Rottweileronline.net

As stated multiple times in this thread, dogs docked prior to 2012 are grandfathered in, thus frozen semen or eggs may be used.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3125&p=30094&hilit=frozen#p30094

Leo has a tail.

The 2009 GBM tapes were sent to Pam by Dee Hernandez, I have uploaded them to the website EB area and I listened to them. As far as I could tell, nobody declared the meeting out of order. Other EB members can listen as well.

Liz

And...we should believe you???

Sorry. I simply have no words so I used symbols.

According to your words, members may continue to dock litters, breed to docked dogs, up until 2012?

Please clarify if I am misunderstanding this. The website says USRC will enforce members not to dock effective immediately, which, as Keith & Ron pointed out, is in direct violation of all members membership agreements. But you are saying no problem until 2012? USRC members may continue to dock litters without penalty and breed to docked dogs after Januar

Please offer any comments any of you have on this thread. All EB members I named above are active members on this board.

Amanda told me she said several times, quite clearly, to President, the meeting was out of order. I was told he ignored her, so did Secretary who is responsible to know the rules a meeting is to be conducted under. Amanda told me other people also told him the meeting was out of order. She told me he would not listen to anyone.

Amanda’s comments to me are supported by our club delegate, David York, who is a lawyer. He gave a phone call to myself and to our club's president (Susan Peyton) and phoned us from the meeting to tell us items were be addressed were not on the agenda.

USRC is a registered nonprofit society. As such. They are required to follow certain rules when conducting a meeting. One item is the only business that may be conducted at a meeting is business that is listed on the agenda circulated prior to the meeting.

I sought legal opinion on this.

Everything passed as part of President's report was not on any agenda clubs, or people not associated with Wayne's slate had any knowledge of.

When a meeting is out of order. It invalidates the meeting. Only items listed on an agenda may be discussed.

If not listed on the agenda, a Special Board Meeting must be called to discuss the situation. I sought legal opinion on this as well. A Special Board General Meeting can be called electronically. It happened a couple of years ago and items at the GBM were reversed. Clubs must be in support of hosting the electronic meeting to further discuss the items presented.

Clubs must email the Secretary requesting a special general board meeting.

The Victoria and Calgary clubs would be allowed to submit a request as our expulsion happened at the meeting. This was legal opinion I received.

It is interesting to note in the magazine that was just published that Hawaii is in the Southwest Region.

Was insurance on Hawaii and Alaska addressed when the Canadian clubs were addressed at GBM? Alaska is 1,000 miles straight north of us if flying, 1,500 miles north if driving. To the border. We are located 100 miles north of Seattle, Washington. 12 miles from Belingham, USA.

What is most interesting is Alaska is listed as now being in the South Central Region in the latest magazine. Check it out for yourself in the latest USRC magazine. Page 5. Left hand column. Near the bottom where they list states that belong to a particular region.

Guess this must also happened at GBM when regional boundaries were redefined which is in direct violation of USRC bylaws. Alaska must have also be redefined to the SW at the same time.

USRC no longer represents USA. It is a club for central and east primarily but I guess that is why all national shows and trials are held? Impossible to hold an event in a different area if there are no clubs.

And USRC just eliminated two of the most active schutzhund clubs USRC had.

I just found this magazine interesting.

Correction re: GBM minutes

Sorry, I was thinking of 2008. Dee did send the 2009 minutes to Pam, but I have not heard them. I thought we had loaded them to the EB area, but I cannot find them. I will follow up with Pam and make sure that the recording is made available to the EB.

Liz

As stated previously, I categorically refuse to answer yes or no questions. The questions you stated have already been answered repeatedly in this thread. The search function on this board works very well.

Liz

Why? They are one answer questions and they were simple questions. What is the problem? They should be pretty simple to answer, no excuse. Yes or no. None of the blah blah blah blah, excuses....blah blah blah....... They were yes and no questions that I asked and I think I made them clear questions. We will all know what you are answering.

Why cannot you answer yes or no? You are voting after all.

When an EB vote comes up....do you say you categorically refuse to answer yes or no questions?

What other options does EB offer if not yes or no? Do you abstain from all votes? You most certainly voted on my BOI and you were one of my accusers.

Please do not try to tell us how professional you are. Your actions speak quite clearly for themselves.

Question. When Andreas brought charges against Sam. He told me you and Laurie allowed him no input on EB in discussions on the case and he was not allowed to vote.

Given you pointed these rules out to Andreas. I find it surprising that less than one year later, when you are vindictive and after personal goal, the same rules do not apply to you and I have it in writing you pointed the rules out.

There really is nothing to say. Your actions in my case have clearly shown your professionalism. It is on par as current President.

As I said. Birds of a feather due tend to flock together and I heard he has his first judging assignment since ...and we can all fill in the date. What is the club and the location?

This is an error from the website. I just checked and Arkansas is abbreviated incorrectly as AK in the SC region. If you go back to all the magazines which copied from the website, such as the combined issue 4-07 and issue 1-08, you can see the same error on the clubs page. I will correct the website this weekend.

Liz

The BOI requested that Andreas recuse himself from that case. They did that with Samantha in another case. The BOI made no such request in your case and there are no rules which require an officer who has given evidence in a case to recuse themself.

The questions you asked previously have already been answered repeatedly in this thread. The search function on this board works very well.

Liz

Liz. I asked for yes or no. None of the blah blah blah.

Ok. You cannot answer a yes or no question if it could make you wobble off the fence.

Everyone got the point I was making. Probably you did as well. No answer, or the blah blah....is the answer.

They were yes or no questions.

Not difficult. No excuses necessary. Yes or no. You chose not to answer, instead tried to give blah blah blah. Your excuses were the answer.

We all noticed you failed to give yes or no.

Another question. Have you ever just once instructed or gave advice on Sturgis or Paliamentary Procedure. Ok. At what happened in my case, it is the most basic of basics.

You knew the rules as did I not hear somewhere you are studying to become a Parliamentarian? You cannot tell me no way you did not know proper rules.

You chose to use your EB position for your purposes as you were an accuser in the case. You posted on this board your opinion on the data base. I was charged with theft of data base and you did the leg work.

My question was pretty simple.

Did EB vote on the charge I was accused of? Theft of data base?

Not according to ballots. But we all read your opinion.

No way can you say you did not know that the charges brought before EB were not the same charges the accused had been accused of.

No one buys it. Starting with me.

And Troy. When you say I am fighting. I consider being accused of theft most serious. Especially when I deal with trust monies. I also am strongly against prejudice. It is illiegal in Canada and I have been informed by my lawyer it is also illegal in USA. We have not even addressed my BOI case. It is defamation of character. If you do not want to read anymore, skip the posts made by myself.

As I said. Our club carries proably higher insurance than any other USRC club. USRC must carry a special policy to protect EB members when they intentially do something that is considered unlawful in a court of law and this is where the liability issue/insurance becomes important to EB. No policy for D & L liability. No insurance for wrongful actions. It does not matter what country you are in. They could do to another club in the USA and would be facing the same situation.

