This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Einstein on 31 October 2010 - 14:10
"UScA has a history of protecting their own and doing "investigations" which are self serving. Do you really expect the executive board to investigate and find themselves guilty? Why are they now voting to allow DAL's to vote if it was already legal? The BOI thinks Matt is correct in his allegations however did not file correctly or state his case correctly."
jimhall,
Thank you for your reply, but I am puzzled on your last statement. You are stating that the BOI acknowledged that the Directors at large could not legally vote, but failed to find for Matt Levin due to an incorrect filing or mis-stating his case? Part of this acknowledgment is the Cottrell proposed amendment.
The attempt to claim the deletion for years and the not following the posted bylaws, that the officers expect the members to follow is unethical and illegal.
That is called attempting to back track. I reviewed the response on the USCA site.
"All members agree that the bylaws with regard to the voting rights of the Directors at Large are ambiguous. Parliamentarian opinion was rendered in this case and specifically addressed the ambiguity. "
The "not sustained" vote is in agreement with the Parliamentarian opinion that challenging voting rights is to be completed before the last vote is cast.
USCA and the "Parliamentarian" is stating that the opposition to the Directors at large voting should have occurred at the GBM? That is not logical nor legal. Per the posted bylaws, the Directors at large were not able to vote, but did so against the rules.
I would have expected that, at the minimum, that Wallick, Cottrell and Roetemeyer knew of this, since they were assigned the task of reviewing the bylaws the prior year. In addition, Cottrell was on the Bylaws committee for years; refer to the meeting minutes. If the mentioned individuals were not aware of this, they are unfit for the positions they hold. Attention to details is critical in such a review.
What this indicates is that USCA officers and its sycophants, as they did in this case, will pull in and protect the officers and their interests over the organization itself and its due paying members.
Based on the legality, what I would have expected was that USCA acknowledge the illegal action, address it, communicate it and resolve it with full disclosure.
jimhall,
Thank you for your reply, but I am puzzled on your last statement. You are stating that the BOI acknowledged that the Directors at large could not legally vote, but failed to find for Matt Levin due to an incorrect filing or mis-stating his case? Part of this acknowledgment is the Cottrell proposed amendment.
The attempt to claim the deletion for years and the not following the posted bylaws, that the officers expect the members to follow is unethical and illegal.
That is called attempting to back track. I reviewed the response on the USCA site.
"All members agree that the bylaws with regard to the voting rights of the Directors at Large are ambiguous. Parliamentarian opinion was rendered in this case and specifically addressed the ambiguity. "
The "not sustained" vote is in agreement with the Parliamentarian opinion that challenging voting rights is to be completed before the last vote is cast.
USCA and the "Parliamentarian" is stating that the opposition to the Directors at large voting should have occurred at the GBM? That is not logical nor legal. Per the posted bylaws, the Directors at large were not able to vote, but did so against the rules.
I would have expected that, at the minimum, that Wallick, Cottrell and Roetemeyer knew of this, since they were assigned the task of reviewing the bylaws the prior year. In addition, Cottrell was on the Bylaws committee for years; refer to the meeting minutes. If the mentioned individuals were not aware of this, they are unfit for the positions they hold. Attention to details is critical in such a review.
What this indicates is that USCA officers and its sycophants, as they did in this case, will pull in and protect the officers and their interests over the organization itself and its due paying members.
Based on the legality, what I would have expected was that USCA acknowledge the illegal action, address it, communicate it and resolve it with full disclosure.
by RatPackKing on 31 October 2010 - 14:10
What I find interesting is that at least one of the following Wallick, Cottrell and Roetemeyer has never been short on words on this board, at least until now that is.
by Bob McKown on 01 November 2010 - 12:11
Einstein:
Let me know when you have filed a suit in Missouri court.
by Einstein on 02 November 2010 - 01:11
Bob Mckown,
As stated in prior statements, this is a case study and a very interesting one at that. I would venture to state, based on the prior statements, that you and others have not taken the time to read your organizations' minutes, bylaws and Missouri state law. You based your responses on what your friends are stating. Take the time. A non- member of a dog organization did.
As I mentioned in the other post, why would a member (I am not one) have to file a lawsuit? There is supposedly a clear due process via the Board of Inquiry process. The problem with the established process is that it is not objective; it is influenced by individuals, relationships (or not). Flawed process equals flawed results.
The organization acknowledged the illegal action with Mr. Cottrell's proposed bylaw amendment. Your president did the same with his interview where he stated the organization would hire outside counsel to review the bylaws. My recommendation would be to do that, since the elected officers and bylaws committees were unable to. That would be a cost to the members.
The majority of non-profits that I have dealt with are fairly objective and thorough in their processes. Upon deeper research, thank you to a personal message, it appears that the main issue at hand is money and the position of individuals within the organization.
There is a phrase: big fish in little pond. It is applicable here.
As stated in prior statements, this is a case study and a very interesting one at that. I would venture to state, based on the prior statements, that you and others have not taken the time to read your organizations' minutes, bylaws and Missouri state law. You based your responses on what your friends are stating. Take the time. A non- member of a dog organization did.
As I mentioned in the other post, why would a member (I am not one) have to file a lawsuit? There is supposedly a clear due process via the Board of Inquiry process. The problem with the established process is that it is not objective; it is influenced by individuals, relationships (or not). Flawed process equals flawed results.
The organization acknowledged the illegal action with Mr. Cottrell's proposed bylaw amendment. Your president did the same with his interview where he stated the organization would hire outside counsel to review the bylaws. My recommendation would be to do that, since the elected officers and bylaws committees were unable to. That would be a cost to the members.
The majority of non-profits that I have dealt with are fairly objective and thorough in their processes. Upon deeper research, thank you to a personal message, it appears that the main issue at hand is money and the position of individuals within the organization.
There is a phrase: big fish in little pond. It is applicable here.
by Bob McKown on 02 November 2010 - 11:11
Einstein:
Again I ask if your so intrested and you have allyour ducks in a row(which you claim you do) then get this case in a court of law and becoame the hero here.
by Einstein on 02 November 2010 - 13:11
Bob Mckown,
Read. I am not a member and this is a case study.
You and judron55 (CMass; she has disappeared) condone/agree with the illegal actions of the USCA officers.
The cause and effect (noun, so used properly) is that USCA recognized the illegal action. If not, why is there an amendment to add the Directors at large back in?
This is moving into another direction of the case study. Comparing this situation and organization to the history examples of Putin and Chechnya. The analogy is over you heads, but the parallels are striking.
Why do you not do something?
Read. I am not a member and this is a case study.
You and judron55 (CMass; she has disappeared) condone/agree with the illegal actions of the USCA officers.
The cause and effect (noun, so used properly) is that USCA recognized the illegal action. If not, why is there an amendment to add the Directors at large back in?
This is moving into another direction of the case study. Comparing this situation and organization to the history examples of Putin and Chechnya. The analogy is over you heads, but the parallels are striking.
Why do you not do something?
by Einstein on 03 November 2010 - 11:11
Bob McKown,
You seemed to have neglected to respond. Since you respond to a myriad of subjects, I feared this was buried in the barrage of your emails.
Why are you not doing something? Or than name calling.
You seemed to have neglected to respond. Since you respond to a myriad of subjects, I feared this was buried in the barrage of your emails.
Why are you not doing something? Or than name calling.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top