# Another USCA Takeover Attempt of AWDF



## Christopher Smith

So USCA is at this nonsense again. They are trying, once again, to push an agenda that would give them control of the AWDF. Why? Why do they want to do this? The AWDF have given them EVERYTHING they have asked for in the last few years. So what will they do with this new power if we allow this proposal to go through? What more will they get that they are not getting now? How does anyone else gain anything other than USCA? The AWDF was created for the betterment of working dogs; not for the benefit of one greedy self-centered breed club. How does this help dogsport in America? Instead of protecting and building our dogsport community the AWDF is spending it's time on this crap. This truly shines a light on the lack of leadership within the AWDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From the AWDF Executive Board:

The Executive Board has been studying possible changes in the voting structure and membership dues for AWDF. At this time in light of the economic times and not wanting to create a financial hardship for any of the member clubs, the Executive Committee would like to propose the following voting structure change only.

The current Dues Structure is $300.00 per club plus 0.75 per member. The Executive Committee is not proposing any changes in the dues structure.

Club - Membership - Dues

1) Federation of American Bulldog - 22 - $316.50

2) Wording Dutch Shepherd Association - 26 - $319.50

3) American Working Black Russian Terrier Association - 27 - $320.25

4) Working Riesenschaunzer Federation - 42 - $331.50

5) Working Pitbull Club of America - 45 - $333.75

6) North American Working Bouvier Association - 69 - $351.75

7) Hovawart Club of North America (Guest - Non Voting) - 109 - $381.75

8) United States Boxer Association - 121 - $390.75

9) American Herding Breed Association (Guest - Non Voting) - 135 - $401.25

10) United States Rottweiler Club - 140 - $405.00

11) United States Mondioring Association - 188 - $441.00

12) American Working Malinois Association - 216 - $462.00

13) Cane Corso Association of America (Guest - Non Voting) - 300 - $525.00

14) United Doberman Club - 324 - $543.00

15) LV\DVG America - 872 - $954.00

16) United Schutzhund Club of America - 3645 - $3,033.75

Total = 6281 - $9,510.75

The Executive Committee is proposing the voting structurebe changed to 1 vote for every 400 members. Below is a chart indicating the number of vote per total membership number.


0-400 1
401-800 2
801-1200 3
1201-1600 4
1601-2000 5
2001-2400 6
2401-2800 7
2801-3200 8
3201-3600 9
3601-4000 10
4001-4400 11

The following is the breakdown for votes at the current membership rate:

USCA = 10 Votes
DVG = 3 Votes
All remaining clubs would receive I vote =11 Votes
Directors at Large = 3 Votes
Executive Board = 4 Votes

Total Votes = 31


----------



## Bob Scott

"What more will they get that they are not getting now"?

More power! Some can never get enough.


----------



## Christopher Smith

BTW, the USCA officials are now claiming that they have noting to do with this and the executive board did this to somehow cure budget shortfalls. Do any of you see how giving USCA more votes is going to bring in more income or cut spending?

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## patricia powers

since i am not a competition person & really don't know what i am talking about, i will pose this as a question rather than a statement:
i heard that the awdf was no longer considered a qualifier trial for the wusv. is that true & could it possibly have something to do with this?
pjp


----------



## Jim Engel

Christopher Smith said:


> BTW, the USCA officials are now claiming that they have noting to do with this and the executive board did this to somehow cure budget shortfalls. Do any of you see how giving USCA more votes is going to bring in more income or cut spending?
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App



You mean the Al Govednik first class travel fund is running low?

It would be really, really interesting to know what percentage of AWDF 
funds wind up in the Govednik pocket...


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Jim Engel said:


> You mean the Al Govednik first class travel fund is running low?
> 
> It would be really, really interesting to know what percentage of AWDF
> funds wind up in the Govednik pocket...


