WDA Elections - Page 2

Mystere, did you see how many times that name shows up within all the "high" level positions from top to bottom.  Quite a few times on money boards, chairmanships, just boards.  The two people work hand in glove.  Take another look and see.  You anti people ani't gona win, as it is all set up.  Sorry, take another look and see what I am trying to tell you.  You are on a sinking ship and no lifeboats for you.  I am telling the truth and all you have to do is to look. 

Ok, Everyone!  Once again it is time for those of us who feel the focus of the GSDCA-WDA should be on the betterment of the breed, and NOT on who can obtain the most power in the most devious of ways, to unite to right more wrongs.  We showed what a united membership could do when we soundly defeated those preposterous 3 By-Law Changes proposed by the Board led by President (Point of Order--POO) Dan Yee and his cohorts, Queen Alethea, and Region One Director (AKA Mr. Clean) John Henkel.  They have now been joined by the Wicked Witch or one could choose a rhyming word for Witch--Mary Gattone.
Kudos to Judy Kavanaugh for getting Cindy Petersen's permission to use her Facebook post of this chatboard.  There are about 60 other Facebook posts that I hope will be reprinted here for the benefit of those who do not use Facebook.  General Director Gene Kalvaitis has always been known as someone who will volunteer for any duty at NASS--inside registering dogs or outside setting up or checking off protection work.  Yet, instead of a thank you for his years of volunteering, he is being investigated by this Board.  For background, Gene was checking in dogs for protection work practice at NASS 2011, where each dog is limited to one 5 minute practice.  At one point Gene turned the clipboard over to someone else while he went to the bathroom.  (Perhaps the Board can now install the two way mirrored bathrooms used on the streets of Paris.  The people inside can see out, but no one can see in. That way there would be no need to leave the field for the port a potties.) However, I digress.  It seems when Gene returned, he was confronted by a very angry lady who said she wanted to practice with her dog, but was told her name was already checked off.  Gene thought perhaps it had been checked off in error when he was gone and she was so insistent, so he let her go.  It was then Region 1 Director (Mr. Clean) came roaring over accusing Gene of allowing that dog more than one practice.  Keep in mind, Mary Gattone was NOT even there and this scene occurred at NASS 2011 in October.  But suddenly on April 14, 2012, Mary Gattone paid $100 to file charges against Gene Kalvaitis that he allowed MULTIPLE dogs to practice more than once.  But as Cindy Petersen mentioned, it wasn't until July, 2012, that Gene was informed of the Boaord charges against him.  Even more interesting still is the fact that the woman involved on the field with Gene has since admitted that she did practice two times with the same dog because she had paid for practice work for two dogs and then withdrew one of them, and she wanted to get her money's worth, but now "feels bad" for all the trouble she has caused.  Now it would seem that perhaps a reprimand might be in order for this woman violating the stated rules of one practice for one dog, but insteaed the Board has gone after Gene, obviously to keep him from running for re-election to the Board.  Now why would anyone want to volunteer for anything at NASS or any other WDA event!!

Also, as Cindy mentioned, Mary Gattone did something quite similar to Ms Gayle Kirkwood last year to try to keep her off the Board and from running for President.  One would think that Mary Gattone is the Keeper of Morals and Ethics for the WDA, but does anyone do a background check on people who currently sit on the Board or who want to run for the Board?  Take the time to Google "Mary Gattone and German Shepherd Ilay" and check out the 9 page thread on the Pedigree Database on the ongoing litigation over Ilay, a German Shepherd from the Netherlandes sent to the United States to stand at stud with---our own Mary Gattone.  According to Ilay's OWNER, Yvonne Timmer, in the Netherlands, the dog has still not been returned to her.  How is it that Mary Gattone is allowed to hold any office in the GSDCA or GSDCA-WDA until this litigation is setted?  Furthermore, why is it that she continues to do the dirty work while "Mr. Clean" stays in the background.  And, moreover, how does she dare to file such frivolous, but slanderous charges against Gene and Gayle when the charges against her are much more serious.  Mary Gattone seems very comfortable at slinging dirt at others; let's see how she feels about getting a dose of her own medicine!

Then, of course, the Board in their infinite wisdom has now decreed that there will be no Annual Meeting at NASS 2012. They are going to great lengths to make certain that NASS 2013 will go to Region 1 and Mr. Clean instead of moving it to a western time zone as dictated by the By-Laws.  Instead there is going to be a national telephone conference the week following NASS at locations to be determined by the Regional Directors.  What a farce!!  I know of two directors who have already admitted that it is not going to work, but, of course, they would never speak up against it.  Would it not make more sense to have an Annual Meeting in a room at NASS and then have members not in attendance call in.  I guess that would be too logical and too simple!

