This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Bob McKown on 26 February 2014 - 12:02
Sita:
Maybe alot of people are getting fed up with Europa and don,t care if the WUSV likes us or not. USA can exist without Europa!
Maybe alot of people are getting fed up with Europa and don,t care if the WUSV likes us or not. USA can exist without Europa!
by GSD4dogs on 26 February 2014 - 17:02
I thought GSDCA is the WUSV member. If the GSDCA decided to end their relationship with the WDA, where would that leave WDA?
by Keith Grossman on 26 February 2014 - 17:02
Wait a minute and we may find out.
by momosgarage on 26 February 2014 - 17:02
Momosgarage, you can assume that the UScA holds more trials and shows.
A portion of each entry fee goes to the national club and its a significiant portion of the club's yearly income.
We held a show last year and paid our national club 675$ for entry fees.
Our club's members in total, paid the national club $400 in yearly dues.
Also the yearly dues for UScA are $100 and last year WDA were $50......so higer income doesn't necessarily mean more members, its much more complicated then that.
Plus each club must pay a fee anually.
UScA is ?
WDA is 100
@SitasMom, sorry I was not clear with my point. The USCA has 6,000+/- members to WDA's 500+/-, BUT only has $400,000 more in total revenue. So its one of a couple of things that doesn't make much sense. How does the WDA bring in $200,000 with only 500 members? OR how does USCA bring in so little with 6,000+/- members? Does WDA have some really wealthy members simply "paying the way" for thier existance?
@gck, I was looking at thier 2011 990. USCA reported over $100,000 allocated for salaried for employees , WDA did not report any at that time. Is your info based on thier 990 forms from 2012 or 2013?WDA has a paid employee--office manager. Last reports were of more than 550 WDA members (not 200).
Also remember some people on this thread claimed WDA membership numbers was less than 200, I also believed it was around 500. Some folks here believe both membership figures are disputable for whatever reason.
by SitasMom on 26 February 2014 - 19:02
WDA had over 1000 (1100 comes to mind, but I could be wrong) members at close of year 2013.
I as well as many others were late in sending in dues on January 1st, so membership numbers reflect this.
Many of the late memberships have been paid by now so the number is steadly rising to reflect true numbers.
Shows bring in much more money (local and national) then trials because of the number of dogs entered, WDA tends to have more shows. This could be a reason for the income levels.
National level recieves 75$ for every breed survey and $8 for every show entry, plus the national club sells forms and show cards which is another form of income. A show with 60 dogs and 10 breed surveys......Thats $1300 income for the national club.
Trials are limited to the number of dogs that can enter so the income for a trial is necessarily less.
I as well as many others were late in sending in dues on January 1st, so membership numbers reflect this.
Many of the late memberships have been paid by now so the number is steadly rising to reflect true numbers.
Shows bring in much more money (local and national) then trials because of the number of dogs entered, WDA tends to have more shows. This could be a reason for the income levels.
National level recieves 75$ for every breed survey and $8 for every show entry, plus the national club sells forms and show cards which is another form of income. A show with 60 dogs and 10 breed surveys......Thats $1300 income for the national club.
Trials are limited to the number of dogs that can enter so the income for a trial is necessarily less.
any given judge may only judge up to a maximum of 36 individual phases per day
not valid for world championships)
FPr Level 1-3 equivalent to one phase
UPr Level 1-3 equivalent to one phase
SPr Level 1-3 equivalent to one phase
StPr Level 1-3 equivalent to one phase
BH/VT equivalent to 2 phases
IPO-VO IPO ZTP equivalent to 3 phases
IPO-1, IPO-2, IPO 3 equivalent to 3 phases
FH 1 – FH 2 equivalent to 3 phases
by OGBS on 26 February 2014 - 20:02
Momo,
I think if you check what you have read in this post you will see that people have said the WDA membership is around 550, not 200.
The VP of UScA said that the membership of UScA is 3699 as of this month, not 6000.
In 2011 the WDA membership and their funds should have been higher than now. In 2011 there were more members, more shows, more Sieger show entries.
You will also notice that Dog1 only wrote about expenditures, not total revenue.
If the WDA is not reporting any salary numbers for employees then Joy Schultz must be the nicest person in the world to do all of the WDA'a office work for free or have one hell of an expense account as a volunteer. Somebody really needs to start looking in to the financials of the WDA. This isn't looking good. I feel bad for the people who have stuck it out with the WDA.
