Search forum
Back to Main
Liked top 20
ForumsMain > AWDF take over attempt ...... (41 replies)
AWDF take over attempt ...... by Christopher Smith on 26 January 2012 - 04:21 |
| Check out the agenda for the next for the AWDF meeting. Notice those few items at the bottom. This looks to me as if the BRT club and USCA are up to hijinks. If this voting scheme goes through USCA will have unopposed control of the AWDF. If you think that it's wrong for one club to control the AWDF please let USCA and BRT know that this will not go unchallenged and ask your sportfriends to do the same February 6, 2012 Conference call Agenda President report New requirements of AWDF to the FCI Vice president Report Secretary report - October 24th 2011 minutes Treasurer report – Budget Old Business 2012 AWDF Championship Aggressive Dog policy Events committee Judges Committee and AWDF Program New Business 2012 Elections– President, Treasurer, 2 DAL positions - Vera Reeves & Glenn Stephenson (who resigned Sean O’Kane appointed to fill the remainder of the term) All members running for an elected position within the AWDF must have the endorsement of their member organization. A letter from that organization signed by its President will serve as proof of such endorsement. All nominees must fill out a petition for nomination form and it must be submitted 45 days (deadline: 3/27/12) prior to the General Board Meeting. Nominees may submit a resume to the Nomination Committee to be posted on the AWDF website. The nominations committee assembles a slate of candidates to fill existing or upcoming vacancies among the officers or at-large Executive Committee members. The Secretary circulates the slate to the General Board at least 30 days (deadline: 4/11/12) before the annual meeting. The nomination committee: AWDF Secretary Michelle Testa, Dyan Harper, Patty Bartley,and Frank Phillips New IPO rule clarification for the following: a) 1 scorebook regulation - Submitted by Ann Camper AWMA & Carol Walker NAWBA b) APr titles 1,2 & 3 submitted by Linda Kruz UDC Scorebooks a) Each AWDF member breed be able to give scorebooks to any breed of dog - Submitted by Anne Marie Chaffin BRT club b) UScA only scorebooks being submitted to non UScA trials submitted by Mark Chase Voting– Submitted by Anne Marie Chaffin BRT club Each AWDF member club should have votes based on membership numbers (example 1 per 250) |
by CMassGSD on 13 February 2012 - 14:44 |
| The only FAIR way for the AWDF to be successful is it to be a "per capita" voting system. Otherwise, the smaller clubs would have to pay the same amount as UScA. You cannot expect UScA to shoulder the pay load but have the same vote as a club with 8 members. If you want a One club One vote.....and UScA pays the same amount as AWMA or Boxer Club.....I think the smaller clubs would go away..............just my opinion. |
by EliDog on 13 February 2012 - 22:05 |
After 20 plus frigging years now it's unfair...Really?  Keith |
EliDog by wplumb on 16 February 2012 - 14:00 |
| This is a logical next step from the change a few years back to dues being charged on a per member basis |
by EliDog on 16 February 2012 - 17:05 |
| You mean mostly logical to the USCA. Keith |
by wplumb on 16 February 2012 - 17:19 |
They areapying most of the expenses so they should have more of a say |
by Dobermannman on 16 February 2012 - 17:41 |
| Bill, What motivation do the other breed clubs have to support AWDF? If it's just another club run and dominated by UScA and the GSD's? We've already seen UScA become more breed focused and less sport foucused. Thomas Barriano Dubheasa Germania (11/05/99-08/11/08) SchH III M R Brevet AKC WD III AWD 1 STP 1 CD WAC TT Ascomannis Jago (06/20/03) SchH III AKC WD III AWD I TT WAC Belatucadrus (08/14/05) DS BH TT MR I Flannchadh von der Bavarianburg (5/21/08) BH STP I |
by Bob McKown on 16 February 2012 - 19:31 |
Quote: "We've already seen UScA become more breed focused and less sport foucused. What other orginization in the USA focus,s on the German Shepherd dog and still hold,s a National all Breed (WDC) event? |
by wplumb on 17 February 2012 - 00:07 |
Thomas, |
by Mystere on 17 February 2012 - 14:57 |