And then there is NUSC 2012.  What a fiasco that was.  Under the stalwart leadership of Gene Kalvaitis and Cindy Petersen, there were 96 entries in NUSC 2011.  It was well organized and well promoted.  Fast forward to NUSC 2012 under the leadership of Queen Alethea and Sally (your post is being deleted because it is abrasive) Blount.  There were hardly any entries and it was a financial train wreck.  This is the same Queen Alethea who with Mr Poo did such a miserable job on NASS 2010.  In the business world, if someone is not successful, that person is replaced.  Not with the WDA Board.  Now from the July, 2012, meeting comes news that NUSC may be eliminated next year--hey, Board--how about eliminating Alethea.  But fear not, we will get to observe Alethea at work once more as she chairs NASS 2012.  SAVE US ALL!

Last, but not least, appeal after appeal was made to the Board for an agenda for the July meeting, but at this time, none has been seen.  However, in the May/June Magazine , which arrived last week, the minutes from the JULY,2011, minutes were again published with the caveat that the minutes previously published had not "been approved by the Board."  What a joke!  One would think that the time could have been better spent catching up on more important items, such as paying Chris Mendela, the money due her for the great job she did in setting up the NASS 2011 website.  I would be willing to bet that Mr. Poo and his minions don't have to wait long to be re-imbursed.  And speaking of financials, the Facebook posts are alive with requests for copies of the WDA financial records to be released, but it seems in this new age of transparancy by the Board, those calls are falling on deaf ears.

My thought is that we should gather petitions of 25 signatures for each of the available positions so WDA members will have a choice and those chosen by the Board will actually have some competition.  And, of course, the idea of having members vote only for their regional director is once again being floated, and it is a great idea, but I believe it has been "referred to committee."  (Translate that to mean it will never see the light of day.) However, a petition signed by 150 members would force the Board.  Let's send Pool, the Queen, the Wicked Witch, and Mr. Clean some people who truly represent the membership and who are not afraid to stand up to them.  There is an old WWII song called "We Did It Before and We Can Do It Again."  I think that sums up our current situation well. JMHO 

Sorry guys. Hate to break it to you, but I looked into it and there's no way this can be true.

I checked the WDA bylaws. In the April 5-6 2008 WDA meeting, Mr. Yee was in charge of the bylaws committee. Mr. Yee is on record saying; "The procedure, as described in the bylaws, is too vague and does not meet the requirements of fairness, as prescribed by Revised Colorado Statutes section 7-126-302."

Those rules were the rules where there was a written proceedure to file complaints against members. The proceedure was once a complaint was filed, you were notified. You had a chance to represent yourself and you had a right to appeal. There was a time frame and a proceedure for every step of the process. According to Mr. Yee this process was too vague.

To replace the 'vague' rules Mr. Yee  proposed and the board adopted the following;

The Board of Directors shall establish policies and procedures for the
filing of grievances and complaints against both individual members
and member clubs. The policies and procedures shall be published
in a manual which shall be made available to each individual member
and member club. The policies and procedures (1) shall provide that
any determination made by either the Board or the Executive
Committee as to the guilt, innocence or assessment of fines, penalties
or any other remedies or assessments against any complaining party
or any party charged in any complaint or grievance shall be final and
(2) shall include provisions granting the Board or Executive
Committee the authority to make such assessments of fines, penalties
and any other remedies or assessments against the losing party in any
such complaint or grievance which the Board or Executive
Committee assigned to handle or hear the grievance or complaint
determines is appropriate, including without limitation, suspension of
membership, assessment of a fine in an amount which is reasonably
calculated to deter such wrongful activity in the future and assessment
(and reimbursement) of costs incurred by both the GSDCA-WDA and
the prevailing party for the handling of any such grievance or
complaint. The policies and procedures shall be fair and shall comply
with the provisions of the most current Robert's Rules of Order and
the provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes as it applies to
nonprofit organizations.

But wait Dog1. The previous article did not comply with "Revised Colorado Statutes section 7-126-302". How about them apples? Didn't read that part did you?

Well actually I did. Here's what the Colorado law says;

7-126-302. Termination, expulsion, or suspension.

(1) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, no member of a nonprofit corporation may be expelled or suspended, and no membership or memberships in such nonprofit corporation may be terminated or suspended except pursuant to a procedure that is fair and reasonable and is carried out in good faith.