SitasMom,
Auditors are hired by a person or an organization to do a job.
Some of the time a court orders that they be hired to look in to the financials of an orgaization, especially in instances such as these when there is terrible mismanagement of an organization's funds.
I guarantee you that the likes of KPMG, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and other accounting/auditing firms are not worried about their reputation or their license being pulled because of who they are auditing or the size of the account.
I think if you check what you have read in this post you will see that people have said the WDA membership is around 550, not 200.
The VP of UScA said that the membership of UScA is 3699 as of this month, not 6000.
In 2011 the WDA membership and their funds should have been higher than now. In 2011 there were more members, more shows, more Sieger show entries.
You will also notice that Dog1 only wrote about expenditures, not total revenue.
If the WDA is not reporting any salary numbers for employees then Joy Schultz must be the nicest person in the world to do all of the WDA'a office work for free or have one hell of an expense account as a volunteer. Somebody really needs to start looking in to the financials of the WDA. This isn't looking good. I feel bad for the people who have stuck it out with the WDA.
SitasMom,
Auditors are hired by a person or an organization to do a job.
Some of the time a court orders that they be hired to look in to the financials of an orgaization, especially in instances such as these when there is terrible mismanagement of an organization's funds.
I guarantee you that the likes of KPMG, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and other accounting/auditing firms are not worried about their reputation or their license being pulled because of who they are auditing or the size of the account.
by momosgarage on 26 February 2014 - 22:02
@OGBS, the USCA website says 4,700 members. I'm not trying to spit hairs, just trying to point out that nobody EVER quotes an exact number consistantly, both officially or by hearsay. So for USCA its somewhere between 3,000 and 6,000 and for WDA its less than 500 to 1100? Thats a HUGE range to not be certain about.
-Joy Schultz is not named in the 990, is not a board member, nor senior salaried staff, as far as tax reporting is concered. Perhaps she is an employee of someone on the board and is paid her normally salary while tending to unrelated WDA business and is regularly asked by the owner of that business to deal with WDA admin stuff on the clock/thier dollar? We can't know for sure, but it seems to be the most logical assumption; besides the obvious possibilty of her having a rich partner or simply being a trust fund baby, doing an involved non-paying hobby. I've seen this done before, when executives serve on local committees like the Coastal Comission etc, typically thier everyday admin or office manager prepares documents and schedules meetings etc for "coastal commission duites", but gets thier pay from the business owner, whom happens to serve on the "Coastal Comission".
-Also in 2011 per the 990 tax form, WDA estimated that they had 150 "volunteers", USCA reported none, which I find odd for a organization of its size. So people helping at trials for USCA get paid and are NOT considered volunteers at ANY time? This is simply not possible for a non-profit sports club of any kind, even Country Club Golf Courses have the occational "volunteers" that are reported on the 990.
-I did find something odd, the WDA and USCA are 501(c)7 organizations and anything "donated" to them is not tax deductable, which is different than a 501(c)3 charitable organization which does allow tax deductable donations. WDA states that it DID solicit contributions over $100,000 that were not tax deductable. However the USCA says that it DID NOT solicit non-tax deductable contributions. I find that hard to believe, unless they found some way to operate entirely on grant money, but earlier in the 990, they said they had no professional grant soliciation services or time spent on such. So this means that USCA never takes a "donation" from it members and NEVER pursues a grant or other source of funding, besides dues, ads, subscriptions or trial fees? For example Trophy donations would count under this category, as would many other things. They are definately over the $100,000 threshold in terms of overall revenue, so they should automatically have to say "yes", but did not and I don't understand how thats possible for an organization of this size.
-USCA also says that it DOES NOT have members with the power to elect or appoint people to its governing body, while WDA says "Yes" to this question. So does that mean USCA members are not really members paying "dues", just people paying "fees" like Costco or a Gym? For example REI is a co-op and its customer level members do get a "vote" when the time comes around to elect a new Board of Directors, but Costco and Sam's Club members do not becuase they are not really "members", just people paying "fees" like a Gym.
-According both 990's WDA does have a conflict of interest policy for Board members, USCA states that they do not.