I can only list what I am given. The error in the clubs section has apparently been there since the inception as it shows up in "your" magazines as well.

Liz

You received a copy of the charges, a copy of the findings and a copy of the EB ballot results. I will not publish those on this forum, but you may feel free to do so as it is your case.

Liz

The insurance policy covering directors and officers of an organization is called "Errors & Omission" policy. I think in all countries they call it the same policy name.

Is this the policy that was discussed at GBM? Many people who voted on expulsion of clubs after a sales pitch on insurance only no one apparently knows what exactly the insurance covered.

There is a reason why legally corporations must present an agenda.

It prevents surprises, which nullifies legal liability.

No item can be voted on, if it is not an item listed on an agenda. And I also got legal advice on this.

Two major items were carried out that were not on the agenda.
- expulsuion of full member clubs
- change of breed standard

Amanda told me she stated quite loudly the meeting was out of order. Did anyone else hear this? There has to be just one person and they have to provide Amanda in writing President was notified the meeting was out of order. Amanda, as her position of vice president, can then call the meeting invalid. But she needs support documentation, meaning a statement from a voting member, that they heard it said to President the meeting was out of order.

The meeting will then be deemed void and the meeting must be rescheduled.

The entire meeting can then be held again, only electronically.

Only items listed on the agenda may be voted on and discussed.

USRC bylaws provide clubs can only be expelled through BOI process. There is no provision for full member clubs to be expelled with no notice and no warning as part of President's report. This just happened.

It is up to the clubs. If everyone is happy and it is just people in my area of the world who see the problem.

The meeting should still be held professionally. A proper agenda must be circulated to all clubs so clubs have an opportunity to talk with their membes and then they make their vote based on education.

For starters. Clubs cannot be expelled and breed standard changed as part of President's Report. These items technically should be listed under "new business".

I am sure there are lawyers on this board. They can correct me if I have said anything that is not proper procedure in how to hold a meeting.

All significant items that are to be voted on must be listed on the agenda.

There was a hidden agenda this past meeting where only certain EB members knew what was planned. This is wrong. It is unprofessional. It is also illegal.

USRC is a registered nonprofit society and I know this for a fact as I have the registration number. They are required to hold their meetings professionally, starting with presenting an agenda to voting members on issues that will be voted on. No notification. An extraordinary general meeting must be called to vote on the issue. This is the law in Canada and also in USA.

Jane

Anja's eggs were not frozen.

Why would an audio of the GB meeting only be made available to the EB? Is not this meeting an open meeting for all? Same with the EB? It may help many members understand how meetings within the USRC are run & if they are able to attend they would be possibly more prepared.

It should not matter who called the meeting motion out of order, but that it did in fact violate Bylaw procedures. It should be reversed, and if charges are in order to discipline those involved then the BOI should be utilized. Are any EB members concerned or doing anything about this? Since many are infact reading these concerns, are any addressing this or just waiting for the tide to pass?

Voting on a case a person was involved in would certainly seem to be a conflict of interests, and not a fair unbiased vote. It does not seem eithical to me, but that is probably just me.

Wrong Jane. D & O insurance is exactly that Directors & Officers. E & O insurance is for professional business' such as mine. They are not the same.

An entire meeting, properly announced and with a quorum, cannot be ruled out of order.

If a person obtains the floor they may ask the chair to rule a MOTION out of order, but in order for that to be valid, the chair, i.e., the president, would need to rule on it.

A point of order can be made without a ruling of the chair, but it needs to be voted on from the floor.

Amanda is perfectly capable of making herself heard. I’m sure that if she intended to make a point of order it would have been heard by more than one person.

The only electronic recording USRC has is of the 2008 GBM which was recorded using a USB recorder that creates MP3’s . The files are not publicly available because they are massive and if we had a lot of people listening to them or downloading through the website we would burn through our bandwidth quickly. I’m sure that if you would like to purchase it and if a volunteer can be arranged who can burn it to CD’s it can be made available. It took me quite some time to upload and I do not have the time to burn copies. I am not sure if Dee’s recording of the 2009 GBM was on tape or electronic media. If it was on electronic media I will upload that as well, if it is on tape, I have no software capable of transferring lengthy recordings to electronic media. Again, if another USRC member has such software and is willing to volunteer their time, that would be great.

USRC officers in the performance of their duties may be asked to give evidence or testimony for BOI's. This does not constitute "involvement". I trusted Lucy Ang, Jane's close friend and breeder, to vote ethically and she trusted me to do that same. We both voted for a letter of censure, nothing more. The problem is that the letter of censure was not just ignored, but willfully violated repeatedly and histrionically.

Liz

What about the EB meeting this past fall?

Sorry, that was in a different file and I didn't notice it. Yes, the 2008 EB meeting is there, but from what I remember it was a little hard to hear.

Liz

Hey Jane, maybe start a thread about you and the USRC. Just every time there is a thread you start with you again... I agree with you and your clubs but every thread you get on leads to you and not the original topic at hand... Believe me I do not like the way the USRC handled the Canadian clubs at all or any of there rules past.. All this not insured crap.. Ok hockey fans there is NHL that has canadian clubs in it? How is that? So it can be done...
There are baseball teams that play in America from canada.... How is that.... to me and many others it was a way to keep votes not going against them... Political... IMO

Liz. You were not at the meeting even though our delegate, David York, advised Susan and myself that Samantha Canuso was phoning you asking for procedure. Our delegate phoned both Susan and myself from the meeting, and advised it was stated meeting was out of order and President pushed forward. David is a criminal lawyer in the real world. I believe very much the words he had to say to me when he phoned me. I have 100% belief his words were correct and he was stating fact. He was present. You were not. David is a member on this board even though he seldom posts. I believe 100% what David had to say to me when he phoned me from the meeting.......BEFORE "new business". He phoned myself and Susan immediatley after President's report. I asked him specifically if President had been told the meeting was out of order and his answer to me was "yes", but he pushed the meeting forward and President would not listen to anyone.

I also heard from someone present at the meeting who I highly respect that the other lawyer present at the meeting, club delegate for SPARK voted against Mr. and Mrs. Canuso and was told to lower his hand by Mr. Canuso as that is not how the club was voting but he did not lower his hand and SPARK voted against expulsion of full member clubs as the voting process such as how it was conducted was not lawful. Mr. or Mrs. Canuso can correct me if what I was told is not what transpired.

Apparently, Secretary's batteries failed in recorder or something. Convenient. I believe someone else came up with tapes but they were not from a recorder on the EB table as the tape recorder on EB table apparently "was not working". This is posted somewhere on this board. Someone can correct me, perhaps Secretary or AOR as they were at the table. Samantha perhaps could also correct what my delegate told me that Samantha was phoning Liz to ask rules of the meeting.

Liz stated she does not like to give "yes" or "no" answers.