(2) For purposes of this section, a procedure is fair and reasonable when either:
    (a) The bylaws or a written policy of the board of directors set forth a procedure that provides:
       (I) Not less than fifteen days prior written notice of the expulsion, suspension, or termination and the reasons therefor; and
       (II) An opportunity for the member to be heard, orally or in writing, not less than five days before the effective date of the expulsion, suspension, or termination by a person or persons authorized to decide that the proposed expulsion, termination, or suspension not take place; or
    (b) It is fair and reasonable taking into consideration all of the relevant facts and circumstances.

(3) For purposes of this section, any written notice given by mail must be given by first-class or certified mail sent to the last address of the member shown on the nonprofit corporation's records.

(4) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, any proceeding challenging an expulsion, suspension, or termination, including a proceeding in which defective notice is alleged, must be commenced within one year after the effective date of the expulsion, suspension, or termination.

(5) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, a member who has been expelled or suspended may be liable to the nonprofit corporation for dues, assessments, or fees as a result of obligations incurred or commitments made prior to expulsion or suspension.

I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be, however anyone with a 6th grade education can read what was incorporated, what it was changed to, what the article actually says and see that what we got was really nothing close to Colorado law.

Now has anyone ever received the 'Policies and Proceedures Manual? Has anyone ever seen one? Does it exist? Did Gene get one? Is there even a process that exists within the WDA out there? I don't think so and that's why none of this can be true. See how easy this is!

I remain amazed that WDA's membership has maintained a process with so little even tipping of the hat to due process or fairness. An Executive Board is simultaneously sheriff, posse, judge, jury and eexecutioner...with no review or appeal. Would it really be so difficuly to adopt the process outlined in Roberts', or USCA' procedure? It is not as if WDA has never adopted from USCA, after all

NO election should go uncontested. I do not know who you are Openmind, but you certainly know what is going on.
I hope people support the NASS and leave the politics behind. There is plenty of time for all of that.
I would like to see several judges names submitted to the membership and have the membership vote on who they would like as a NASS judge. Not have one person select a judge.
I would also like to see the NASS  or any national event worked on at least a year in advance. This gives people time to plan their vacation/time off and of course we would know where the event is being held.
At the 2011 meeting it was brought up that NASS would revolve every year: east, midwest, west, midwest, east etc.This was voted on and as in any organization majority SHOULD rule.
I was told it has gone back to the east because NO club has offered to do.
The USa club will hold their Sieger Shows in the Midwest as that is where they get the most entrants. This year it was in Inday, next year in Lake Geneva. Makes sense to me.

Very disappointing. After the JA, WDA was in a strong position to look very good to people who did not want to be told what organizations that could and could not join. Instead, more politics. I suppose I am painfully naive and inexperienced to have expected anything else.

Each and every person involved in infighting (WDA, UScA, club level, I don't care!) should be completely ashamed of themselves. You have been handed the reins to a truly great cause: upholding the working GSD standard. You should be proud of that, of being voted into positions because people think you have the same integrity our breed is supposed to have. Is it any wonder our breed deteriorates? It appears they are a reflection of us.

How many breeders who strive to adhere to the SV standard in the US will be driven away from sport completely out of disgust for all of this? How many have already given up out of frustration trying to wade through the muck of who accepts what, where you can and cannot enter, etc.? More and more GSD lovers are moving over to agility, obedience, herding, FR, even UKC conformation, where our German breed type seems to have better success.

Continue to shoot yourselves in the foot, and one day there will no one left affected by any of this.

Put the dogs first.

The whole WDA fiasco has been evolving for years....JA just brought the BS to the surface. GSDCA/WDA is run by the GSDCA...period. They could care less about the working aspect of the dog....Where are all the herding clubs....FR clubs.....serious breeders can't be evaluating dogs to breed at agility or obedience shows...

GSDCA/WDA is the sponsor of the WUSV trial here next year right.....have the even looked for a venue...judges...hotels...helpers....what a mess.

Beaugsd--One of the first orders of business of the new Board in January 2012, was to give the NASS 2013 to Region 1 because it had been chosen for NASS 2012 until the members at the Annual Meeting forced the Board to abide by the By-Laws and rotate the location of NASS by time zones.  NASS 2010 and NASS 2011 were both held in Virginia and 2012 would have been the third year on the east coast.  Board members used the excuse that no other clubs had volunteered to host NASS, but how many of the Directors actively and seriously sought out volunteers? I have not been able to identify any, but if any one knows the names of those who did, I would love to know. The lack of communication between Regional Directors and the membership would be laughable if it were not so serious.  More than one Director said that it was only fair to Director Henkel (Mr. Clean) that the 2013 NASS be held back on the east coast (despite the By-Laws and the membership vote) because NASS 2012 "had been taken away from John Henkel."  Give me a break!!  And now these same Regional Directors are charged with the enormous task of choosing a spot within their Region from which to organize phone calls for a National Annual Phone Meeting.  Most of them don't even hold real Regional Meetings or at least publicize them.  This is a real farce!