| Why is paying dues, based on membership numbers, fine and dandy, but voting the same way is not? If USCA is to have the same one vote as a breed club with ten members, it should pay the same amount of dues. Or, it should have votes in proportion to its membership, the same as with the dues it pays to SUPPORT AWDF, as no other breed club does. Pretty straight forward and reasonable. |
Mystere by EliDog on 17 February 2012 - 16:00 |
It's always reasonable to the people who live and breathe USCA. So if this were to happen USCA gets to force feed the smaller clubs whatever they so choose. DVG is the second largest organization within the AWDF and they wouldn't come anywhere near the votes USCA would carry if it's based on membership numbers. Hell all the other clubs combined, including DVG, don't carry the numbers USCA does. How much control over the sport in the US is ever going to be enough for the USCA? |
by Dobermannman on 17 February 2012 - 17:05 |
| AWDF was started as an all breed organization. It you base votes on membership numbers it becomes just another GSD dominated dog club. UScA knew the rules when they joined and now they're trying to rewrite them. If the other breed clubs vote in favor of the Chaffin motion they are fools. When UScA members start other "breed clubs" for the main purpose of gaining UScA votes. That is dishonest and underhanded IMO The purpose of the AWDF was to promote dog sports and friendly TEAM competition amongst ALL breeds. They've already changed the rules to allow UScA to send 50+ SchH III entries where they used to be limited to nine. The AWDF has become a slush fund where some people are spihoning money into their own pockets and financing Europeian vacations for themselves and their faimilies. Thomas Barriano Dubheasa Germania (11/05/99-08/11/08) SchH III M R Brevet AKC WD III AWD 1 STP 1 CD WAC TT Ascomannis Jago (06/20/03) SchH III AKC WD III AWD I TT WAC Belatucadrus (08/14/05) DS BH TT MR I Flannchadh von der Bavarianburg (5/21/08) BH STP I |
by Mystere on 17 February 2012 - 18:05 |
| I notice that none of you wants to address the fact that USCA also financially supports the AWDF all out of proportion to the financial support from the other breed clubs, too. The dues are based on membership numbers. How is USCA having only the same ONE vote as a ten member breed club fair and reasonable? Why is that alright, in your opinion? In what organization in the "real world" would that happen? Please address that issue, and with more than "that's how it has been." The fact that USCA took the hit in the early years to get AWDF off the ground is not sufficient reason for it to continue to do so, particularly in the face of the enmity from some of the breed clubs, or at least their "spokespersons." If the other breed clubs truly have such an issue with basic fairness when it comes to USCA's representation in AWDF, the alternative may be simple--USCA should pull out of AWDF. Then, the smaller breed clubs would do as they wish, without the "bully" USCA, or its funds, to kick around. |
by Mystere on 17 February 2012 - 18:09 | |||
Thomas, If you are going to make outrageous and defamatory accusations like this on the internet, you had damn well better be prepared to PROVE them in court. You may well be on the road to losing everything but your drawers with statements like this. And, yes, I am making copies of it, in case the mods step in and delete it. | |||
by MarioF on 17 February 2012 - 19:03 |
| I am a big USCA supporter, I own an alternate breed. Will always be a USCA member as they have the best competition and love the USCA clubs and people I train with. That being said. This is not an issue about dues. As John and Nia stated I believe that all clubs in the AWDF should pay the same dues and have one vote per club, it is only fair. I don't care what they do in Europe. USCA/BRT should of just proposed a change in dues per members on the agenda instead of this voting issue the BRT club is proposing. Even if the pay schedule was voted on and all the same for all of the clubs, the BRT/USCA would still proceed with their proposal of voting by club membership. This is a straight up power play..... If it was really about $$$ USCA has certainly offset their $3500 dues to AWDF and ADOA with $2300 they earned in 2011 from non member score books and score book certification. This is not including the $100 USCA charge for having AWDF club use their judges, which