Another Attempt to Take Over the AWDF - Page 2

Chris, if you have 10 members or 10k, you pay the same, that is the difference

UHMMMM this is from the AWDF EX. BOARD is it not? It doesn't matter what UScA does in its organization. Perhaps if UScA wasn't paying $2,079.75 more than the next highest paying organization? If I was paying more money and had more members I'd expect more say so. That's why owning 51% of a company is always better than owning 49%.  If you want it even across the board let each organization pay the exact same amount and get the exact same number of votes. It's obvious that you don't belong to UScA. So I wonder if your organization was the larger group paying most of the money and holding most of the trials, if you'd be on the other side of this discussion?

USCA is not a victim in this. They voted for the current dues structure!

and now they [ UScA] wants to do something different. AWDF needs to evaluate, and move forward. 

Chris
I find it disappointing that you, the VP of the AWMA would make accusations / assertions on the internet, in multiple forums, without facts to back up said claims. If you would have called me or Jim to discuss, we’d have been happy to answer your questions and provide you facts of this situation. If "The AWDF was created for the betterment of working dogs; not for the benefit of one greedy self-centered breed club” as you state, and you truly care about improving relationships and solving problems, I respectfully ask that next time, you approach us to get the facts. Your chosen approach promotes divisiveness and infighting, not cooperation.

These are the facts:

1. Last March USCA approached the AWDF to modify the dues structure as USCA feels it is unfair for one club to provide 20-30 times the services and pays 10 times what most other clubs pay, yet has the exact same say in how things are run in the organization.

2. The AWDF formed a committee to look into this (I was USCA's rep on this committee)

3. USCA (myself) proposed that each club pay equal amounts and receives equal votes - $600 per club and all clubs get 1 equal vote. The $600 number came from total dues collected last year divided by number of clubs (i.e. to meet past budget income).

4. The proposal was modified during a conference call to include a "non-voting" membership for $300 rather than lose some smaller clubs that could not afford $600.

5. This modified proposal was unanimously supported by all members on the committee.

6. It was pointed out that if some clubs drop out, or choose the "non-voting" membership, there would be a deficit in revenue that would need to be made up somehow. The options proposed included raising the $600 or cutting the budget.

7. A treasurer’s report was sent out to all. Members were asked to review and offer specific suggestions on where to cut the budget. After 3 months of review, no suggestions were made in writing (some ideas were bounced around on a conference call but I don’t think they made it to the EB).

8. The EB was sent the committee’s recommendation.

9. The EB is elected to act in the best interest of the AWDF (not an individual club).

10. The EB contacted USCA and said they did not believe that the proposal would generate enough revenue for the AWDF to prosper and asked if USCA would still be willing to pay 10 times what the other clubs do if there was an adjustment in voting structure (All organizations I know of - WUSV, police unions, fire unions pay dues based on membership numbers and have voting strength based on membership numbers so that each member is represented equally).

11. USCA answered “yes” as long as the formula was fair – our preference would still be all pay the same and all get one vote.
 

 A conference call is now scheduled for this evening to discuss.

  Frank
 

Frank,

Thank you for making this make sense.

What frank says is true, as far as I know.
But it is only half of the truth.
My comments on this sent out to AWDF officers and representatives:

There is an ongoing controversy about AWDF dues and voting, with
an apparently decisive meeting tonight. In many ways the AWDF future
is in question.

I have a few things to say.
This is going to be short and rough, because time is of the essence, further
commentary will follow.

The unspoken of gorilla at the end of this bar is Al Govednik as USCA
president, Jim Alloway needs to decide and say if USCA will continue
to support him as president. If this absurd farce does not come to
an end anything else is more or less pointless.

Senior USCA and AWMA officers have been sparing over the issues
of power, control and voting in the AWDF, and some of it is fairly
aggressive. But this is good, these are real issues. Specifically,
Jim Phillips and Christopher Smith, vice presidents of USCA and AWMA,
have had, shall we say, spirited discussion.

The simple fact of the matter is that USCA is not an independent
organization, is a client or agent for the SV, which is not a working
dog organization, it is a show dog organization.

AWDF is under the control of German show dog people, and can not
and will not serve other interests.

Other than DVG - America, which is legally a German organization on
American soil, none of the other AWDF clubs are serious about protection
style work.

There are no other AWDF organizations with the same values and interests
as the AWMA in AWDF, and to pretend otherwise is silly. AWMA is alone
and without friends, but it is on the right path. And AWMA alone among
AWDF clubs carries on the original spirt of strong, protection oriented
working dogs organized by and for Americans. I was in fact there at the creation.

There is no real doubt about the outcome, USCA has total power now,
and it will have even more total power tomorrow morning. Other organizations
will have to devise policy and take actions in light of this, for they can not
change it. Realistically, even the USCA officers have no real choice, are not
independant agents but under the SV thumb.

But in the end, this is worse for USCA than AWMA, because in the end
USCA must suck up to the German Show dog element which has
control of the SV. USCA officeres are watching SV destroy the breed,
and are obediently busy doing doing their part, transforming USCA into
SV Distribution America, GmbH.

AWDF is a farce and a joke.
Jim Phillips knows that. Christopher Smith knows that. I know that.

The thing AWDF has is the control of who goes to the FCI-IPO championships,
the selection process.

Ultimately, the choice is between ongoing domination
by the European show dog establishment, or putting on
our big boy pants and running American working dog affairs
by and for Americans.


Jim Engel

Jim Phillips????

My apologizes to Mr. Frank Phillips, a good man with
a difficult office.

Mr Engel; You were there at the beginning. I wonder how you would have been so instrumental at the start only to watch this unravel. Please throw your hat back into the ring and right this ship.