I guess the donations to the Hexe fund are drying up ? :-(


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Christopher Smith said:


> BTW, the USCA officials are now claiming that they have noting to do with this and the executive board did this to somehow cure budget shortfalls. Do any of you see how giving USCA more votes is going to bring in more income or cut spending?
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


The AWDF officers and EB are dominated by UScA members. I call bull shit on any claim that UScA isn't behind the proposed change. HTF does giving UScA more votes/power make up for
a budget shortfall ? The AWDF is supposed to be a club with all breeds represented equally NOT the biggest bullying the rest. They've already turned the team competition into another trial dominated by GSD's.


----------



## Christopher Jones

Why would a breed club such as USCA want to have a controlling position in a all breeds organisation such as AWDF?
Is it something to do with AWDF having FCI affiliation?
What could the USCAmgain from it?


----------



## Jim Engel

Christopher Jones said:


> Why would a breed club such as USCA want to have a controlling position in a all breeds organisation such as AWDF?
> Is it something to do with AWDF having FCI affiliation?
> What could the USCAmgain from it?


The only thing that really matters is control over who can go to the FCI IPO championships.

Other than that AWDF means essentially nothing.


----------



## John Sequino

Who cares about voting, why is USCA paying so much for dues in comparison to the other clubs? That's a lot of dues money. Why isn't the total spread even over all the clubs?


----------



## Christopher Smith

John Sequino said:


> Who cares about voting, why is USCA paying so much for dues in comparison to the other clubs? That's a lot of dues money. Why isn't the total spread even over all the clubs?


All the clubs pay the same amount $300 plus .75cents per member. This is the structure that was was voted for by USCA!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

What is the AWDF status with FCI--guest or contract partner? Given that the agreement with AKC is it realistic to think they will ever be anything other than a "guest?" AHBA [American Herding Breeds Association] has [non-voting?] guest status with AWDF but pays like everyone else under the dues structure. Currently, how does AWDF participate in FCI trials and how does the latest --non-qualifier status--affect that?

T


----------



## Frank Phillips

Chris

I find it disappointing that you, the VP of the AWMA would make accusations / assertions on the internet, in multiple forums, without facts to back up said claims. If you would have called me or Jim to discuss, we’d have been happy to answer your questions and provide you facts of this situation. If "_The AWDF was created for the betterment of working dogs; not for the benefit of one greedy self-centered breed club”_ as you state, and you truly care about improving relationships and solving problems, I respectfully ask that next time, you approach us to get the facts. Your chosen approach promotes divisiveness and infighting, not cooperation.
<O</O
These are the facts:
<O</O
1. Last March USCA approached the AWDF to modify the dues structure as USCA feels it is unfair for one club to provide 20-30 times the services and pays 10 times what most other clubs pay, yet has the exact same say in how things are run in the organization.<O</O

2. The AWDF formed a committee to look into this (I was USCA's rep on this committee)<O</O

3. USCA (myself) proposed that each club _pay equal amounts and receives equal votes_ - $600 per club and all clubs get 1 equal vote. The $600 number came from total dues collected last year divided by number of clubs (i.e. to meet past budget income).<O</O

4. The proposal was modified during a conference call to include a "non-voting" membership for $300 rather than lose some smaller clubs that could not afford $600.<O</O

5. This modified proposal was _unanimously_ supported by all members on the committee.<O

6. It was pointed out that if some clubs drop out, or choose the "non-voting" membership, there would be a deficit in revenue that would need to be made up somehow. The options proposed included raising the $600 or cutting the budget.<O</O

7. A treasurer’s report was sent out to all. Members were asked to review and offer specific suggestions on where to cut the budget. After 3 months of review, no suggestions were made in writing (some ideas were bounced around on a conference call but I don’t think they made it to the EB).<O</O

8. The EB was sent the committee’s recommendation.<O</O

9. The EB is elected to act in the best interest of the AWDF (not an individual club).<O</O

10. The EB contacted USCA and said they did not believe that the proposal would generate enough revenue for the AWDF to prosper and asked if USCA would still be willing to pay 10 times what the other clubs do if there was an adjustment in voting structure (All organizations I know of - WUSV, police unions, fire unions pay dues based on membership numbers and have voting strength based on membership numbers so that each member is represented equally).<O</O

11. USCA answered “yes” as long as the formula was fair – *our preference would still be all pay the same and all get one vote.*<O</O

12. A conference call is now scheduled for this evening to discuss.<O</O


----------



## Jim Engel

Frank,
I have in fact been in contact with Jim Alloway about these matters.

