This is a placeholder text
Group text
by OGBS on 01 October 2009 - 17:10
I have a question.
What if the WDA severed ties with the GSDCA and merged with UScA?
How would you feel about these proposals then?
As in, you can't be a member of a combined WDA/UScA and a member of the GSDCA?
I would be all for it!
What if the WDA severed ties with the GSDCA and merged with UScA?
How would you feel about these proposals then?
As in, you can't be a member of a combined WDA/UScA and a member of the GSDCA?
I would be all for it!
by shrabe on 01 October 2009 - 17:10
Well I also think this is a VERY BAD idea, and agree with all the other posts. The UScA will lose a lot of members over this. People will NOT be forced to choose between one organization or the other. I am not a member of the WDA, and that is by CHOICE, not because someone told me that I couldn't be. This will not end well for UScA if they move forward with this ideology regarding it's members. Also, as far as I know you cannot trila in a WDA event unless you are a WDA member and vice versa with UScA. I could be wrong, and if I am please correct me!
by Mystere on 01 October 2009 - 17:10
I have no intention of discussing any of the proposals on this board. However, just to clarify:
1. The agenda for the GBM is to be sent out 30 days prior to the meeting, per the USA bylaws. Nothing "shady" about it. The agenda will go out at the same time it has every year. Proposed bylaw amendments always go out with, and as part of, the agenda every year.
2. The proposals that have been posted are drafts. In some cases, changes have been made.
3. One can be a citizen of another nation and, if here legally, be a legal resident of the US.
4. The reference to Nazism is offensive. We are talking about a dog club. To equate anything going on in a dog club to nazism cheapens and demeans the horrific actions and atrocities millions suffered under and by the Nazis. To use it merely to get attention is cheap, disrespectful and offensive.
The subject matter alone is clearly enough to get people riled up. ANYTIME you tell Americans we are not allowed do "something" and, with a few cultural exceptions, you are in for a rebellion. We can all see what Prohibition did early in the last century.
I would also hope that people read Danny Spreitler's blog regarding WDA and the GSDCA in their analysis.
1. The agenda for the GBM is to be sent out 30 days prior to the meeting, per the USA bylaws. Nothing "shady" about it. The agenda will go out at the same time it has every year. Proposed bylaw amendments always go out with, and as part of, the agenda every year.
2. The proposals that have been posted are drafts. In some cases, changes have been made.
3. One can be a citizen of another nation and, if here legally, be a legal resident of the US.
4. The reference to Nazism is offensive. We are talking about a dog club. To equate anything going on in a dog club to nazism cheapens and demeans the horrific actions and atrocities millions suffered under and by the Nazis. To use it merely to get attention is cheap, disrespectful and offensive.
The subject matter alone is clearly enough to get people riled up. ANYTIME you tell Americans we are not allowed do "something" and, with a few cultural exceptions, you are in for a rebellion. We can all see what Prohibition did early in the last century.
I would also hope that people read Danny Spreitler's blog regarding WDA and the GSDCA in their analysis.
by Pat Relton on 02 October 2009 - 04:10
Nia Mystere is right. If he is a resident than you shouldn't be racist" diatbda" because he can live here to. Your as bad than fighting fire with fire. Take that back.
by Diatbda on 02 October 2009 - 11:10
Alright Pat Relton,
I'll take back the word "resident" and replace it with US citizen. Any citizen would know, under our Constitution we are entitled to basic rights. These rights were earned by the blood and sweat of our fore-fathers.
Any UScA board member should be a US citizen. Since the bylaw section dealing with membership will be open for review, the motion should be amended to include US citizenship.
Back to the point of USA/GSDCA-WDA Membership.
There are quite a few USA Lifetime Members that have been guaranteed membership. How would these and current dual members be eliminated?
Is it their plan to go back 30+ years and severe all ties with folks that have worked hard to make this organization what it is today?
How about anyone that ever purchased a WDA scorebook?