Something people should perhaps think about. Many on this board were at the meeting. I am just repeating what my club's delegate told me and I have complete belief to me in that his comments were accurate.

Apparently change of breed standard and expulsion of clubs was contained in the agenda Mr. Canuso had. I believe if people go back on this thread and read posts made by Mr. Canuso that they will learn what I learned from his post. It is a couple of pages back. I just thought when I read it.

Bingo.

It is he says, she says.

You could not answer the question on Sturgis or Roberts Rule and precedent was also set in the Andreas vs Sam case.

Both yourself and Laurie shut him down if he tried to say a word on EB concerning the case or voting. At least this is what he told me. He was not allowed to make any comments to fellow EB members as he was the accuser and he was not allowed to vote. I have high respect for Andreas. Sometimes I may not like the answer he gives, and I worked with him a lot when I made USRC magazine and on other committees. He was most fair. Reasonable. Logical. He did not play politics. He called a spade a spade. He was out for the breed, and the club. Not into personal ego or politics. And yes, he and I had some strong disagreements. Logic prevailed as nothing was personal and it was up to the person disagreeing to provide an argument on the case. It was for the breed, and for the club. Politics were not allowed.

Unfortunately, that is not current situation with what USRC has become. There is no adherence to rules plus new rules can be implemented and enforced at whim of EB with no notification or warning to members.

Given history of when an EB member brought a case against a fellow member and the rules that EB member had to follow.

I find it most surprising that suddenly the rules do not apply as it is yourself who was active in the accusation of the charges.

Perhaps answer this one.

As far as the meeting. You wre not present. Many people who were present are on this board, and active on this thread. Perhaps one of them will speak but you cannot speak on behalf of the club when you were not even there. You would be repeating "heresay" and given you have stated you do not like answering a yes or no question. You really should have no opinion as you could not give a definitive one word answer to a yes or no question.

Just what I think.

I just am confused why you choose to answer questions that concern rules when you fail to answer the question if accusers should be allowed to discuss a case, vote on a case and decide penalty when they are accusers. And cannot answer a yes or no question as to if this is proper and professional conduct. Or answer if an EB member who was active in charges should perhaps tell fellow EB members voting on the BOI that the charges EB was voting on were not the same charges the accused had been levied with. As an active party in the case for accuser, please do not try to tell us you did not know the charges when you introduce you "know" I stole USRC data base.

The question I asked that requires a yes or no answer is

Did EB vote on theft of a data base? This is what I was accused of and the charge I defended. According to printed ballots. This is not what transpired.

Theft is a most serious accusation to make against an individual. It is considered by courts to be far more serious than slander when it can be proven false, and I most certainly can prove the allegation false if it comes to this. It is considered to be defamation of character.

Discrimination is also illegal and USRC was notified my lawyer was expecting a reply. USRC President answered within the time line stating USRC laywers would be sending a response to her. My lawyer received no response. USRC published 2 magazines after my request to advertise a club dog in the club magazine as a club member, and this was long before I was suspended. It is the principal of the situation. Discrimination is illegal. In USA and in Canada.

Liz, you offered opinion. You were not even present as telephone contact is not the same as being present. Oh boy. I do hope for USRC you resign when your term is up as you have publically promised to do so.

Dee Hernandez supplied a backup recording of the entire 2009 GBM. A copy was mailed to me yesterday for uploading.

In the MacKenzie/Mueller case, as I have stated, the BOI disallowed participation by Andreas. "Laurie and Liz" had nothing to do with it. When the BOI received the Charges against Sam, in their findings and recommendations they also charged Andreas. They stated "The BOI recommends all parties involved in this case (chargers, charge-ees, and witnesses
submitting statements) shall be excluded from the discussion and voting on this case. The board is unanimous in the substantiation of charges against both parties." This is shown in Ballot #20-07 published in the magazine.

Melinda, as Secretary told the EB that Andreas, Amanda, Bill and Samantha were excluded from voting. There is no record whatsoever of either Laurie or myself making any statement to Andreas at all. The only post I made regarding this ballot (other than my vote) was to state that if a private forum was needed for discussion I could set one up. It was not requested. Laurie made no posts at all regarding this ballot other than her vote which was sent to Melinda.

Liz

Well I hope liz stays on, she always responds even if its not what some one wants to hear.. her shoes are to big to fill with all the time she spends on here... its just a shame out of all the slate or eb its always her... thanks liz...

That would be spelled McKenzie. Does that void the whole procedure? Please say yes! It was a blast

Well, Sam, since the opinion on this board is that I run USRC and I'm the only one who has argued against that, I renege on my disagreement and absolve you of all sins, past, present and future. Go run amuck, my son

No seriously, Melinda spelled your name right so your life is ruined. I spelled it wrong, can I get a letter of censure?

Liz

Well since I won 525.00 at Bingo tonight, and I'm in a really good mood....no letter of censure. People don't seem to realize that you might want a chance to spend time with your dogs and family, for a change. You've hung in there longer than most. You'll be a hard one to replace.

This was an oversight on my part. Let's try not to forget that we are all human and that people do err from time to time. It was not intentional and as soon as I was made aware of the oversight I requested that Echo be added to the USRC website and published in the magazine as a Gold Merit Award winner.

Have a good night.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner folks.

Whether he is on the papers as a breeder doesnt change the fact that he CHOSE the stud dog

I give Tony the credit for training and titling the dog, but he is not the breeder. If he suggested a stud dog to the breeder, that's well and good, but it doesn't make him the breeder. I'm sure Tony would give credit to the breeder. I don't think he needs others to make claims on his behalf. He's proven himself as a trainer and handler. I wish him the best.

The breeder of Leo was Tony's girlfriend at the time. Both her and Tony contacted me to breed to Rick.

Thanks Samantha for your most professional response as an officer of the club. It is most fortunate for USRC that yourself, your husband and your club hold votes.

How many votes are there? I believe this question is answered earlier on this thread.

Thank you also for processing the paperwork on the gold & 2 silver merit awards I submitted paperwork for months and months ago. The paperwork with the seal arrived in today's mail. I do hope results will be corrected next time the magazine publishes results and my dogs will be listed. Perhaps complete results could be republished? Or, at least, list the dogs missing from the results printed as being "results". I believe Dana's dog also needs to be listed but those are only people from this board and does not represent the USRC membership.

I do apologize for not proofreading my original post.

The question USRC is presently facing is liability of officers. This would be Directors & Officers insurance policy. E & O is for accounting & legal purposes. The statement will be published on anything received from an accountant or a lawyer if it involves anything of monetary value. I put this on financial statements for all corporations where we submit audited statements. I meant to type D & O. Not E & O.
The average policy I have seen for D & O is a $10,000 deductible. As you know insurance, and were an "insurance expert" at the meeting, please let general members know if USRC carries D & O insurance and if a deductible is lower, what is it? The insurance covers wrong doings from officers and directors should a situation come before the courts and there is a question of liability. Please also explain any difference should a suit be filed in Canada or in USA. For example. Should a USRC club located on USA soil have a situation where EB is concerned with Directors & Officers liability due to their actions. What protection does USRC EB have from a USRC club located on USA soil?

