usca-gsdca/wda,,, conflict how - Page 4

NEW BUSINESS:
Formation of the North American Alliance with the United Schutzhund Clubs of America:
It was moved by Daniel Yee and seconded by Miriam Barkus "to approve the formation of the North American Alliance with the United Schutzhund Clubs of America".
The purpose of the North American Alliance is to preserve and protect the heritage of the German Shepherd Dog in the United States with respect to the SV breed standard through the formation and maintenance of an alliance between the WDA and the United Schutzhund Clubs of America.
Dr, Landau asked what are the conditions and the rules with regard to the alliance.
The Chair explained that there are no rules. There are no rules or policies because people may view this as a merger of the two organizations, which it is not. The two areas discussed with the UScA were the reciprocal acceptance of judges and score books. There is nothing in writing between the two organizations. The motion is merely asking the board for permission to form the alliance and then to come back to the board as things come up for further board approval. The WDA's participation in this alliance must be approved by the Board every step of the way.
Mr. Yee responded to Dr. Landau and advised that the alliance should not have any restrictions imposed upon it. If there were any restrictions, then the alliance would be prevented from exploring matters that may be in the best interest of the breed and both organizations. The committee representing the WDA in this alliance must come back to the Board for approval of everything. Mr. Yee asked the board not to restrict the committee from carrying on dialogue on subjects that may be good for the breed and the WDA.
Dr. Landau then suggested that the motion be amended to approve a committee to develop an alliance without restriction on topics to be brought back to the board for approval.
The Chair suggested that Dr. Landau's suggestion be handled as a subsidiary motion. The subsidiary motion reads: "Motion to approve a committee to develop an alliance without restriction on topics to be brought back to the Board for approval."

The original motion by Mr. Yee "to approve the formation of the North American Alliance with the United Schutzhund Clubs of America" and the motion by Dr. Landau "to approve a committee to develop an alliance without restriction on topics to be brought back to the Board for approval" were joined at the suggestion of the Chair. The Chair called for the vote. Except for Gail Hardcastle who abstained, the remaining members voted to approve the joined motions. The motions carried.

Sorry he had already been caught prior to that meeting and it is well known!

As for conflicts of interest, my years studying the law have hopefully provided me with enough information on how to decide what is and isn't a conflict of interest. Actions in this situation showed that this was.
A conflict of interest is not only concerning personal gain, but also when actions of an official, or someone holding a position of influence in more than one organization, creates gain or loss for one of those orgainzations over the other through those actions.  

There is no one person, not the president of WDA, not the president of GSDCA, not the POTUS who has the authority to "merge" WDA.

From all reports GSDCA was a breath away from cutting WDA back to a committee. Are there really people out there who believe that GSDCA would have just waved bye-bye to WDA.

How incredibly naive one has to be to believe that anyone elected to a 2 yr. term by a direct vote of the membership, has the authority to act in any way other than the dictates of the office, is beyond rational reason.

If the prez of the WDA (or anyone else) was making all these incredible promises, then there should certainly be some evidence other than "he said, she said".

Until someone comes up with hard evidence (e-mail, written correspondence, recorded phone conversations),  I'm calling bull shit that any such promises were made to "hand over" WDA.  Anyone with any experience/knowledege at all of GSDCA would know that this was not going to happen.

Rik 

so if this "conflict of interest"  applies to those "in power",   how is it a conflict for your average member to be in both clubs?  i only bring this up because it has yet to be said.  

i would venture to guess im not the only person wondering where exactly the conflict  is at.   

USCA could not have accepted WDA scorebooks or judges if they wanted to anyway. Under the urging of USCA, the AWDF has a rule that no AWDF club can accept a WDA scorebook or use a WDA judge.

Kim,

I want to thank you for putting the information out that you have.  I would imagine that it has been at no small personal price to you including a couple of lost friendships.

Your posts have been factual and documented.  You have not stooped to the level of direct or indirect personal attacks.

You have shown a lot of class.  And I for one want to thank you.

 Conjecture,theory,intrigue folks this is getting old I have a idea instead of beating this dead horse lets try this lets train our dogs under what ever affiliation we desire train,title,show your dogs and put as much effort into these endeavors as we do complaining or whining. The powers that be will do as they please no matter who,s version of counting the votes prevails I Will train my dogs and show my dogs no differently as I did before the politics that are prevalent will slowly slip away they are not timeless they do all have expiration dates associated with them. 

It really comes down to association be it with Germany or the A.K.C. it really is that simple you can argue all you want point fingers and proclaim mastery of the subject when the truth is we will never know what the truth was behind this amendment but in the end we will probably be back to the same old argument working lines versus show lines, money versus management. 

Those that stay with USA will stay with USA, those that stay with WDA will stay with WDA. 

There is more then 1 GSD orginization in Germany.
   

From what I can see a lot of people have moved on Bob, which is certainly their right.  The ones that haven't;  their battle, may not be your battle, but that too is their right. 

I think dogs will get trained and trialed regardless.

Russ:

My friend, At no time did I say not to battle the powers that be, but it,s time to do some thing about it not banter back and forth which as you say is a right. A silent warrior achieves there goals before a loud charge is even invisioned. 

Be well and plan wisely.