Update on USA Board of Inquiry status - Page 1

BOI status update


Back on Feb. 22, 2010, I filed charges with the USA Board of Inquiry as allowed
per the USA bylaws. Per the USA bylaws, I filed these charges with Sara
Wallick, the USA secretary. Sara returned these charges to me and stated that my
filing was defective. I then rewrote the BOI charges and resubmitted them to
Sara on Mar. 25, 2010. Sara has once again sent me the charges back as a
defective filing.

This is a classic example of our USA leadership doing what they want and we the
membership having no recourse. The bylaws spell out the process that is to be
taken in a Board of Inquiry action. The USA officers, Sara in this case,
chooses to not follow the bylaws. In the process of doing this, they allow the
continuing implementation of amendments that violate the USA bylaws.

In a very short summary, my BOI complaint, which I will refile again post haste,
points out that the Delegates at Large do not have the right to vote at a
General Board Meeting. Johannes Grewe is a Delegate at Large as is Frank
Phillips. Johannes presented the following amendments at the 2009 GBM.

1. Article IV, Section 2. (Individual
Membership/Rules for Individual Membership) –
Submitted by Johannes Grewe
Add:
e. USA members may not be members of, or be
affiliated with, any competing German
Shepherd Dog organization in the United States.
Amendment accepted (yes–36, no–17).
2. Article III.4. (Performance and Breeding
Regulations) – Submitted by Johannes Grewe
Delete:
4. USA Judges may not be governing members or
judges of competing U.S. German Shepherd
Dog organizations.
Amendment accepted unanimously.
3. Article V, Section 2. (Club
Membership/Relationship Between USA and
Local Clubs – Submitted by Johannes Grewe
From:
c. Member clubs shall not be members of other
Schutzhund type organizations. Individual
members of the club, however, may be members
of other organizations.
To:
c. Member clubs may not be members of, or be
affiliated with, any competing German
Shepherd Dog organization in the United States.
Amendment accepted (yes–51, no–2).

Johannes and Frank both voted for these amendments (known as the Johannes
amendments) and their vote was accepted and used in the passage of these
amendments. This makes the Johannes Amendments passage a violation of the USA
bylaws. There are considerably more details in my BOI complaint. This is not
the point of my post.

What is the point of this post, is how the USA leadership has responded. I
personally talked to Sara after she rejected my initial BOI filing. She made a
determination that a member could not file a complaint against USA as a club.
This decision is not allowed to her per the USA bylaws. In fact, the bylaws are
very specific that, "The charge(s) against the accused member and/or accused
club must be submitted in writing and must be notarized. The charge(s), and all
substantiating witness statements and/or documentary evidence upon which it is
based, shall be forwarded to the USA Secretary with a deposit of two hundred
dollars ($200) for the initial charge. A "charge" shall consist of a single,
specific, allegation. There shall be an additional fee of fifty dollars ($50)
for each additional allegation filed with the initial charge. The charging party
is
responsible for providing sufficient copies of all electronic media
documentation or evidence (video, audio recordings, photos, etc.) for each Board
of Inquiry member and the USA Secretary (8 copies)

USA should assist members.  Aren't they there to help?  Obviously not.

IMHO, the best way is to vote a repeal of the JA this November. 

 

Matt,

Please don't think I'm taking sides here. It appears your complaint does not meet the criteria. You charges need to be specific to a member or a USA club, not USA as an organization. Your complaint also needs to demonstrate how the 'conduct was prejudicial to the interests of USA.' Here's what the by laws state:

Any full member of USA may prefer charges against any USA club and/or USA member for violating USA
regulations or for conduct that is prejudicial to the interests of USA.

Bear in mind USA has gone through the proper proceedings in their mind. What the organization implemented was and still is a great thing for the German Shepherd breed in the eyes of the USA organization. As you can see they are standing behind their decision and in the minds of the organization, they did no wrong. You are fighting an uphill battle. You'll need to play by the rules.

If you are sincere about bringing change to the organization, the means and methods are outlined in the by laws.

I don't take offense at all.  

My post is not about my BOI, it's about the way that USA is handling it thus far.  Using the bylaws incorrectly to inhibit my filing.  Even at times going contrary to what the bylaws state.

I understand your concern that I haven't met the threshhold for over turning the JA based on a violation of the bylaws.  However, you also have to realize that I did not post the entire BOI complaint.  I state in my post that the BOI isn't the point of the post.  It's how USA is responding.

