This is a placeholder text
Group text
by judron55 on 21 March 2012 - 21:03
we are not allowed to join USA if we are GSDCA members.
and USCA members aren't allowed to compete in WDA events....the few you can find. Yes Smiley...specialty...
and USCA members aren't allowed to compete in WDA events....the few you can find. Yes Smiley...specialty...
by SitasMom on 22 March 2012 - 17:03
Schutzhund and the whole German system of trialing and showing is so small in America, its too bad all organizations cannot just get along...... Too few clubs and the politics and the fight in between the orginazitions is distroying the sport for everyone. Its a shame!
Power trips from the leaders of all organizations..... DVA, WDA, UScA..... Many of us just want a place to train and trial and show our dogs.
Power trips from the leaders of all organizations..... DVA, WDA, UScA..... Many of us just want a place to train and trial and show our dogs.
by Blitzen on 22 March 2012 - 23:03
Most of the GSDCA members here in FL have ASL's and that's what we normally see at all breed shows.
by openmind on 23 March 2012 - 01:03
Sitas Mom--Couldn't agree with you more about all of the politics and power grabbing! However, now it is time to connect all the dots. I was going to hold off until April Fools' Day for this post since that seemed so appropriate for the current Board, but I am hoping to encourage WDA members to cast their ballots and to vote against the proposed by-laws. When I first looked at the by-law proposals, I wondered for a moment why these particular 3 proposals at this particular time and then---voila--it became very clear. In fact, the blatant transparency of the true purposes behind these proposals just demonstrate how dangerous the motives of this Board are. They obviously don't even care if some of the members see through their charade. These 3 proposals put into place the final pieces of total control of the WDA by this Board and future Boards. President Danny Yee, AKA "Mr. Point of Order," AKA "Mr. P.O.O.", and his band of cronies will be unstoppable--at least until the next election if these proposals pass. They are counting on the fact that many members don't involve themselves in the politics and will just leave the ballots on counter tops or discard them. " Mr. P. O.O.'s" ascent to power was a well orchestrated, well-planned, power grab to take over the WDA. Unfortunately the untimely rule change by the United Schutzhund Clubs caused many people to switch membership to the WDA out of outrage over the "one organization rule." Understandably many of those people along with old WDA members were simply not well informed as to the political black clouds forming over the WDA organization before the last election.
The first proposed by-law change limits anyone who leaves a WDA position from holding another position for 2 years--supposedly because the Board wants people "to take positions seriously." More realistically, the reason is that this by-law change would prevent highly qualified, highly regarded, and fair minded people, such as Gayle Kirkwood, to once again attain a WDA position or to once again run for president against "Mr. P.O.O." This by-law proposal does not even allow for extenuating circumstances, such as illness! And heaven forbid that the members might choose to elect someone who would upset the "harmony on the current Board" that we keep hearing about or someone who doesn't know the words to Kumbaya!
And speaking of Mr. Yee, someone forwarded his email to Joy Schultz, Region 2 Director and Manager of the WDA office and recipient of the ballots. The email now directed her NOT to open the envelopes but instead bring them to the next Board Meeting in Philadelphia where Mr. Yee would appoint 3 members to count the ballots. Wow, now we can all sleep better tonight!!!! I said it before and I am saying it again--those ballots should have been sent to an outside source away from anyone on the Board. What is to prevent the "names of ballots received" to be checked off and then "the names from no ballots received" could then be used to "supplement" the votes.