Surely this question was asked and addressed at AGM if the subject of insurance was raised.

One would need to know the policy details of what was being discussed in order to make an educated vote.

What is the policy discussed at GBM? The question has been asked many times. No one appears to have the answer yet many were there and many on this board voted.

This should not be a very difficult question to answer and as Steven and Samantha are in the insurance business, and voted, and are active on this thread,perhaps they can expand or point out what is incorrect information?

Please feel free to correct me. Yourself or Steven as you both have posted you sell and are familiar with insurance policies.

Jane

Yes you are right he is a WINNER!
Sam, are surely married to a WINNER!

Mimi

Jane,

First let me say I sell commercial insurance within the states of PA,NJ,DE,CT,NY. Meaning I have licenses for these states. I have been in the insurance business since 1988. I run my own agency that not only carries commercial insurance but personal as well. D & O insurance (directors & officers) would provide coverage based on the policy issued. These policies normally carry a $250 deductible. However your country and how they do business is different then ours. The laws of Canada are much different then that of the USA. Policies that I have issued ask specifically where the business is located because we do not WRITE policies outside the walls of this great country. If you live in Canada you can purchase insurance through a carrier there. But you can surely understand why insurance company's do not want to do business outside of the USA. NO CONTROL. Think about it this way. Lucy's club files a suit against the D&O policy. Investigation pursues and damages paid. Jane's club files a suit and the insurance company asks where your located. Jane's club is located in a foreign country. No coverage provided. This is what will happen. They do not have the resources to deal with problems outside the states. Can you purchase a policy that does. Without a doubt. Lloyd's of London will insure almost any risk. Would it be practical to do such a thing? No. I have issued these policys in the past and my educated guess would be $5000 per year maybe more because of the breed we deal with. Our policy just for my club is $650.00 per year. Now you are talking about D & O for a club that has 500 members. No it would not be sensible IMO to purchase or provide this for anyone outside our borders because of the expense.

Thank you Mimi. I appreciate your sentiment.

So we clearly had options.

You're talking about one of (if not) THE most active USRC clubs. $5000 for insurance could be absorbed via the membership dues. If we have 500 members, that's a $10 increase. 20+ clubs? We could absorb it that way, too. We could set up a paypal section to donate. Show me where the options were explored fairly.

We required a bylaw change to include them. It stands to reason we need a bylaw change to disallow them. Was that done? Was this topic on the agenda? I haven't seen it. Who put their heads together and decided how we can keep the Canadian clubs? I can cearly see who was involved in removing them.

I think the overall ramifications of this were not clear to the voting members (the majority of them - not those in on it to begin with). This climbs the chart and has earned itself a top spot on the To-Do list. It needs to be fixed ASAP. Getting rid of the Canadian clubs is NOT the answer.

I am glad you appreciate it

There are always options regarding the insurance world. However there were no options regarding the IFR membership. The USRC cannot have member clubs from different country's.

But could those Canadian clubs been based here and still trained and held events on there soil? Does any one know how the AKC clubs work for the canadians?

AKC does not recognize schutzhund titles or breed test titles.

The National breed club for USA is American Rottweiler Club, not USRC. ARC dropped its membership with IFR over the tail issue as members were asked for input.

CKC recognizes schutzhund titles but does not recognize breed test titles.

AKC and CKC cannot sanction a schutzhund trial as it would basically be a "fun" match as they have no affiliation with AGZ and AGZ is who writes the schutzhund rules which all organizations follow which gives the organizations their recognition. Given AKC and CKC have no ability to sanction a schutzhund trial, they would not sanction such a trial and if they did, the international schutzhund world will not recognize the titles and the dog would have to redo the test.

My first schutzhund trial was sanctioned by CKC. Most likely the one and only schutzhund trial CKC sanctioned. I have a letter from them from about a year ago saying they do not sanction a schutzhund trials as they have no ability to verify results or provide judges. At the CKC sanctioned trial I participated in, one of the dogs entered was my SchH 2/ABST bitch, I did 2 BH & 2 AD on 2 females. The judge was ADRK Working Judge Martin Hillgemann. I believe he was head trainer for ADRK about that time. The titles were not recognized. It was a "fun" match. To trial at any other organization, the titles had to be redone as no one would recognize them.

Schutzhund rules are complex with regard to clubs and titles different organizations will recognize. For example. GSSCC will not recognize a BH from a DVG trial. USRC will not recognize a BH from an ARV event, nor will GSSCC. I am not sure if USA or DVG recognizes an ARV BH.

All organizations with affiliation to AGZ, no matter what country, recognize each others titles in a dog's score book.

USRC has no affiliation with AKC and it has no affiliation with CKC. The national breed club for USA is American Rottweiler Club.

When IFR were held in USA a couple of years ago, USRC did not sanction IFR trial. My understanding is the IFRs held in Florida a couple of years ago was sanctioned by DVG, not USRC. It is my understanding the time prior to when USA soil hosted IFR that it came close to a riot when it was learned it would be a "fun" match as AKC has no ability to sanction a schutzhund trial. It was discussed on an earlier thread but I believe ADRK stepped in and sanctioned the IFR's in USA for that trial.

Jane

Hey Jane,
Whats AZG??? I'm so lost right now. Too many accronyms to remember. I thought FCI wrote the SchH rules but now I'm confused.

Hi Dana,

AZG stands for Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Zuchtvereine und Gebrauchshundeverbäände. The AZG has the purpose of administrating uniform international Schutzhund rules via the FCI, to ensure inter-club and international conformity, making it possible to hold international trials and competitions in all countries who follow AZG rules.

When AZG makes a rule change, anyone with affiliation to AZG must follow that rule change.

AZG is who writes schutzhund rules for the world.

For example, there is no longer the title of SchH or IPO as AZG wrote the new test called VPG. SchH 3 and IPO 3 were the exact same tests. That is why a dog who was SchH 3 could trial for IPO 3. AZG amalgamated SchH & IPO and the new international test is VPG. One can no longer trial for SchH or IPO. They can only trial for VPG. This is in all countries. The intials/short frame of the title may be written in a score book still by judges as SchH but it is actually VPG. Another example, when AZG changed rules, for SchH 2, old test, dogs ran 6 blinds. IPO 2 ran 4 blinds. VPG 2 runs 4 blinds. Dumbbell weights changes and tracking distances. Those were the biggest changes I noticed when trialing under new rules, when I had trialed under old rules, when VPG rules were implemented a couple of years ago.

You can ask any long time schutzhund person the question - what is the biggest change to schutzhund that you have seen in the past 10 years? The answer will most likely be the same, no matter who you ask.

International recognition from all countries who follow AGZ rules at trials. It is why all schutzhund titles are now internationally recognized, no matter what country one is with, as long as there is affiliation with AZG.

