Conflict of Interest - Page 2

USA is NOT a 501(c)(3) corpiration. Never was or claimed to be. It is NOT a charitable organization, which is what 501(c)(3) covers. ¶USA is a 501(c)(7) corporation, as a sports or recreational organization. I do NOT intend to respond further, as this is not the time or place to discuss these matters-- I simply could not sit silently , while this "charitable organization" crap was being spouted. Check these matters out for YOURSELVES! Period. Wiener--you are absolutley correct. Adios

Nia is correct on my typo.   Please use a 7 where I typed a 3, I honestly meant to leave it just a 501 c as that is the section of the IRS code all are under - no matter what designation the club has it still has to comport to those sections of the statutes that regulate it.  They all have to have a conflict of interst policy in place and if a member was included in that conflict of interest policy the amendment to restrict membership would have not been needed - ergo, the reason for the amendment was not a conflict of interest because there already was a policy regarding that.  Members do not have significant influence on what the club does, therefore they do not fall under the conflict of interst policy.   If members did fall under the conflict of interest definition,  no amemdment to restrict membership would have been needed.  Sorry for my typo, but its the same whether its a 3 or a 7 regarding this.  Conflict of interst policies do not change the definition of who it encompasses to include people who have no significant influence or ar not are officers no matter which of the 28 designations the club falls under.

Ahhh, but the difference is, you were allowed to speak and voice your opinion.  MEMBERS in "good standing" were not.  There were not that many people in that conference room that would have made things unmanageable if they were at least allowed to have an opinion.  I have been to many a "town hall" meeting where attendance was 10 fold over what was in Davenport and everyone was given a chance to speak.  Lyle made an analogy about his long time service for the Kroger Co. and if he were working for a rival food distributor, he would be fired.  First off, if he returned unannounced from his lunch break, 1 hour and 10 minutes late, he would be fired, and secondly Kroger, being his employer and paying HIS salary, they would be correct in doing so.  Last I checked, USCA has not given me dime one towards the payment of my bills.  If I remember correctly the Executive Board  works for the members, not the other way around.  So, by not being attached to a particular club but paying the same dues as everyone else, I was not allowed to have a voice for the Family Membership my wife and I used to enjoy.  I'm not talking about having a vote, I'm talking about being able to voice an opinion.

I'm also wondering about the issue of a "Grandfather Clause", not a Santa Claus, he's coming soon enough,,,,at least to some of our houses if not the houses of the EB.  Shouldn't members that were recruited before this decision be exempt from compliance?  As mentioned at the meeting, new applicants are required to sign a waiver on their application but, those of us who have been members for 900 years have signed no such waiver and I believe as such, cannot be forced to comply.

What happens to USA's Lifetime Members who are also members of the WDA.

The fact is that there is no conflict of interest--only the paranoia of Lyle and the EB.

Phill,

Lyles analogy was a joke. As you said, Krogers PAYS his salary and has the right to not tell him where he can and can not get a second job. We do not work for USCA.

Its more like Krogers(USCA) telling its long time Customers(us) if they are seen shopping at Dillions or any other grocery store (WDA) they are no longer welcome to spend their money at their store again! Ha Ha what a joke.

I have a question that has not been brought up.  What about dogs that are registered with USA.  If you are thrown out does your dogs USA registration also go with it? And so you get a refund, this was not in effect when the registration process was completed.

js

Should not matter much, Schznd, as it's not a  FCI recognized registration anyways.
Michele

Many dogs (including my own) are registered with the SV via the USA office--not with USA's in-house registry.