The second proposed by-law change makes the position of secretary an appointed position rather than an elected one. Passage of this proposal assures that this position will be occupied by someone who will follow the wishes--right or wrong--of the Directors. You have only to look at what happened to the last secretary who was elected by the members, Secretary Gayle Kirkwood. Ms. Kirkwood is intelligent, highly qualified, and
fair minded and was an excellent secretary. But despite the fact that she was elected by the membership, she was dismissed by the Board for insubordination when she refused to do something of which she was advised by her lawyer was not permissible under the by-laws. Since that incident involved Mr. Yee and he was not even on the Board, it is all the more suspect. Ms Kirkwood must be a good person or the Board would not be so afraid of her and her supporters. The current appointed secretary, Sally Blount, and Director John Henkel posted at length how anyone serving in that position must be qualified and knowledgeable and able to work well with the Board--translate that to mean "do what the Board tells you to do and don't have a differing opinion." They also pointed out the importance and necessity of prior experience. I found that to be very interesting since Director Henkel nominated Joy Schultz, the WDA Office Manager with no known history of dog training, showing, or trialing, or Board experience, as the Director of Region 2. She then defeated the incumbent Mike Andrali, who was not only an experienced Board Member, but has a long history of training and trialing dogs. Thus, another voice of the membership lost.
Last, but not least, the third by-law proposal is to change the quorum for the Annual Membership Meeting from 50 to 200 plus. This is plainly an attempt to strip the membership from overriding any of the Board's decisions. The arrogance of this is unfathomable!! After the October NASS meeting, one of the current Directors was actually on the field boasting that "they" had already found a solution to the members overturning Board decisions. Guess this is it.
I know this has been a long post and I apologize for that. And I hope no one will drop his or her WDA membership because then "they" really do win. Stay and fight the good fight and inform your friends and fellow German Shepherd lovers and urge them to vote "no" to all 3 by-law proposals. Thank you.
The first proposed by-law change limits anyone who leaves a WDA position from holding another position for 2 years--supposedly because the Board wants people "to take positions seriously." More realistically, the reason is that this by-law change would prevent highly qualified, highly regarded, and fair minded people, such as Gayle Kirkwood, to once again attain a WDA position or to once again run for president against "Mr. P.O.O." This by-law proposal does not even allow for extenuating circumstances, such as illness! And heaven forbid that the members might choose to elect someone who would upset the "harmony on the current Board" that we keep hearing about or someone who doesn't know the words to Kumbaya!
And speaking of Mr. Yee, someone forwarded his email to Joy Schultz, Region 2 Director and Manager of the WDA office and recipient of the ballots. The email now directed her NOT to open the envelopes but instead bring them to the next Board Meeting in Philadelphia where Mr. Yee would appoint 3 members to count the ballots. Wow, now we can all sleep better tonight!!!! I said it before and I am saying it again--those ballots should have been sent to an outside source away from anyone on the Board. What is to prevent the "names of ballots received" to be checked off and then "the names from no ballots received" could then be used to "supplement" the votes.
The second proposed by-law change makes the position of secretary an appointed position rather than an elected one. Passage of this proposal assures that this position will be occupied by someone who will follow the wishes--right or wrong--of the Directors. You have only to look at what happened to the last secretary who was elected by the members, Secretary Gayle Kirkwood. Ms. Kirkwood is intelligent, highly qualified, and
fair minded and was an excellent secretary. But despite the fact that she was elected by the membership, she was dismissed by the Board for insubordination when she refused to do something of which she was advised by her lawyer was not permissible under the by-laws. Since that incident involved Mr. Yee and he was not even on the Board, it is all the more suspect. Ms Kirkwood must be a good person or the Board would not be so afraid of her and her supporters. The current appointed secretary, Sally Blount, and Director John Henkel posted at length how anyone serving in that position must be qualified and knowledgeable and able to work well with the Board--translate that to mean "do what the Board tells you to do and don't have a differing opinion." They also pointed out the importance and necessity of prior experience. I found that to be very interesting since Director Henkel nominated Joy Schultz, the WDA Office Manager with no known history of dog training, showing, or trialing, or Board experience, as the Director of Region 2. She then defeated the incumbent Mike Andrali, who was not only an experienced Board Member, but has a long history of training and trialing dogs. Thus, another voice of the membership lost.
Last, but not least, the third by-law proposal is to change the quorum for the Annual Membership Meeting from 50 to 200 plus. This is plainly an attempt to strip the membership from overriding any of the Board's decisions. The arrogance of this is unfathomable!! After the October NASS meeting, one of the current Directors was actually on the field boasting that "they" had already found a solution to the members overturning Board decisions. Guess this is it.