He needs to decide and indicate if he is going to support Al Govednik
as continuing AWDF president, which will tell us what he really 
stands for.

What you say is to the best of my knowledge true, but it is only half
of the truth.

The simple fact of the matter is that USCA is not an independent
organization, is a client or agent for the SV, which is not a working
dog organization, it is a show dog organization. 

AWDF is under the control of German show dog people, and can not
and will not serve other interests.

Other than DVG - America, which is legally a German organization on
American soil, none of the other AWDF clubs are serious about protection
style work.

There are no other AWDF organizations with the same values and interests
as the AWMA in AWDF, and to pretend otherwise is silly. AWMA is alone
and without friends, but it is on the right path.

So the real question is not whether the AWMA is going to be raped, it is
about the details of the process, the result is the same. The overseer
may be nice or he may be brutal, but you are still a slave until you
break the bonds of slavery. And the overseer, USCA in this case, does
not have any choice, if he does not do as told, by the SV, he will be cast
aside.

But in the end, this is worse for USCA than AWMA, because in the end
you still must suck up to the German Show dog element which has
control of the SV. You are watching it destroy your breed, and you
are busy doing your part, transforming USCA into 
SV Distribution America, GmbH. 

AWDF is a farce and a joke.
You know that, and I know that.
The only thing it has is the control of
who goes to the FCI-IPO championships,
the selection process.

Ultimately, the choice is between ongoing domination
by the European show dog establishment, or putting on
our big boy pants and running American working dog affairs
by and for Americans.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Frank Phillips said:


> Chris
> 
> I find it disappointing that you, the VP of the AWMA would make accusations / assertions on the internet, in multiple forums, without facts to back up said claims. If you would have called me or Jim to discuss, we’d have been happy to answer your questions and provide you facts of this situation. If "_The AWDF was created for the betterment of working dogs; not for the benefit of one greedy self-centered breed club”_ as you state, and you truly care about improving relationships and solving problems, I respectfully ask that next time, you approach us to get the facts. Your chosen approach promotes divisiveness and infighting, not cooperation.
> <O</O
> These are the facts:
> <O</O
> 1. Last March USCA approached the AWDF to modify the dues structure as USCA feels it is unfair for one club to provide 20-30 times the services and pays 10 times what most other clubs pay, yet has the exact same say in how things are run in the organization.<O</O
> 
> 2. The AWDF formed a committee to look into this (I was USCA's rep on this committee)<O</O
> 
> 3. USCA (myself) proposed that each club _pay equal amounts and receives equal votes_ - $600 per club and all clubs get 1 equal vote. The $600 number came from total dues collected last year divided by number of clubs (i.e. to meet past budget income).<O</O
> 
> 4. The proposal was modified during a conference call to include a "non-voting" membership for $300 rather than lose some smaller clubs that could not afford $600.<O</O
> 
> 5. This modified proposal was _unanimously_ supported by all members on the committee.<O
> 
> 6. It was pointed out that if some clubs drop out, or choose the "non-voting" membership, there would be a deficit in revenue that would need to be made up somehow. The options proposed included raising the $600 or cutting the budget.<O</O
> 
> 7. A treasurer’s report was sent out to all. Members were asked to review and offer specific suggestions on where to cut the budget. After 3 months of review, no suggestions were made in writing (some ideas were bounced around on a conference call but I don’t think they made it to the EB).<O</O
> 
> 8. The EB was sent the committee’s recommendation.<O</O
> 
> 9. The EB is elected to act in the best interest of the AWDF (not an individual club).<O</O
> 
> 10. The EB contacted USCA and said they did not believe that the proposal would generate enough revenue for the AWDF to prosper and asked if USCA would still be willing to pay 10 times what the other clubs do if there was an adjustment in voting structure (All organizations I know of - WUSV, police unions, fire unions pay dues based on membership numbers and have voting strength based on membership numbers so that each member is represented equally).<O</O
> 
> 11. USCA answered “yes” as long as the formula was fair – *our preference would still be all pay the same and all get one vote.*<O</O
> 
> 12. A conference call is now scheduled for this evening to discuss.<O</O


Gish Gallop: named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. 