AKC and CKC have no affiliation with AZG. USRC gets its recognition by being a member club of AWDF who is affiliated with AGZ. ADRK and DVG are members of AZG SV is a member of AZG. GSSCC and SchH USA get their recognition through their membership with SV.

Jane

I wanted to also mention AZG was formed in 1956, when several of the breed-specific clubs (led by the SV) and several of the working dog sport associations (such as the DVG) formed the "Association of breed registry and working dog sport clubs" AZG. This is when the organization came into inception.

AKC and CKC have no affiliation to AZG that I am aware of. If they had affiliation, they would have ability to sanction schutzhund trials that would be recognized on the international level.

Jane

Clearly this issue already been decided by the GB. IMO this will never be reversed nor do I believe the clubs would ask for reinstatement. There are to many issues IMO regarding foreign clubs. Most important is the IFR and the issues regarding lawsuits and coverages. Jane will do much better starting her own german style venue and working hand and hand with her countrymen. Samantha and I always enjoy going to the shows in Niagara Falls and would love to see Canada with more options. Best of luck to Jane and others in the future endeavors.

I just have to ask how is ONE ANNUAL EVENT worth kicking out 2 good clubs?

These 2 clubs lost their affiliation with no notice, whatsoever, so that the USRC can represent at ONE ANNUAL EVENT?

Personally, I don't think the USRC will survive long term. Not if they continue to conduct business they way they have the last several years.

As pointed out previously, there is only liability if wrongdoing is done which is the point liability occurs, and it does not matter what country one lives in.

So far, you have provided zero support documentation to statements you make on any issues.

Some questions for you.

Were you aware prior to the start of the GBM meeting of any items passed at GBM that were not on the agenda?

Given you are an officer of USRC, and based on your comments, is USRC going to notify all foreign USRC memberships that foreign memberships are not welcome by USRC? Is USRC planning on making a policy encouraging Canadians (or visitors from other countries) not to visit or provide entries to USRC shows or trials? USRC's mission statement on the main page of its website is But I guess, the club's mission statement also can be changed with no input from members.

The USRC website also states I heard there were no Rottweilers who trialed at this year's AWDF held in the East.

Prejudice is something I have little tolerance for. It is about on par with discrimination.

Jane

Here's what's clear about the issue to me:

We had other options and didn't fully explore them.
We did not inform the membership of the issues being discussed regarding IFR and Canada.
This item was not on the agenda.
The voting members and FM clubs were not properly informed, thus couldn't vote w/full disclosure.
This was deliberately supressed until the morning of the GBM.
The way this was presented did not include the full ramifications to voting members.
This was a decision that was good only for a couple of people and NOT the USRC as a whole.
This is really a way to get rid of Jane masked under the IFR.

This is NOT a done-deal, Steven - not by a long shot. You guys keep talking about liability yet you are doing everything but begging a lawsuit. The US, Canada, England...it's all geography and it does not insulate you form legal recourse. If I want to sue someone in another country I can. People do it every day. We get an enormous amount of Canadian business being so close to the border and lawsuits and the legal framework have never been an issue.

The best thing Jane could do is sit tight and stick to the USRC like glue. This is just as much her club as it is yours. Arguably she has a tremendous amount of time and passion invested in this club, more than most. She has the right to discuss issues that affect her so stop with your haughty dismissals and your BS wishes sending her off. They are inappropriate and insulting.

Very well said, Lauren.

Your post could not be further from the truth....

Wayne Simanovich

Excellent post Lauren!

I heard that somewhere before.

Seriously, I honestly welcome anyone to correct any misinformation they feel I may have and Wayne knows this first-hand. When I say this item was not on the Agenda, I'm talking about on the Agenda that was circulated to all the FM clubs well in advance of the meeting - the one that depicts what business members can expect as per our rules. And while 30+ days is still not a lot of time to discuss the ramifications of disallowing FM member clubs it is much better than springing it on the voting members the morning of the meeting, which is what I understand happened. This item was not on any Agenda circulated to FM clubs that I can find. If it was, please correct me. As far as I can determine, the majority of the voting members were NOT aware of the Canadian clubs getting the axe until the morning of the meeting. Even the delegate for the Victoria club was unaware, left work, flew across the country only to find he has no vote, no voice, no choice.

As I have said before, I feel a decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a far better one, which more accurately reflects the interests and needs of all concerned, than a decision taken with little or no consultation at all. Therefore, it is in the USRC's best interest to welcome discussion, to embrace opinions of the members out in the open where they can freely answer their critics and correct any mistakes or misconceptions, and expound on important issues facing the club. It's our club.

I await paperwork on a number of important issues being discussed. If I am mistaken in any area I will be the first to publicly say so.

Let me make this easy for you Lauren. Liability COVERAGE. Of course anyone has the right to file. We are concerned about COVERAGES involving the USRC and what kind of coverage is available.

Please try not to compare your business to that of the USRC's. What exactly is your business BTW? If I remembe its a B&B but correct me if I am wrong.

I'm not clouding the issue, Steven. I'm discussing what has been happening. You're offering vague support. You say you have certain documentation to back things up but you don't share it. I don't understand why.

Great post Lauren, to me and others the president and the slate have been like magicians, except getting all there acts caught and then try to cover up with more smoke and mirrors... poof poof where did the USRC go will be there big finally.

Lauren,

Again you put your spin on the conversation. What documentation. Insurance is my business. Do me a favor. Call your insurance agent and tell them you bought a B&B in Canada and need to insure it then let us know what you find out.

Well, you got me for a few hrs until we close and I actually have time to wade through the search feature. I know you have mentioned several times that you are in possession of supporting documentation from a high-up in the IFR regarding our affiliation with the IFR and that Canadian clubs must go. When asked to produce it, you refuse. That makes the issues vague and it's you spinning things, not me.

A B&B? That would be a lot less liability than a marina/housekeeping cottage resort w/deli, wouldn't it? Boat rentals make up the bulk the business - HUGE liability there given Lake George is a glacier lake 32 miles long, peppered with rocks and NYS does not require people have a boating license to operate a boat. As I am sure you can imagine - that = a huge liability. How you handle and instruct those people, from the office down to the dock makes all the difference in the world in reducing exposure. Many USRC members (current and former) have stayed with us as guests in our home and in our cottages for the Troy cluster shows. The second deli/mini mart purchased this spring 2 miles south of the marina - not a lot of liability in salads. Husband owns his own electrical contracting business. A lot of liability. What's your point, Steven???

My point is simple: Coverage IS AVAILABLE. You want to limit exposure, follow our rules and don't give members and clubs the ammunition they need to effectively sue our organization. Full disclosure and communication is vital in these instances. This situation was not handled well IMO.

How do others like Coca Cola do it? They are in the US yet in many countries. Has anyone approached them to tell them that they could have big problems regarding their insurance?