I am quite confidant that I have overcome the threshhold in the BOI complaint.  I also realize that the burden of proof is on me.  This is a quasi legal proceeding.  Something that I I think most people are unaware of.  The bylaws have the force of law.  They are required by the IRS and the state of Missouri.  A violation of the bylaws is a serious offense.  Don't believe that?  A couple of years ago USA spent over 20K in legal fees over a BOI complaint.

USA has been doing it's best to thwart the filing of these charges.  They have already been sent off to be refiled again. 

I find it disturbing how the bylaws are being twisted to fit what the current regime wants.

They wanted a bylaw amendment to force members out of USA.  To get that done, they had to violate the bylaws.  Now that  the violation has been pointed out to them, somehow the bylaws are only a suggestion and it is "intent" that is more important.   Of course we can't prove intent, we're are just supposed to believe them.

I'll believe the facts.

Matt

 Matt, 

Good luck. For as long as I was involved in USA, the board members and officers essentially did what they wanted, how they wanted and when they wanted to. Setting it all up so that few actions can be challenged only served them for the most part. Requiring voting at some national meeting in bum f#$% egypt made it more difficult for the will of the individual member to ever be heard or considered. Many have left the organization for reasons like this, and the JA only added insult. Time will tell whether it was a decisive blow or just got rid of all of us miscreants. LOL

Good luck. I sure hope you make your point, but I won't hold my breath.

one thing i find interesting is that UScA will allow malinois, dutchies, mixes, etc to participate in their all breed wdc competition.  if they are that tolerant of other breeds, why is it such a sin for a gsd owner to belong to more than one gsd organization.  more than a bit hypocrital, if you ask me.  many years ago, i belonged to gsdca before there was ever a wda.  at that time, show dogs were all they were promoting.  not my cup of tea, so i joined usa in order to obtain a scorebook, etc.  after about 2 yrs in the organization i had serious doubts as to whether i wanted to continue with them or not.  after 6 yrs, i let my membership expire.  i spent several years on the fence trying to decide what i should do.  finally, this year, i joined wda.  it was a hard decision for me since there are no wda clubs near me in any direction.  as long as usca continues on their present course (quote hodie)*what they wanted, how they wanted, when they wanted* i will remain with wda.  most of my friends have stayed with usca and i will continue to support them and wish them luck in their trials, but i have no interest whatsoever in dealing with people bent on private agenda.  i guess, if i intend to get any titles on my new puppy, it will mean travel.
i got a bit derailed, but i do think it odd that they are willing to allow other breeds to participate, that obviously belong to other organizations, yet at the same time put restrictions on gsd owners who would like to enjoy the benefits of dual membership.  i cannot appreciate this sort of control and manipulation-----reminds me to much of our current u.s. government.  blah!
pjp

A friend of mine called the USA Hdqts to tell them the person's opinion.  The answer was that the staff person was there and the amendment passed just fine.  That the person had to talk to officers and not them, as they are only staff.  Or the person should write a letter.  That office person was NOT cordial to my friend.

k9nme

i dont get it , its not fair that USA does this, i too am not close to any WDA shows , so i have to stay with USA,.  i hope they change this as i think the  member should decide not them.

Matt,
I don't know you but I want to wish you the best of luck!
We let our membership expire in November after about 20 years of belonging to USA. During these 20 years, we helped organize trials, shows - from club level to regional to national level. I stopped counting the numerous litters we tattoed and hours we spent on the road. My husband gave a couple of conformation handling seminars and I translated many breed surveys, shows and trials - not only for my own club but others as well.
A couple of weeks ago, I checked the USA website because we still get phone calls to tattoo people's litters. I requested with email to have my husband's name as tattooer removed and mine as breed warden and stated that we are no longer members due to the bylaw change but would come back once it was reversed. After a couple of days, I got a cool and short response from Pam Niccum that it will be taken care of. No words of regret, nothing. Pam and I have corresponded on a number of issues over the years. I had expected a bit more from her, very disappointing. The last email I got was from the webmaster Eric(?) with nothing but one word: DONE!!! Very rude!
I hope that more members challenge this bylaw and make their lifes miserable. It is a shame that a few individuals use that organization for their personal agendas and that the general membership and clubs let them get away with it! The only recourse members have now is to fight them like you do, Matt (and I hope that you won't stand alone) and to boycott them by not renewing memberships, staying away from trials and shows (especially the Sieger Show which is a "Johannes Grewe" event anyway). People like that will only listen when the money stops trickling in and their funding is in jeopardy!
Chris