I have no problem with as the breed clubs need to develop their own Judge program. We were having this discussion last night, people are throwing out USCA is supporting the AWDF by always hosting the AWDF. You know why it is a sweet deal..... I toyed with the idea of having our club host the AWDF. Hosting club only has to pay $10 per entry fee to the AWDF. If the hosting club has 90 entries at lets say $150 that is a nice chunk of change in trial entries alone, not to mention sponsors and trophy sponsors (AWDF breed clubs sponsor trophies), food, entrance fee...Trial cost wouldn't be no more than 5-7k if you used USCA/DVG judges. Nia you are right USCA did support the AWDF for many years. But it wasn't for the goodness of their heart. USCA uses the AWDF to send teams to the FCI CH. The only good thing Paul Meloy did in his presidency of USCA was help formed the AWDF. USCA formed the AWDF to strength their international ties with the FCI, since WDA was aligned with the AKC and only one breed club per country is recognized by the FCI, this was a nice loop hole they found... to have an all breed organization, similar to the VDH. USCA keeps a strong hold of SCh in the US and keep the WDA out. Do you really think USCA will leave the AWDF and give the opportunity to the WDA to become a member of the AWDF? That is a fat chance. I tell you this USCA better tread lightly, if the want voting per member issue. USCA may not have the controlling vote they think they may have, especially if their may be a club like the rumors have suggested coming in the next few years that has more members then all the breed clubs in the AWDF combine. Agility is world wide and dwarfs IPO. |
by Mystere on 17 February 2012 - 19:47 |
| I do not see this as an effort to have a controlling vote. IMO, it is simply about fairness: either all clubs pay the same dues and have the same vote, OR clubs have a dues and vote structure based on membershiip. You simply cannot have it both ways and be fair. I agree with the Meloy references and the impetus behind the formation of the AWDF. Fortunately, it has gone beyond that, now. We no longer "need " AWDF for international competition, though. Some of the breed clubs have established their own international ties to permit their members to compete in their respective breeds' "world championship." |
by Dobermannman on 17 February 2012 - 22:43 |
"Thomas, If you are going to make outrageous and defamatory accusations like this on the internet, you had damn well better be prepared to PROVE them in court. You may well be on the road to losing everything but your drawers with statements like this. And, yes, I am making copies of it, in case the mods step in and delete it." The MSSV case is scheduled in approximately two weeks. There will be all the proof you need then. Make all the threats you want from behind a user name. The truth about missuse of club funds and lots of other finanacial shenanigans will be revealed. Still waiting for the final toxicology and PI reports. Thomas Barriano Dubheasa Germania (11/05/99-08/11/08) SchH III M R Brevet AKC WD III AWD 1 STP 1 CD WAC TT Ascomannis Jago (06/20/03) SchH III AKC WD III AWD I TT WAC Belatucadrus (08/14/05) DS BH TT MR I Flannchadh von der Bavarianburg (5/21/08) BH STP I |
by EliDog on 17 February 2012 - 23:45 |
| Are you on retainer for USCA now Nia or for just Roetemeyer and Govednik? Keith |
by Dobermannman on 19 February 2012 - 02:15 |
| Keith The only "mystere" about Nia is that she actually passed the Bar. I sure hope she doesn't sue me..................HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thomas Barriano |
by Dobermannman on 20 February 2012 - 16:57 |
| Here is one of the BIG problems with Internet lists. Mystere (*removed by admin*) is making ridiculous threats of law suits. First off you can't win a defamation suit if the information is right. Truth is the ultimate defense. Someone has to sue. I didn't mention any individuals in my posts. Who is going to sue me? If Nia represents AWDF then I challenge her to sue. I dare her to sue me. Threats from behind a user name are easy. Let's get into discovery and you can show us all how the AWDF financial records are on the up and up. Your move Nia. Thomas Barriano |
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!