Lauren asked for documentation just as many have. As a member she and other members do have the right to: #7 to Inspect official records of the Organization, under Sturgis. Failing to provide this looks like it is a violation of members rights. If this letter was used in the basis for what happened it should be considered an official record thus available to the membership. If not, then it should not brought up when discussing official business as decisions need to be made with factual information. If this was not provided then do you mean to say that people voted strickly on hearsay, and nothing in writing to prove or disprove the statements??

Hi Steven,
Actually, I am quite well versed when it comes to insurance. I find it very interesting that you try to protray yourself as an "expert" but then I guess you must be if you are a broker. I am quite sure people who pay the fee to the broker understand the policies presented to them from a broker as no two policies are the same.

Selling insurance for a living does not make one an expert. Just like owning a titled dog does not make one a dog trainer even though the dog is titled.

You appear to be incapable of providing any sort of documentation to support any statements you make. I just find this most interesting. Why?

I am very capable of reading and understanding an insurance policy as soon as I read it and understand limitations. We are not all "stupid" people just because we do not "sell" insurance. Buyers only know what they are buying when they understand the coverage.

Is your business thriving? Just curious. So far. You cannot give a "yes" or "no" answer when they were yes or no questions asked. I just find this most interesting. Those are not difficult questions to answer, especially when selling a product, such as insurance. Oh....I forgot.....liability...only you cannot spell out where the liability is. Why?

What insurance does your club carry? You have failed to answer when the question was asked point blank so I am asking again. I posted our club's Certificate of Insurance. It is not exactly a difficult question to answer. As an insurance agent, are you checking on clubs who are not covered for bite work (including shows, BST & trials). I know of several who are not covered because they did not disclose bite work being conducted and it is a fact those companies do not cover bite work.

What is being done with these clubs? Just check one of the new clubs and I am sure you will find the answer.

Who is responsible in USRC for checking with insurance agents that clubs are disclosing to brokers bite work is being conducted?

Nondisclosure of bite work to most insurance companies would result in no coverage if bite work is conducted at an event.

You perhaps should concern yourself with this and then concentrate on insurance from wrongdoing of club officers.

Just a suggestion for you.

You have never titled a dog to BH, SchH 1 or BST. Nor has your wife. Has anyone in your club? After all, you have 3 votes out of 16. Just a question when you have input on what is "right" for the breed given the votes alloted to your household. 3 out of 16. And special care is taken to remove 1 or 2 which are the squeaky wheels and who present valid questions.

Experienced people in the breed. All levels.

Until you put a BH on a dog. You have no practical. Try training a dog to SchH 1. You maybe may learn a thing or two about the Rottweiler. Try a BST. You may learn even more.

You are unqualified for your EB position. Sorry. Perhaps if you had a BH behind your name we could all say "go Steven go...." when are you going to try for a BST or SchH 1?

Right.

Lucky USRC.

Jane

Jane,Jane,Jane. Sipping the juice late at night again. I think you meant "portray". I never claimed to be an expert as you try to point out in your post. Especially when you start talking about a foreign country such as Canada. Your laws are much different then ours.

As for your statement regarding my business, how sad! Success in my eyes is not based on money or objects but rather success is the unconditional acceptance of life and what it brings. Think about that statement Jane.

You really need to stop wasting so much energy on these late night posts and utilize that energy to form your own breed club in Canada. Not only will you be a great asset to your countrymen but also to the breed in Canada.

Steven. You are missing a very important point. USRC is as much my club as it is your club. I have belonged to the club since 2000 and have supported the club with a great deal of personal free time, energy and personal money.

To give you an idea. I made 15 issues of the club magazine for the club. Never once put in for a reimbursement. By the way, there is no time restriction for an editor to submit for expenses. Each issue cost me personally approximately $1,500 that USRC never saw a bill for as I did not so much as even put in a reimbursement for a stamp. I would be happy to submit a bill for expenses (and copies of receipts) incurred if EB is wishing to receive one.

Also, entries. I have entered two dogs twice at USRC SchH Nationals. I have entered BST's & ABST's with dogs at USRC National events. I have travelled to two National Sieger Shows on the east coast (South Carolina and New York) to support the shows with entries and have attended National shows on the west coast. During my time as a USRC member, I have never once seen you in the west, let alone with a Rottweiler at the end of a leash.

As you will recall, I met you in person in SC at the GBM. My opinion of you has not changed in the slightest since meeting you in person and watching your treatment of individuals at the event. You still exhibit the same behaviour.

I know you find this a difficult pill to swallow that USRC members reside outside of USA soil. Perhaps, with your 3 votes in your household, work on banning individuals who do not live on USA soil from being members.

As an EB member, your comments are tasteless and most unprofessional.

There are many experienced and knowledgeable people on the east coast who do not have personal agendas, and also people who are not prejudiced against a race or location. It amazes me how you got elected, but it is not really surprising.

Your events are known for altercations. I have read on this board you are often involved, and not as the individual solving the issue. I saw how you acted at the USRC National Sieger show held in South Carolina. So did everyone else.

You do appear to have great difficulty in providing any sort of support documentation to statements you make as being fact. Why?

As far as your prices on insurance coverage. As a broker, you will understand prices come from the underwriter, plus the markup the brokerage firm puts on top. Prices on club insurance can range anywhere from $300 to $1,500, and sometimes the better policy is the cheaper policy.

No one blindly goes out and buys insurance in this day and age without doing homework on finding out what an insurance policy covers and what it does not. Insurance is too big of a deal to most people as we need it on homes, boats, vehicles, recretational propery, business and hobby activities such as dog clubs.

It really is none of your business what time of the day it is when I am awake. Not all of us operate on your clock.



Steven. Your posts as an EB member are not what I consider professional to say the least. Very sad for the organization to have you as one of their spokespeople.

Were you and Samantha not two of the insurance "experts" at GBM when insurance was raised in President's report? Only no one appears to know the policy or coverage even though discussion apparently occured. So if you and Samantha were not the insurance "experts" at the GBM, who were the insurance brokers at the meeting to explain policies to people voting and what companies were they from?

I was forwarded an email written by Samantha where in the email to the president of our club she makes reference to the insurance "experts" at the meeting. Do you want me to post her email? I would be most happy to do so.

Insurance is not much different in USA compared to Canada. For example. Susan Peyton, the president of the club you were instramental in having removed, owns a place in New Mexico and spends 6 months a year in USA. Several other club members own property in USA. They have no difficulty with insurance.

It is obvious it is your opinion USRC should be confined to people who are USA citizens only and who live 100% of the year in USA.

Will USRC be notifying all USRC members who do not live in USA that their memberships are no longer welcome? I do hope USRC's mission statement gets corrected as it presently states USRC is an international organization. Will USRC be notifying Canadian members to NOT enter USRC shows - after all, they do not live in USA.

As I said. Lucky USRC to have an individual such as yourself to represent the organization by holding a position on the EB.