I know this has been a long post and I apologize for that. And I hope no one will drop his or her WDA membership because then "they" really do win. Stay and fight the good fight and inform your friends and fellow German Shepherd lovers and urge them to vote "no" to all 3 by-law proposals. Thank you.
by Agassiz1 on 23 March 2012 - 13:03
To all WDA members, please consider voting NO on all three questions before you.
David
David
by Gertrude Besserwisser on 23 March 2012 - 22:03
Today, in the 21st century, if not the 20th, if you want a truly free election, you do not have voters sign their ballots. The reason is obvious, so that the vote counters cannot tell who voted how. Also, you do not have parties who are interested in the outcome, for example the Executive Board, present and in control of counting the ballots. Why might that be? Again, the answer is obvious---retribution. After all, how would you vote if you knew Joe Stalin, or Vlad Putin or Adi Hittler was watching you vote or could find out how you voted?
Are we as WDA members worried about retribution? After all, would our Executive Board take any action against individual members or clubs that did not vote the way they wished? It seems inconceivably does it not?.....
So then why are members complaining that the ballots are being sent to the WDA Office. Why was the person who runs the office told not to open the ballots? Because the hue and cry from the members was so great that the President had to take action to create the appearance of fairness. But will fairness be achieved by opening the ballots at the Board Meeting? Will anonymity be preserved? Of course not.
Your vote will be known if they want to know it. And those who ask for lists to be made of who voted, or photocopies of their vote, or who send their vote certified return receipt because they are frightened their vote may not be counted....they are "barking" up the wrong tree. They are playing into the hands of the Executive Board who wants to know who voted how...unless you do not care about retribution you do not want to have the way you voted known...
No, what you should be asking for is for new ballots to be sent out, ballots with no names on them, no signatures required. And then are sent to an independent vote counter, not one who is the accountant of a board member or has any relationship to any member of the Board. They can send out new ballots, they have done it in the past.
This issue is so contentious and so important, that to preserve a fair vote they must do this. There is no other way. If the President and Board want to appear disinterested and fair, they will do this. On the banner of the WDA website after the last election, the President was so proud he had it say, "The members have spoken" .....are they now to be muzzled? Is he not proud to have the members speak any longer?
There are literally dozens of members, and not just in Region 7 in California, but also in Connecticut and other places who are afraid to vote because of retribution and they therefore may not vote. Things have come to a very serious turn. In 20 years as a member of the WDA, I never recall the members being afraid to vote...
Why you might ask does the WDA require ballots to be signed. Well, the reason is that they did not think about it back in the beginning. This was just something the GSDCA did and so when Bill Collins, then serving as GSDCA president, created the WDA back in 1982 he instituted it. And no one ever thought about it since, because no president of the WDA (not Fred Schmidtke, not David Landau, not Wayne Davis, not Dan Spreitler and not Cindy Peterson) ever created an atmosphere where the members where afraid to vote. This is a horrendous indictment of the current President and Board...and if they are reading this----it is a fact and not opinion. They know it and they are scrambling.
The reason given for having names and signatures is so that the club can make sure that only members vote. But why would anyone but members vote. The club has the membership list. Only members are sent ballots. Only members will send them back. If they are worried about vote fraud, such as photocopying ballots and sending in a lot of them, this can easily be prevented by several means. Stamping each ballot with a stamp only owned by the club, or numbering each ballot or creating a watermark in the ballot. There are lots of other ways. The fact is, it is unnecessary to have members sign their names.
The great bulk of the membership is inert and this is what all small groups attempting to take something over count on. But unless the membership acts and demands a fair vote----i.e. new ballots with no name requirements sent to an independent counter----this may be the last time the membership has any say. It will be the President and the Executive Board only who have a say. They are our elected officials, fiduciaries designated to represent us and to do our bidding. But their actions seem to indicate that they have lost sight of this.
