting" results on the three By-Law Proposals?  Well, let me count the reasons.  I previously predicted that if those By-Laws were to fail, the Board would immediately go into damage control mode.  However, they must have had a premonition that all was not going to go well because, just to be on the safe side, it seems their first order of business in Philadelphia was to ABOLISH THE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING AT NASS.  In its place, they are going to have each regional director decide on a place to meet on a given date, and then any member interested in attending is to go to that location.  Now let's think about this for a moment.  First of all, many directors have not been the best at openly communicating to the members of their regions, for one reason or another, what is happening on the Board.  Secondly, think of the chaos of trying to identify the members present at each meeting place in order to determine if a quorum is present on the call, and, in addition, there is the real possibility of intimidation for opposing view points in some cases.  Thirdly,if you recall, one of the first orders of business for this new Board was to eliminate the possibility of members calling in on the same conference call number as Board members.  Members now have to call in on a second number in order to listen to the Board meeting and to learn which Board members have been "muted" (supposedly for too much background noise) by Mr. Yee; AKA Mr. Point of Order; AKA Mr. P.O.O.

How then are members suppposed to be able to make any motions or to cast any votes under this new phone conference annual membership meeting system?  If it were not so serious, it would be laughable!  I will bet that members are going to be told just to let their regional directors know how they feel.  Right---and these are the same regional directors that have allowed all of this to happen in the first place!  Mr. P.O.O. points to the fact that the Annual Membership Meeting at NASS began only 5 years ago.  But why change it now?  Just like why try to change the quorum necessary from 50 to 200 suddenly this year--first order of business in January?  It would be interesting to hear his answers to these questions for why he wants "change now" and why all of the changes he wants amount to total control for the Board over the WDA membership, but don't hold your breath waiting for answers!!  But wait---there is still more.

According to instructions, the By-Law Proposals needed two-thirds "yes" votes to be passed and not just a simple majority of one half plus one.  As I understand it, all three of the By-Law Proposals failed to get the required two-thirds "yes" votes.  Therefore, one would assume that all three of the By-Law Proposals failed.  Oh, but not by Mr. P.O.O.'s thinking.  Seems he has discovered another point of order and is holding back the voting results until he finishes discussing one of the proposals with his attorney to see whether one of the proposals could require only a simple majority and would, therefore, pass.  Isn't that like changing the rules in the middle of a game?  And, now there is still another interesting element here.  It seems that 50 ballots/envelopes were set aside because members obviously were staging a protest about the invasion of privacy in voting and did not sign the envelopes.  As a result, those 50 votes were not allowed to be counted.  We will never know, but I would bet those were "no" votes.

People need to be aware of the arrogance of Mr. P.O.O. and his total disregard for the WDA membership.  When elected, Mr. P.O.O. proudly pronouced, "The members have spoken."
Well, the WDA members spoke this time with their ballots and defeated the three By-Law Proposals, and now Mr. Yee is trying to thwart that decision with his own agenda, and, worse yet, a majority of the Board is obviously allowing him to do so.  I humbly suggest that each interested WDA member call, write, email, or speak personally to your regional director and to all of the Board members to express OUTRAGE that they have allowed all of the above to happen!  WDA members have the right to know how each Board member voted on each of these crucial issues, and the Board members then have the right and have the duty to explain themselves and their reasoning to the WDA membership.

Surely the ballot counters kept a record of "invalid" return envelopes--those without signature.  I wonder how the WDA validated the signatures on the other return envelopes.  Does the WDA have a database of valid member signatures?  If so, did they use it?  If they do not have one, or did not use an existing one, what is the difference between an unsigned return envelope (that is already pre-printed with the member's name and membership number) and a signed return envelope that was perhaps signed by a spouse?

I am speechless. stunned, flabbergasted...

This group is beyond comprehension.  This group spends WDA funds to prevent the membership from having a voice while allowing the organization to crumble around them. Let's look at their priorities...In a few short months they proposed these by law changes but we still have no NASS committee or a 2012 budget. We are almost halfway through 2012 and we still do not have an English version of the new breed survey rules.  They did nothing to promote the NUSC yet they are blaming the members in the midwest for the dismal entry. Could it possibly be that the membership is using their entry dollars to send this group a message? I know I was planning to enter my dogs in the conformation show but decided not to because I refuse to support this group while they work to silence the membership and to promote their personal agenda.

Enough is enough. Time to tell this board the meaning of volunteering.

Amazing...
I received email after email asking me to vote for Dan Yee for President but yet did not receive one email from any board member, WDA director or any of the organizers of this event asking if I would enter and/or support the NUSC. And yet the dismal entry is the midwest's fault because members in our area didn't enter? Maybe they should consider treating the membership with respect?

Correction...I was asked to support the NUSC in an email from Alethea. It was the same email where she said we should put working on the NASS on hold because she was busy with the other two National events.

The person I quoted was threatened with removal by a top officer saying that a "group" wanted the removal for saying that.  So, do not think threats are not real.