I agree that politics should be set aside and that NASS 2012 deserves everyone's support.  I know the local club people in Illinois have been working very hard to prepare for it under a lot of duress.  Ms Beauchamp, Ms Clute, and Mr. Opiola worked efficiently and quickly to secure a great hotel and field and should be congratulated.  From what I have heard, however, they have received very little, if any, support or encouragement from Queen Alethea and her minions.  Makes me wonder and worry if the success of NASS 2012 is deliberately being undermined to punish the membership for overriding the Board at the Annual Meeting.  The Annual Meeting at NASS has already been abolished for this year--what else might this Board be up to?!!

On a whole, Judron, I agree with you. However, most breeders already know what their dog is and is not prior to earning their title, and plenty of breeders recognize what a dog is, and is not, in spite of a title. It's far from a perfect system, but it's the only system we have, so the politics are tolerated because breeders have no choice. My concern is, how many will give up, throw up their hands at the ridiculousness of it all, and simply use what knowledge they currently have and breed out of the standard?

Don't misunderstand, I am not placing sole blame on our organizations for the choices of individual breeders. Certainly not. Ultimately, it is the breeders choice to push though inconvenience, or not. It just seems to me that the purpose of these national clubs should be to promote and encourage the standard for the working GSD, not turn people off the whole process with confusing rules and political debacles.

Is it childish for me to expect, when decisions are made, especially on a high administrative level, for the first, and most important question an officer asks themselves to be, "Does this benefit the working GSD community in this country or not?"

I understand my posts are somewhat vague, because to be honest, I don't care to know the whole story, I dont care for the sordid details of who said what. I want the leaders of our breed to act like it. That's all. I bet I'm not alone, either.

Mystere,

I can answer your question since I was the catalist for the bylaw change back in '08. Basically it's too inconvenient to have a process where a member has any rights.

Here's my case.

I filled out my application to renew with my credit card information and sent it in after the cutoff. According to the bylaws then, the WDA was required to send a 30 day notice to a member before their membership expired. They did not do this and my membership lapsed. (Bylaw violation #1)

Once my application was received, my name was supposed to be published in the magazine to allow anyone to protest the membership. This was not done. (Bylaw violation #2)

If a membership application is not protested within 30 days the membership is automatically accepted according to the bylaws. Mine was apparently was not. (Bylaw violation #3)

Later in the year I entered multiple dogs in the sieger show. The check I wrote for entry fees was 750.00. My entries were accepted. (Bylaw violation #4) I still thought I was a member.

When the new President came into office and the place was getting an overhaul. The new office noticed my membership had not been processed. My name then appeared in the magazine. (I'll call this bylaw violation #5 since the bylaws clearly have the 30 day acceptance)

I was notified that a member had objected to my membership. Reasons were, I had filed a frivolous lawsuit and I tried to enter a dog after entries closed in order to present a progeny group. I was able to defend myself and replied with the pending case information and I was able to show in the 'official results' where the required number of dogs were entered and shown legally to require a group.

The WDA reviewed the case. It took longer than the 45 days to render a decision. According to the bylaws at that time, the WDA had 45 days to make a decision or the charges ran out of time and were dropped. They were not. (Bylaw violation #6)

After review the WDA acknowledged the claims against me were unsubstantiated. However the WDA had incurred 800.00 in legal expenses to make the determination. As a condition of membership. I had to reimburse the WDA their legal fees to reinstate my membership. I filed an appeal citing the decision came 45 days after the response and according to the bylaws my membership was automatic. I also reminded them the WDA did not follow the bylaws in processing my membership and my acceptance was automatic according to the bylaws. My entries to the sieger show was accepted and they could not have been accepted unless I was a member. Last but not least, there was no provision in the bylaws to place a penalty or fee on a member as a condition of membership. (I'll call the fine levied to reimburse legal fees even though they found in my favor bylaw violation #7)

You will see in the executive session report of the April 2008 meeting minutes the details mentioned above. From this exercise Mr. Yee had to explain why the WDA could not follow it's bylaws and render a decision with 45 days. To which Mr. Yee responded with what we now see is a pattern that even though it says 45. 45 is not really 45, it's something else. It's like your sister in not immediate family unless she lives with you. That type of interpretation. The bylaws were changed to do away with the member's rights, the appeals process, and the provision to fine a member were all incorporated in that same meeting as a result. It was simply too expensive and inconvenient to allow a member to have rights so they took them away. They made themselves judge, jury with no appeal. This is what Gene is facing.