I know very well what the facts are. You seem to be the one that has a sketchy recollection. I noticed that you left this out of your timeline of events. I wonder why? 

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f38/awdf-take-over-attempt-22957/


----------



## Frank Phillips

Chris 

you can go back 2 years, 10 years, 15 years all you want. You make inuendoes that what i have written is false, half-truths and a lie. Please back up your claims and show me where what I have written about this time line leading up to this conference call with this admin is not corerect.... Here is a hint, I have emails, meeting minutes to back up everything I wrote here.

I bet you don't, because you can't. what I wrote is the truth and factual of the events we are discussing and they have nothing to do with what was proposed 2 years ago before we took office.
Your opening statements are a flat out lie and the intent is to make people angry and devide the clubs in AWDF.

It's too bad you can't be man enough to admit when your wrong and you need to keep twisting, distorting and deflecting to events that happened 2 + years ago and can't stay on topic.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Frank Phillips said:


> Chris
> 
> I find it disappointing that you, the VP of the AWMA would make accusations / assertions on the internet, in multiple forums, without facts to back up said claims. If you would have called me or Jim to discuss, we’d have been happy to answer your questions and provide you facts of this situation. If "_The AWDF was created for the betterment of working dogs; not for the benefit of one greedy self-centered breed club”_ as you state, and you truly care about improving relationships and solving problems, I respectfully ask that next time, you approach us to get the facts. Your chosen approach promotes divisiveness and infighting, not cooperation.
> <O</O
> These are the facts:
> <O</O
> 1. Last March USCA approached the AWDF to modify the dues structure as USCA feels it is unfair for one club to provide 20-30 times the services and pays 10 times what most other clubs pay, yet has the exact same say in how things are run in the organization.<O</O
> 
> 2. The AWDF formed a committee to look into this (I was USCA's rep on this committee)<O</O
> 
> 3. USCA (myself) proposed that each club _pay equal amounts and receives equal votes_ - $600 per club and all clubs get 1 equal vote. The $600 number came from total dues collected last year divided by number of clubs (i.e. to meet past budget income).<O</O
> 
> 4. The proposal was modified during a conference call to include a "non-voting" membership for $300 rather than lose some smaller clubs that could not afford $600.<O</O
> 
> 5. This modified proposal was _unanimously_ supported by all members on the committee.<O
> 
> 6. It was pointed out that if some clubs drop out, or choose the "non-voting" membership, there would be a deficit in revenue that would need to be made up somehow. The options proposed included raising the $600 or cutting the budget.<O</O
> 
> 7. A treasurer’s report was sent out to all. Members were asked to review and offer specific suggestions on where to cut the budget. After 3 months of review, no suggestions were made in writing (some ideas were bounced around on a conference call but I don’t think they made it to the EB).<O</O
> 
> 8. The EB was sent the committee’s recommendation.<O</O
> 
> 9. The EB is elected to act in the best interest of the AWDF (not an individual club).<O</O
> 
> 10. The EB contacted USCA and said they did not believe that the proposal would generate enough revenue for the AWDF to prosper and asked if USCA would still be willing to pay 10 times what the other clubs do if there was an adjustment in voting structure (All organizations I know of - WUSV, police unions, fire unions pay dues based on membership numbers and have voting strength based on membership numbers so that each member is represented equally).<O</O
> 
> 11. USCA answered “yes” as long as the formula was fair – *our preference would still be all pay the same and all get one vote.*<O</O
> 
> 12. A conference call is now scheduled for this evening to discuss.<O</O


Frank,

What 20-30 times the services? There is ONE AWDF trial per year. If you mean there are more UScA trials and judges? That as nothing to do with AWDF and everything to do with the size of UScA. Is the AWDF about all breeds being represented equally or the biggest group having more votes/power ?


