This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Diatbda on 07 November 2009 - 13:11
Manipulation of quorum at the expense of the members is not correct.
I know, I've been there. Although I never, well once in 5 years took expense money for travel to the GBM, I turned around and donated it to the WUSV Team. But enough about me.
The organization pays expenses for 21 EB members, usually a spouse or a club member tags along giving up to 42 votes whose expenses are covered or supplemented.. Only 5 EB members are required for majority. If there are not enough clubs present to make a majority, Executive Board Members vote as club members. Many of these EB members will be listed on multiple club rosters. These EB members do not return the expense money even though their vote is no more important as the club delegates.
Why is the Executive Board Member voting as a club being reimbursed for travel?
Shouldn't all club delegates be reimbursed?
Diane Madigan
I know, I've been there. Although I never, well once in 5 years took expense money for travel to the GBM, I turned around and donated it to the WUSV Team. But enough about me.
The organization pays expenses for 21 EB members, usually a spouse or a club member tags along giving up to 42 votes whose expenses are covered or supplemented.. Only 5 EB members are required for majority. If there are not enough clubs present to make a majority, Executive Board Members vote as club members. Many of these EB members will be listed on multiple club rosters. These EB members do not return the expense money even though their vote is no more important as the club delegates.
Why is the Executive Board Member voting as a club being reimbursed for travel?
Shouldn't all club delegates be reimbursed?
Diane Madigan
by Diatbda on 07 November 2009 - 14:11
One way to fix "staking the deck" would be a bylaw change that Executive Board Members can only vote as Board Members and not club delegates. If there is no quorum then there is no vote. The plus side of this would be that clubs have more input in decision making.
by Bob-O on 07 November 2009 - 15:11
I have been a member of U.S.c.A. for many years and have found this entire by-law change to be not only distasteful, but also not in the spirit of growing the club. I think our parent organization has set itself up for imminent failure by making this change. Time will tell.
In most organizations there is but one (1) executive position that can vote - the executive chairman (president, director, other title) and this position votes only in the event of a tie. The representatives of the individual clubs (chapters, charters, other designation) each possess one (1) vote. This vote may need to be delivered in proxy depending on the rules of attendance. Most organizations realize a minimum of 60% attendance at a board meeting is required to form a quorum.
Some of us remember when U.S.c.A. was an all-breed working dog club. Wow, that was many years ago. And we remember what happened when U.S.c.A. decided to become solely a German Shepherd Dog club. There was a mass exodus of members to the original working-dog club known world-wide as the D.V.G..
I do not see where U.S.c.A. thinks they will go with this and other decisions. They (we at this moment) are not recognized by the F.C.I. as being a registry for the pure breeding of the German Shepherd Dog. They (we at this moment) have an in-house registry for dogs and puppies that attampts to mimic that of the S.V.. Why? I really do not know. Perhps people feel enlightened if their puppies are tatooed by a U.S.c.A. recognized tattoer.
Like many others I wish there was a F.C.I.-recognized breed-specific club (such as the S.V.) that operated in the U.S.A., and whose sole purpose was to promote and maintain the German Shepherd Dog. At this time the only F.C.I.-recognized breed club is the A.K.C. and there is no need for me to deliver a series of diatribes about their stewardship of the German Shepherd Dog breed.
The G.S.D.C.A.-W.D.A. has proven itself to be a fierce competitor to U.S.c.A.,; and this is how U.S.c.A. responds? Maybe I am short-sighted, but this decision smacks of nothing more than spite for a qualified adversary. We have two (2) major organizations here, but we only have one (1) breed of dog. This division does nothing to promote the stewardship of the German Shepherd Dog breed.
Best Regards,
Bob-O
In most organizations there is but one (1) executive position that can vote - the executive chairman (president, director, other title) and this position votes only in the event of a tie. The representatives of the individual clubs (chapters, charters, other designation) each possess one (1) vote. This vote may need to be delivered in proxy depending on the rules of attendance. Most organizations realize a minimum of 60% attendance at a board meeting is required to form a quorum.
Some of us remember when U.S.c.A. was an all-breed working dog club. Wow, that was many years ago. And we remember what happened when U.S.c.A. decided to become solely a German Shepherd Dog club. There was a mass exodus of members to the original working-dog club known world-wide as the D.V.G..
I do not see where U.S.c.A. thinks they will go with this and other decisions. They (we at this moment) are not recognized by the F.C.I. as being a registry for the pure breeding of the German Shepherd Dog. They (we at this moment) have an in-house registry for dogs and puppies that attampts to mimic that of the S.V.. Why? I really do not know. Perhps people feel enlightened if their puppies are tatooed by a U.S.c.A. recognized tattoer.
Like many others I wish there was a F.C.I.-recognized breed-specific club (such as the S.V.) that operated in the U.S.A., and whose sole purpose was to promote and maintain the German Shepherd Dog. At this time the only F.C.I.-recognized breed club is the A.K.C. and there is no need for me to deliver a series of diatribes about their stewardship of the German Shepherd Dog breed.
The G.S.D.C.A.-W.D.A. has proven itself to be a fierce competitor to U.S.c.A.,; and this is how U.S.c.A. responds? Maybe I am short-sighted, but this decision smacks of nothing more than spite for a qualified adversary. We have two (2) major organizations here, but we only have one (1) breed of dog. This division does nothing to promote the stewardship of the German Shepherd Dog breed.
Best Regards,
Bob-O
by hodie on 07 November 2009 - 15:11
The organizational structure is fundamentally flawed, but set up that way on purpose just so the minority can control what happens. Time for the others to go elsewhere where their voice and vote counts rather than continue to silently support the people in the "pissing match" that has been going on for years. As I said before....what a concept, how about doing something to bring people together, to encourage new members, new clubs, help small clubs, bring organizations who SHOULD have the same goal in mind, together, instead of continuing to drive a wedge between them? Oh, I forgot. That would not work then to make it possible to achieve the lamentable goals of the few.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top