By the way. Our club, which you were instrumental in having removed, has not received the refund of membership dues it paid as a club. We were expelled early May. September is in a few days. Perhaps you can address this on EB? Find out what the delay is? Refund cheques should have been issued immediately, pro rated to the day full member clubs were kicked out with no notice, no warning in the manner in which they were.

You failed to answer the question if you were aware of business being conducted that was not listed on the agenda circulated to clubs. But really. What clubs actually received an agenda with the items discussed and voted on? I have talked to a few clubs. It is starting to appear that Secretary or webmaster, or whoever is responsible for circulating agendas, appears to have missed a whole lot of clubs in the circulation of the agenda. Just a question that perhaps you or Wayne can answer.

There apparently is no need for an agenda. We all just saw Regions can be redefined as part of a President's report where bylaws do state Regional definition can only result from a bylaw change.

Were you a part of this? This is a yes or no answer. It is not difficult to answer "yes" or "no" without all the .......BUT.......

As far as event insurance which apparently some clubs are allowed to carry. What happens if a situation occurs outside of the event? How is USRC protected? This should also be a fairly easy question for you to answer given you do sell insurance.

As usual, Jane, you have a keen ability to take facts and distort them until they are barely recognizable.

1. I could not sell a trailer that I did not have papers for. Once I did have papers for it, it was sold in a perfectly legal manner.

2. I recall you and Steven talking about trailers very clearly, but it was not about you buying our trailer. Steven had inquired about a Sperrin trailer, knew you had one and called to ask you about it. Nothing more, nothing less. I still have the email from you full of information about Sperrin.

3. When we were driving the trailer we had temp tags and insurance on the trailer. We drove the trailer a total of 3 times (from April to June) before the temp tags expired. Once the temp tags expired, since we did not have the papers, we could not register it and therefore it was no longer utilized. The trailer sat in our garage for several years unused and unsaleable while we were waiting for the papers.

4. However, liability insurance was carried on the trailer the entire time we owned it.

Since you are an expert in every topic out there, including insurance, I am sure that there is nothing we could tell you even with our combined 30 + years of insurance experience in both sales and underwriting that you would believe.

In the future please leave me out of your rants and distorted accusations. And please refrain from further unfounded accusations of illegal activity on the part of myself or my husband - especially when it comes to our business activities.

The thing that makes me sad about you Jane is that you are *so* incredibly talented and passionate, yet you waste it on forum board rants! If you took the obvious energy, talent and passion that you have and put that into developing your own USRC-type club in Canada, you'd have an amazing program for your countrymen and breed in Canada. It could be a really amazing program for Canadians and help promote the Sieger venue in yet another country!! However, that energy is used to promote negativity. I simply do not understand such an enormous waste of time, talent and energy and it makes me sad.

Samantha......I have it on tape. Blah blah blah.

I asked you a question. How did you drive a trailer not insurable. Your answer was you switched plates.

Did you ever switch plates on that trailer?

Yes or no....no reason for the blah blah blah. We will all know the question you are answering.

This came to light as we were talking about importing and you told me of the Devlin problem (apparently the importer was not paid duty or whatever so until duty was paid, the trailer was not insurable). Apparently. Andy just went and got the trailer.

This is the story I was told from a couple of people.

Then you told me it was in your garage and you had owned it for 2 years when our conversation was taped. I asked how you drove it. You told me you just switched plates but I would have no problem insurning it in Canada if I were to buy it.

Please correct me if I somehow did not understand fully or got something not quite right.

After all, you and your husband are the "insurance experts" for USRC.

Lucky USRC. The club is most fortunate.

The point has been made very well by yourself, and your husband in particular.

FOREIGNERS not welcome.

USRC is a USA local club confined to USA (and it does not include Hawaii or Alaska).

Rumour is out there so I will state the facts so there is no misconception. Yes, an international organization is forming. Very experienced Rottweiler people involved. I am the person with the least experience on the committee and also I am not a breeder.

It will be an international organization. Ability to hold recognized schutzhund trials, shows and breed tests. Member clubs will be invited. We will be international and will follow international rules (schutzhund and show). We are hoping to have things set up in the next year.

I put so much time and energy into USRC as I actually used to believe USRC was an international club. Steven just clearly pointed out that I was wrong and told me to stay out of USA.

Did I misunderstand something? I do not think so. I believe my club recieved the message USRC was sending us loud and clear.

No outsiders welcome. We only like people who live 100% in USA and live in our area.

We have started work on the new organization and have help and support from officials at high schutzhund levels.

Samantha, Steve and Wayne. I wish you much success with your club. You have made the club exactly what your idea is.

I do hope you can come up with 4 dogs each year to send to IFR. Perhaps you should concentrate with trying to come up with a team to compete in USA for AWDF.

I was invited by president. He asked me to attend 2 weeks before the meeting. It was too short of meeting. Apparently USRC sent a delegate, only no dog. Steven was delegate.

Wonder what people thought of him

Thank you Samantha for finding the time to process my Gold Merit and two Silver Merits. I appreciate your time. I hope USRC Magazine can publish semi accurate results next magazine as I expect the results to be listed. Dana's dog also needs to be listed....as well as Susan's dogs and Angela's dog. If results are to be published. At least an effort should be made to publish correct results and it is not like there has not been enough time.

Results are an organization's credibility. During my term as USRC editor. The magazine published complete and accurate results. But that is just my standard, not necessarily the club's. I would refuse to publish something that was not correct, or verifiable, and as many clubs know where I had problems with results with.

They knew where I stood and my position. I only would publish accurate results.

Not at all the case apparently and I an stating this as I just find it surprising that my 3 dogs (probably given handler) were missing from results.

They were Rottweiler results. Paperwork submitted. Apparently Samantha was "busy" or did not verify results published.

If not true. Someone offer an explanation.

I just am so very sad as USRC is a club I put my all into as it was an organization I believed in and supported fully. At the time. I did not realize they were prejudiced as to what country one lived in. I thought one just had to be a member. Apparently not true. You must be buddies with people on EB and it is very helpful to you, and your club, if you happen to live in main part of USRC.

I just received the new USRC logo as the club hosting the National Sieger show is doing an ad in this latest magazine. Apparently, Alaska and Hawaii are not part of USA. According to the logo, one could assume this. Those states are not on the log. Does not USA also have states that are not really a state?

I received a subscription from someone and they were upset as I charged international postage. Lucy is who told me USA has states who are not reall states but they are part of USA.

Perhaps Steven could address this.

What makes me so very sad on USRC. Take a look at clubs. No region but east coast has full member clubs. This means EB has not only control of EB business but on regional business as EB elects the clubs. Check out the map.

USRC is no longer a club for USA.

It is a club for the east border. It represents very little otherwise. They just eliminated the two most active clubs in the northwest region in the manner they chose to do so.

It is very sad. Makes me wish I could take back the free time I spent on the club as no way is what the club presently anything I would have supported with my time and I put a few years of personal free time into the club. I no longer believe or support the club such as it has become.

I feel I have wasted the last 4 years of all my free personal time as I was always working to USRC.