----------



## John Wolf

I don't see the big deal about any of this. The people who contribute the most dues generally get the most say in any organization. That's how life works. If the AWMA or any other breed club wants more say, perhaps they should grow their organization, have more trials, recruit more judges, establish more clubs, etc. The AWDF is not a USCA run charity, they have an interest in getting a return on their money. (I am currently not a member of either organization and have been a member of both in the past)


----------



## Christopher Smith

Jim Engel said:


> There are no other AWDF organizations with the same values and interests
> as the AWMA in AWDF, and to pretend otherwise is silly. AWMA is alone
> and without friends, but it is on the right path.


Thanks Jim! I'm really happy that someone like you that has been in the sport for decades and understands the history of working dog organizations in the US gets what we are trying to do. 

I have been with the AWMA since the beginning. And although we are a Malinois club, we do everything possible for the betterment of ALL working dogs. We are not out to send our board members all over the world at our members expense. We are not out to nickle and dime the working dog people to death with crazy extra fees like scorebooks stamps, extra fees for non members, fees for sending things to Europe and dog registrations that are not worth the paper they are printed. We don't hold shows that bring in a ton of cash. None of that BS helps working dogs in the slightest. And at $35 a year membership dues we are the least expensive club to join in the AWDF. It's not the easy way, but I think it's the right way for the working dog. 
-----
Someone once asked me, 'Why do you always insist on taking the hard road?' I replied, 'Why do you assume I see two roads?'
- Unknown


----------



## Thomas Barriano

John Sequino said:


> Who cares about voting, why is USCA paying so much for dues in comparison to the other clubs? That's a lot of dues money. Why isn't the total spread even over all the clubs?


John,

UScA pays more because they have more members and the dues structure (approved by all member clubs including UScA)
is based on membership. UScA pays more so more of its members can compete at the AWDF "team" championship and have access to the FCI Worlds. Isn't the fact that 3/4's of the AWDF entries are GSD's enough bank for your buck? I don't see the AWMA bitching that they pay more then DVG (or is it visa versa?) or either bitching that they pay more then the UDC or the bull dog club ?


----------



## Frank Phillips

Thomas Barriano said:


> Frank,
> 
> What 20-30 times the services? There is ONE AWDF trial per year. If you mean there are more UScA trials and judges? That as nothing to do with AWDF and everything to do with the size of UScA. Is the AWDF about all breeds being represented equally or the biggest group having more votes/power ?


 
yes, that is what I am talking about. USCA offers those services to the members of AWDF clubs. If you do not count that, then ok. I still believe it should still be one vote, same dues for all clubs. That is fair.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Thomas Barriano said:


> John,
> 
> UScA pays more because they have more members and the dues structure (approved by all member clubs including UScA)
> is based on membership. UScA pays more so more of its members can compete at the AWDF "team" championship and have access to the FCI Worlds. Isn't the fact that 3/4's of the AWDF entries are GSD's enough bank for your buck? I don't see the AWMA bitching that they pay more then DVG (or is it visa versa?) or either bitching that they pay more then the UDC or the bull dog club ?


 
Thomas


This reasoning is not factual. There is no limits set on how many members can compete at the AWDF based on what your club pays for dues. If USCA paid $300 ALL USCA members would still be allowed to enter the AWDF championships. If 100 Black Russian terriers want to enter the AWDF Championships, they can. Thomas, if you can not see that it is not fair then we will agree to disagree.


----------



## John Wolf

Christopher Smith said:


> I have been with the AWMA since the beginning. And although we are a Malinois club, we do everything possible for the betterment of ALL working dogs. We are not out to send our board members all over the world at our members expense. We are not out to nickle and dime the working dog people to death with crazy extra fees like scorebooks stamps, extra fees for non members, fees for sending things to Europe and dog registrations that are not worth the paper they are printed. We don't hold shows that bring in a ton of cash. None of that BS helps working dogs in the slightest. And at $35 a year membership dues we are the least expensive club to join in the AWDF. It's not the easy way, but I think it's the right way for the working dog.


