USCA Illegal voting - Page 2

In 1987 it WAS in the bylaws that Directors at Large COULD vote, in the rewrite in 1988 there was a sentence omitted! The FACT that the Directors at Large HAVE Voted for the past 20+ years proves THAT case! But all you "grassrooters" refuse to deal in facts! Where was Matt's objection of the Directors at Large voting for the past 20 years??? Oh!! Perhaps because he was soooo busy with the WDA. 

"In 1987 it WAS in the bylaws that Directors at Large COULD vote, in the rewrite in 1988 there was a sentence omitted! The FACT that the Directors at Large HAVE Voted for the past 20+ years proves THAT case! But all you "grassrooters" refuse to deal in facts! Where was Matt's objection of the Directors at Large voting for the past 20 years??? Oh!! Perhaps because he was soooo busy with the WDA. "

The rise again of the yellow journalism.  Or to bring it down to your level, the nursery story of Henny Penny chicken and the sky is falling.

So, if someone continually breaks the law, you are saying that it is alright.  Just because they did it for "x" amount of years gives them credence?  That is simplistic and solidifies my thoughts about your ethics.

It does not matter is the entire sentence was in the bylaws in 1987.  Per Missouri law, the organization has to follow the posted bylaws.  The posted bylaws that were reviewed over years by multiple people, and final review prior to 2009  by Wallick, Cottrell and Roetemeyer do not include the ability for the Directors at large to vote. If attention to detail had been paid, someone in the organization would have found it. 

The sentence was omitted at some point.  Has USCA found and identified what year it was omitted?  They should know, since it is a

Silence is deafening from the peanut gallery. Please omit the yellow journalism (Henny Penny for CMass) and respond to the facts.

 Here are the facts......... Matt filed charges to grandstand not for the betterment of UScA.............Matt LOST!  As he hopefully will next week too! And when this is all said and done, will all you "grassrooters" PLEASE go away???? They identified it was omitted in 1988! Where was YOUR attention to detail that allowed this to go unnoticed for so long?? Why didn't you object to the Directors voting for 22 years??? Because you were all happy being dual members and didn't care....now that a majority has changed that you are crying! You do a lot of bashing of people who VOLUNTEER their time! What position are you running for?? What committee are you volunteering for?? What have YOU done to help or support UScA? Lyle's record speaks for itself!! Again, this is issue is DONE!!! NEXT???

What is a grassrooter?   Sounds like a plumbing tool.

The issue is not done.  Where was your attention to detail, CMass? What have you done?  You are now criticizing a member that read, understood and researched the bylaws?

You approve of an organization this is not following the legal rules that it is incorporated under.   That is the underlying sentiment.

There is embarassment that it was one member, not an officer and not a legal contact (responsible for reviewing said document), that found the illegality.  That is why people are reacting the way they are.  Just think.  This issue that could have possible gone on for 20 years and was just found?  How humiliating.

I am not a member, by the way.  Great attempt at yellow journalism and negativity.  That is the trend that I have seen in this issue and others. 

When you do not have an intelligent, fact based post, one resorts to screeching and whining. 

I volunteer for multiple non-profits; the majority education and legal based. That is how I came across this.  It was pointed out.  It is a great case study.

I commend people for volunteering. But, it has to been done in the correct, ethical and legal way.

The lemming cliff is over to the left.

This is why dog sports are gay.

Fello

I would of never linked the two together like you did......not that there is anything wrong with that

what's funny and sad is that some of you actually think these organizations work to serve anybody else other than their own self serving interests.   They dont' care about you, they dont' care about the dogs.  Give me a break.  So much crap happens at USA trials and WDA trials, yet one claims to be "better". 

I hope the amendment is overturned, just because it gives me more opportunities to work and trial my dogs and have fun.  I don't for a second think either one is actually going to do anything to "preserve" or "better" or "safeguard" the GSD.  That's up to me and people like me, not some jackhole politicians making rules so they can profit from it somehow.

Fello

I would of never linked the two together like you did......not that there is anything wrong with that

Thanks for making me feel accepted.

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.

Well said Zdog. 

Paul