Steven pointed out. Difference of countries. Told me to concentrate my efforts to Canada. I should have. Hindsight is a fine thing.

Time is precious to us all. We only have just so much time.

I am very sad for USRC. I do not think what has happened to the club is repairable.

Recording phone calls without the other parties knowledge or consent, shows not only a lack of character, but is not legal in most places. Why you'd put it out there in public that you engaged in such activity is beyond me.

And, why in God's name would you have a need to record such an innocuous phone conversation? Really? Frankly that concerns me about your stability, my safety and the safety of my family as far as you are concerned.

The tag used was perfectly legal. The tag from our old trailer was used to temporarily register the new trailer so it could be driven - i.e. a temp tag. When the temp tag expired and we still did not have the paperwork we needed to register the trailer permanently, we had to stop driving the trailer, which we did.

Second *switching plates* as you state would require two tags. The trailer certainly did not come from Germany with a tag on it. It had a temp tag, but never a permanent tag for the reasons stated above. There was only ever one tag.

We drove the trailer a total of three times between March 2006 and May 2006 - ECRK show in March, USRC Nationals in April and then Canada in May. After that it sat in our garage for several years while we were trying to get the paperwork for it.

The trailer was insured properly and legally during the entire time we owned the trailer.

However, I don't really see how any of this is your business.

Again, I ask you politely to cease your accusations against us both personally and professionally. I may turn my head at what you say about me privately, but I will not turn my head when your public distortions could affect our family business and way of life.

Samantha. You and your husband are "buddies" with President. Three votes in your house. I have said nothing incorrect.

You offered a dog trailer to me for sale. You told me you switched plates when you had to mention the registration problem. Both yourself and your husband like to tell people you sell insurance.

I expect insurance brokers I deal with to be very experienced in the area I am asking for quotes on insurance on and I have a lot of different areas that I request insurance coverage on.

You could answer. I believe I asked one word answer questions. Yes or no. Not very difficult.

Yes, I often do not proofread. When I make a statement. I have some sort of backup material. Never would I put false plates on that trailer and drive it. There would be no insurance in the event of a situation.

You are who offerered this information that this is what you did. I was in shock when you said it.

So maybe I got it wrong.

Simple question.

Did you ever put false plates on a trailer and drive it?

You sell insurance after all. It is a yes or no answer.

Maybe I misunderstood what you said in our phone conversation.

I got the numbers wrong on EB....not all that wrong. You are one up on your husband as you have put a BH on a dog. Still not BST or SchH 1...I know......all these family issues you like to tell people about to make us all feel sorry for your volunteer position. I meant to say EB members how have put BH, SchH 1 & BST on a dog in the past 5 years.

Everyone do the math. I think you will come up with the same number as me. My numbers were not all that wrong when I posted numbers. I think we just would need 1 hand. There are 16 votes.

That is why what has happened to the club has happened to the club this past year. It is easy to see. No practical. No theory. People in it for egos for the most part. Where are they in show or work? Ok....Erika belongs to Laurie's club in Colerado and Erika lives a few hours from me. Never has she supported a USRC event at our club with her attendance. But she is a club member of the Colerado club and I really doubt that is drivable in one day but a requirement is an EB member must belong to a full member club. Her club has been in forming, this is below provisional (meaning you are attempting to hold a sanctioning event) since 2000. Erika is head breed warden.

When is the last time anyone saw our head breed warden trial a dog or attempt a BST on a dog?

Maybe we would see Steven at the same trial.

So life is busy. Children. We just lost a baby......I lost 3 all together. Did I tell the world? Probably not. I probably never went near a computer. I think I just layed on the couch and cried. No energy for anything else. Yes it is a heartbreaker when someone miscarries. It also has no business on a dog board. I think I cried a month straight every day with the loss of my last one. I could not move for the couch more than a week and all I could do was cry. It was a human problem, not a dog problem. When our human problems enter such that focus is not unbiased on the dog it is time to take a break and work on what is present reliaty. If part of a dog board, or part of dog club. Apparently you have the time and focus. If not. Step down. Very qualified people, both in data bases and the Rottweiler would probably jump at it.

Oh oh. Not known to the EB such as it. Discounted. We need to find someone in our cirlce, someone who "thinks" like us.

If incorrect. How on earth did your husband ever get elected to an EB position?

We can see you as you presented a resume as to your paperwork skills.

Your husband. Oh my.

I saw your husband what he was the instant I met him and I was expecting positve outside of the keyboard. You would be welcome and encouraged to train at our club. Your husband showed up. We would tell him all the clubs out there that would be maybe more suitable to him.

With insurance. You are who told me you switch plates. If you did not say this to me.

Please post it.

I will provide support documentation proving otherwise.

You are an elected official of the club.

Please do not preach to me. USRC currently led by the slate of which you are a member. So is your husband.

I have no doubt in my mind both of you knew of the agenda that no one else did.

I have no sympathy for you.

Your conversation to me was taped by accident. The machine had kicked in when I answered and I did not stop it. Nothing illegal in this.

I just stated a comment you made that I have on tape.

Either you made it or you did not.

If you did not, point out I am totally in error.

No way could you have said that.

Right.

Lucky USRC. They have yourself, your husband and current President as some of our leaders. Most ethical, unbiased and unprejudiced individuals. Most open to club growth.

Jane

Jane, could you please kindly clarify what show/trial and dogs are you referring to? As you know, results are only as good as what is submitted. I can only verify what is submitted. If you would kindly provide the information, I can look into this. If an error was made it will be corrected.

And in all fairness, you worked with me and know how much time was spent verifying and chasing down results and paperwork for events - its the reason two previous AoRs resigned.

And please do not insinuate that you were ever treated differently by me, or that I purposely held results or awards were back from publication in the capacity of AoR. That is categorically untrue. I have striven to be professional and courteous to you in the capacity of AoR...even now I harbor no malice or ill will towards you despite your constant attacks.

Now, I am off to far greater endeavors - playing Mr. Potato Head with my daughter.

Have a good night!

You are Adminstrator of Records. All paperwork is sent to you. Check out the results published in USRC Magazine. You have all paperwork. You should be able to figure it out from there.

Jane, I am trying to help. You stated that results were incorrectly published that did not reflect your dogs accomplishments. If this is the case, I will personally see it is rectified. When Echo's GMA award was inadvertently left off the website, I admitted the error and had it corrected as I would for any other USRC member.

I need a little help from you so I am not looking for a needle in a haystack. If you could kindly email me the show/trial and dogs you are talking about, then I will absolutely look into it and request it be corrected if indeed there was an error.

Please help me, help you!

You're welcome, Jane and thanks. I requested the results to be listed. Dana's dog was included as were Susan and Angela's dogs. Gwen and Karen emailed me with corrections and I am getting updated forms out to them this weekend. All awards as well as any subsequent corrections were sent to the Web Committee and the Magazine Committee requesting publication. I already see the awards were updated on the website.