-Now here is something else interesting, WDA did not have an independent accountant review thier statements, BUT they did have Independent Audit done. In contrast USCA does have a Independent accountant review thier statements, BUT they DID NOT have an Independent Audit done
-Joy Schultz is not named in the 990, is not a board member, nor senior salaried staff, as far as tax reporting is concered. Perhaps she is an employee of someone on the board and is paid her normally salary while tending to unrelated WDA business and is regularly asked by the owner of that business to deal with WDA admin stuff on the clock/thier dollar? We can't know for sure, but it seems to be the most logical assumption; besides the obvious possibilty of her having a rich partner or simply being a trust fund baby, doing an involved non-paying hobby. I've seen this done before, when executives serve on local committees like the Coastal Comission etc, typically thier everyday admin or office manager prepares documents and schedules meetings etc for "coastal commission duites", but gets thier pay from the business owner, whom happens to serve on the "Coastal Comission".
-Also in 2011 per the 990 tax form, WDA estimated that they had 150 "volunteers", USCA reported none, which I find odd for a organization of its size. So people helping at trials for USCA get paid and are NOT considered volunteers at ANY time? This is simply not possible for a non-profit sports club of any kind, even Country Club Golf Courses have the occational "volunteers" that are reported on the 990.
-I did find something odd, the WDA and USCA are 501(c)7 organizations and anything "donated" to them is not tax deductable, which is different than a 501(c)3 charitable organization which does allow tax deductable donations. WDA states that it DID solicit contributions over $100,000 that were not tax deductable. However the USCA says that it DID NOT solicit non-tax deductable contributions. I find that hard to believe, unless they found some way to operate entirely on grant money, but earlier in the 990, they said they had no professional grant soliciation services or time spent on such. So this means that USCA never takes a "donation" from it members and NEVER pursues a grant or other source of funding, besides dues, ads, subscriptions or trial fees? For example Trophy donations would count under this category, as would many other things. They are definately over the $100,000 threshold in terms of overall revenue, so they should automatically have to say "yes", but did not and I don't understand how thats possible for an organization of this size.
-USCA also says that it DOES NOT have members with the power to elect or appoint people to its governing body, while WDA says "Yes" to this question. So does that mean USCA members are not really members paying "dues", just people paying "fees" like Costco or a Gym? For example REI is a co-op and its customer level members do get a "vote" when the time comes around to elect a new Board of Directors, but Costco and Sam's Club members do not becuase they are not really "members", just people paying "fees" like a Gym.
-According both 990's WDA does have a conflict of interest policy for Board members, USCA states that they do not.
-Now here is something else interesting, WDA did not have an independent accountant review thier statements, BUT they did have Independent Audit done. In contrast USCA does have a Independent accountant review thier statements, BUT they DID NOT have an Independent Audit done
by bubbabooboo on 26 February 2014 - 22:02
I believe the IRS had some similar interest in the USCA financials reported a few years back and the USCA was audited at apparently substantial cost in money and manpower to the USCA. This was reported in some of the USCA board meeting minutes and financials. I don't care how the USCA members want their club money spent but the track record of the USCA regarding unfair and dishonest play and lack of adherence to the rules of the game seems to be a universal theme in the USCA's dealings with anyone. Also not anything new about recent events .. a long track record of questionable activities and actions which apparently began with the foundation stock.
by Jim Engel on 26 February 2014 - 22:02
bubbabooboo
Charles Finley
Hard Kandee K9
7215 Caviness Jordan Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
Phone: (919)360-3805
charlesfinley@yahoo.com
ALL FROM PUBLIC SOURCES.
Charles Finley
Hard Kandee K9
7215 Caviness Jordan Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
Phone: (919)360-3805
charlesfinley@yahoo.com
ALL FROM PUBLIC SOURCES.
by gsd2407 on 26 February 2014 - 23:02
Momo,
The 4700 number you are refering to is from the USCA Facebook page. That is NOT the USCA website.
4700 is the number of 'likes' that page has garnered. It has nothing to do with actual USCA membership. Anyone can 'like' USCA on Facebook if they choose to -- it's open to the public unlike the closed WDA Facebook page. I've even seen Kim Rahl (SitasMom) posting there.
The 4700 number you are refering to is from the USCA Facebook page. That is NOT the USCA website.
4700 is the number of 'likes' that page has garnered. It has nothing to do with actual USCA membership. Anyone can 'like' USCA on Facebook if they choose to -- it's open to the public unlike the closed WDA Facebook page. I've even seen Kim Rahl (SitasMom) posting there.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