Is this for the good of the GSD or for the good of some USA Board member and their private interests?
It certainly isn't good to increase or renew membership.
When the final bylaw proposed amendments come out I certainly hope they give the Pros and Cons for this issue., which is required for all changes
Give Me Liberty and Justice for All
Diane Madigan
I'll take back the word "resident" and replace it with US citizen. Any citizen would know, under our Constitution we are entitled to basic rights. These rights were earned by the blood and sweat of our fore-fathers.
Any UScA board member should be a US citizen. Since the bylaw section dealing with membership will be open for review, the motion should be amended to include US citizenship.
Back to the point of USA/GSDCA-WDA Membership.
There are quite a few USA Lifetime Members that have been guaranteed membership. How would these and current dual members be eliminated?
Is it their plan to go back 30+ years and severe all ties with folks that have worked hard to make this organization what it is today?
How about anyone that ever purchased a WDA scorebook?
Is this for the good of the GSD or for the good of some USA Board member and their private interests?
It certainly isn't good to increase or renew membership.
When the final bylaw proposed amendments come out I certainly hope they give the Pros and Cons for this issue., which is required for all changes
Give Me Liberty and Justice for All
Diane Madigan
by Phil Behun on 02 October 2009 - 13:10
Hear hear Diane. Let me know when the next American citizen is allowed to sit on the Board of the SV.
by Mystere on 02 October 2009 - 17:10
Diane,
You have a good point regarding "citizenship" as a requirement for EB membership and the fact that opening that portion of the bylaws for discussion could well lead to slipping "citizen" into the equation. It gives me the giggles just thinking about it...
Hoist by his/her own petard is one of my favorite comedic moments.
However, you are completely inaccurate regarding any requirement that pros and cons be provided with the proposed amendment. There is no such requirement--that is what discussion prior to and at the GBM are for.
You have a good point regarding "citizenship" as a requirement for EB membership and the fact that opening that portion of the bylaws for discussion could well lead to slipping "citizen" into the equation. It gives me the giggles just thinking about it...
Hoist by his/her own petard is one of my favorite comedic moments.However, you are completely inaccurate regarding any requirement that pros and cons be provided with the proposed amendment. There is no such requirement--that is what discussion prior to and at the GBM are for.
by Elkoorr on 02 October 2009 - 17:10
Thats a strange proposal needless to say. Wonder where its coming from and the reason behind it.
Dont agree with plain US citizenship-member status, as me being "just" a permanent resident (yes, legal) this would take my priviledges away from competing!
Dont agree with plain US citizenship-member status, as me being "just" a permanent resident (yes, legal) this would take my priviledges away from competing!
by Diatbda on 02 October 2009 - 20:10
Nia,
I'm know I'm not completely inaccurate and not sure if this is was a double negative. But....there is something somewhere. Back in John Koerner's days on the Bylaw Committee the pros/cons information was always given with any bylaw change proposal. Should there be any financial loss to the organization due to mandates we should know about this prior to approving such.
Maybe Johaness is trying to prevent SV2000 from coming to our home fields? Isn't the wording the same exact wording from the SV to its members and judges?
Madigan
I'm know I'm not completely inaccurate and not sure if this is was a double negative. But....there is something somewhere. Back in John Koerner's days on the Bylaw Committee the pros/cons information was always given with any bylaw change proposal. Should there be any financial loss to the organization due to mandates we should know about this prior to approving such.
Maybe Johaness is trying to prevent SV2000 from coming to our home fields? Isn't the wording the same exact wording from the SV to its members and judges?
Madigan
by Mystere on 02 October 2009 - 21:10
In fact, Diane, you ARE completely inaccurate. There is no such requirement.
Perhaps instead of focussing on the fact that you are wrong about one item, you might more productively focus on the other issue.
Perhaps instead of focussing on the fact that you are wrong about one item, you might more productively focus on the other issue.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top