Act now, before it is too late
Are we as WDA members worried about retribution? After all, would our Executive Board take any action against individual members or clubs that did not vote the way they wished? It seems inconceivably does it not?.....
So then why are members complaining that the ballots are being sent to the WDA Office. Why was the person who runs the office told not to open the ballots? Because the hue and cry from the members was so great that the President had to take action to create the appearance of fairness. But will fairness be achieved by opening the ballots at the Board Meeting? Will anonymity be preserved? Of course not.
Your vote will be known if they want to know it. And those who ask for lists to be made of who voted, or photocopies of their vote, or who send their vote certified return receipt because they are frightened their vote may not be counted....they are "barking" up the wrong tree. They are playing into the hands of the Executive Board who wants to know who voted how...unless you do not care about retribution you do not want to have the way you voted known...
No, what you should be asking for is for new ballots to be sent out, ballots with no names on them, no signatures required. And then are sent to an independent vote counter, not one who is the accountant of a board member or has any relationship to any member of the Board. They can send out new ballots, they have done it in the past.
This issue is so contentious and so important, that to preserve a fair vote they must do this. There is no other way. If the President and Board want to appear disinterested and fair, they will do this. On the banner of the WDA website after the last election, the President was so proud he had it say, "The members have spoken" .....are they now to be muzzled? Is he not proud to have the members speak any longer?
There are literally dozens of members, and not just in Region 7 in California, but also in Connecticut and other places who are afraid to vote because of retribution and they therefore may not vote. Things have come to a very serious turn. In 20 years as a member of the WDA, I never recall the members being afraid to vote...
Why you might ask does the WDA require ballots to be signed. Well, the reason is that they did not think about it back in the beginning. This was just something the GSDCA did and so when Bill Collins, then serving as GSDCA president, created the WDA back in 1982 he instituted it. And no one ever thought about it since, because no president of the WDA (not Fred Schmidtke, not David Landau, not Wayne Davis, not Dan Spreitler and not Cindy Peterson) ever created an atmosphere where the members where afraid to vote. This is a horrendous indictment of the current President and Board...and if they are reading this----it is a fact and not opinion. They know it and they are scrambling.
The reason given for having names and signatures is so that the club can make sure that only members vote. But why would anyone but members vote. The club has the membership list. Only members are sent ballots. Only members will send them back. If they are worried about vote fraud, such as photocopying ballots and sending in a lot of them, this can easily be prevented by several means. Stamping each ballot with a stamp only owned by the club, or numbering each ballot or creating a watermark in the ballot. There are lots of other ways. The fact is, it is unnecessary to have members sign their names.
The great bulk of the membership is inert and this is what all small groups attempting to take something over count on. But unless the membership acts and demands a fair vote----i.e. new ballots with no name requirements sent to an independent counter----this may be the last time the membership has any say. It will be the President and the Executive Board only who have a say. They are our elected officials, fiduciaries designated to represent us and to do our bidding. But their actions seem to indicate that they have lost sight of this.
Act now, before it is too late
by gck on 24 March 2012 - 00:03
Spot on, Gertrude. Would you give permission to cross post your perspective?
by Gertrude Besserwisser on 24 March 2012 - 01:03
I do not know who you are gck, nor do I need to know, nor do I care to know...nor do I know what cross posting is. Trotzdem, you are very welcome to do what you wish with my message.
I am first and foremost for fairness. So, if this cross posting will help accomplish the goal of a fair vote, I am all for it.
I am first and foremost for fairness. So, if this cross posting will help accomplish the goal of a fair vote, I am all for it.
by gck on 24 March 2012 - 01:03
Thanks. People read many different forums. Your message needs to be broadcast.
by dogwood on 24 March 2012 - 04:03
Codes of conduct that I look for in dealing with voting operations matters. Must have ... and must appear to have: impartiality, integrity, and professionalism, along with maintaining the secrecy and integrity of voting at all times by not disclosing knowledge of a voter's voting intentions or observed voting behaviour.
I'm not a WDA member yet, but 'jus saying!
karen
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
