League Affiliation - Page 1

Dave, Of many questions put, not one met with reply. It’s clear that Agreement gives the means, with the right voting set-up, for BSA to control League, now or hence - including future direction, appointment of Council Members, BC/KC recognition and WUSV member vote or, at the least, to greatly influence these and other matters. And that’s to ignore the various ways that BSA : League voting ratio is open to ‘rigging’ and other future manipulation. The ostensible purpose and sole reason given for entering into Affiliation Agreement is to provide only specific dog training. But, the ratified arrangement goes well beyond ‘affiliation’ (if even such a formal tie is at all essential to provide this training) and despite advice that ‘bandwidth’ (?) is precious and you regretfully made yourself this affair’s public face, I think this crucial ‘anomaly’ demands and deserves an explanation. Or, why was it necessary to make the BSA members also members of League? (How’s about leaving off with all the antics just this once?)

Dave You promoted yourself as being this scheme’s architect and used this forum to tout it and repeatedly directed any inquiry to your personal Videx Website (as if it meant anything!). Maybe League Secretary or BSA’s could explain that to begin with! If the whole thing isn’t shonky why hide now behind referrals only intended as dead-ends. And why premeditatedly deprive League members of their right to vote or comment on these crucial issues in the first place? But, say the BSA Board wanted you for League’s Chairman. They’d merely need to put the word out to its League voting members that you’re ‘our man’, urge them to attend League’s general meetings en masse and, you’d be well on your way! The same applies if they sought to remove a Council Member who happened to oppose their objectives. And for any resolution they sought to pass or oppose. That’s the immediate scenario only and ignores the ways by which the voting power of BSA within League may be boosted or ‘adjusted’ in the future. And please don’t assert, if only as seen in light of recent history, that the BSA Board will forgo this golden opportunity – one handed to them on a silver platter at no cost whatsoever! It was they that drafted up the Agreement! (Your suggestion to contact BSA Secretary alone therefore borders on the ludicrous!) This scenario is the direct result of adding BSA Membership to that of League, an outcome completely superfluous and gratuitous to avowed aims of providing training services! This doesn’t deserve a proper answer!!?

Whenever you're ready, Dave.

League/BSA deal is a self-evident sham and contrary to member interests. Their welfare is harmed in order to allow furthering of Council Members’ personal agendas. They actively conspired to deny members their right to vote on these decisions and so abrogated all sense of ‘member mutuality’. It’s also clear that Council, despite its first duty to act in their interest, prefers to mislead its membership. It’s thus become self-defeating to be a member at all! Catch-cries as CHOICE, NOT COMPULSION or PROGRESS are mere deceitful, meaningless nonsense. No new training ‘choice’ is intended or offered and the affiliation/merger with BSA is completely superfluous to these ostensible objectives. It’s apparent that merger’s real intent, and in that BSA’s interests expediently coincide with those of Major Kennel Council Members, consists of giving a real measure of control over the affairs of League to the BSA Club. And it does so at the expense of League’s original members! Adoption of schutzhund-styled training and any BSA alliance are separate matters and, if only for sake of validity, acceptance and proper due process demand formal KC/BC approval as followed by individual adoption at a general meeting of members. With this de-facto takeover ‘ratified’ to the exclusion of those affected and with new BSA voting bloc ‘on side’ for next AGM, Council Members will think themselves on sure footing. I therefore urge original League members to support a ‘no confidence’ motion at next AGM so that current Council Members may be replaced by persons fit to represent interests of entire membership. That all BSA members be excluded from attendance and that Affiliation Agreement be permanently rescinded. The separate issue of WUSV schutzhund adoption may then be carried forward for due future consideration. As many know, these doings partly transpired because League happens to represent one half of the WUSV member vote (the sole reason for BSA’s is involvement!). It’s time that issue was resolved as well. (Simply disbanding League offers real ‘progress’!)

Hi Something is very strange about this thread. You seem to be replying to yourself or am I wrong? I cant remember your exact phasing but you seemed to suggest that the BSA hold some kind of power over the league following this affiliation. That's exactly the opposite of how I read it. Best Chris