That's great, but you also are very heavily relient of USCA/DVG infrastructure of clubs for holding trials, having judges, helpers, etc... I think the AWMA needs to be able to stand on it's own two feet before demanding a better place at the table.


----------



## Jim Engel

Frank,
My understanding is that Al Govednik is routinely allocated expense
money in $5000 blocks, and that no accounting is required.
Since money seems to be the problem here, we need to know where
it is going. How much, over say the past 5 years, have Roetemeyer,
Govednik and others drawn a unaccounted fore expense money.

USCA officers taking on AWDF officers should not have a free money
spigot.

AWDF finances have been a black hole for years, and this needs
to be brought out into the open as a basis for ongoing plans.

I grant you that things have changed at USCA, and very much for
the better. You have my congratulations.

But as long as Govednik remains as president, and as long as USCA does 
not repudiate him, this will be the millstone around the neck.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Jim Engel said:


> Frank,
> My understanding is that Al Govednik is routinely allocated expense
> money in $5000 blocks, and that no accounting is required.
> Since money seems to be the problem here, we need to know where
> it is going. How much, over say the past 5 years, have Roetemeyer,
> Govednik and others drawn a unaccounted fore expense money.
> 
> USCA officers taking on AWDF officers should not have a free money
> spigot.
> 
> AWDF finances have been a black hole for years, and this needs
> to be brought out into the open as a basis for ongoing plans.
> 
> I grant you that things have changed at USCA, and very much for
> the better. You have my congratulations.
> 
> But as long as Govednik remains as president, and as long as USCA does
> not repudiate him, this will be the millstone around the neck.


Jim

If you can back up anything you say here I would be very interested to see it. Please provide documentation to back up these accusation and I will personally file the BOI charges.

There is a tresurer's report that comes out that accounts for all money, all AWDF delegates are sent this report.... All I can say is I have not seen anything hokey in the year I have been invovled.


----------



## Jim Engel

Frank,
I notice you limit to the last year, which is fine,
good politics.

What AWDF really needs is a man of integrity
and respect at the top.

My choice would be either you or Jim Alloway.

Vice president should be someone not from USCA.

My choice would be Ivan Balabanov or someone else
from the Malinois community.

This would not solve these difficult problems, but it
would set the stage for serious discussion and working
together.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Jim Engel said:


> Frank,
> I notice you limit to the last year, which is fine,
> good politics.
> .


 I only limited "MY" knowledge to the last year...before that I was not invovled in the AWDF and do not have the information to comment on the finances.

If you have proof of wrong doing at anytime, I will file the charges....


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Frank Phillips said:


> Thomas
> 
> 
> This reasoning is not factual. There is no limits set on how many members can compete at the AWDF based on what your club pays for dues. If USCA paid $300 ALL USCA members would still be allowed to enter the AWDF championships. If 100 Black Russian terriers want to enter the AWDF Championships, they can. Thomas, if you can not see that it is not fair then we will agree to disagree.


Frank,

UScA has more AWDF Championship entries because they have more members. They pay more dues because they have more members. It wouldn't be fair to have every member club pay the same dues if one club has 3K members that are eligible to compete and another club has 100. As far as BRT's there wouldn't be a BRT club if Ann-Marie didn't want another UScA
friendly vote on the AWDF EB


----------



## Frank Phillips

Thomas Barriano said:


> Frank,
> 
> UScA has more AWDF Championship entries because they have more members. They pay more dues because they have more members. It wouldn't be fair to have every member club pay the same dues if one club has 3K members that are eligible to compete and another club has 100. As far as BRT's there wouldn't be a BRT club if Ann-Marie didn't want another UScA
> friendly vote on the AWDF EB


your missing the point...AWDF entries have NOTHING to do with the amount of dues you pay....


----------



## Jim Engel

I think we need to unwind this a little bit.

Frank has taken on the role of USCA spokesman, and while we
may not always agree with him, it is good that someone at the
top is out there addressing issues. He does not have to do this,
I am sure he would rather be training his dog, and he is one
of the people that do train and compete.

This is a huge change to the way USCA does business, and I 
thank rather than trying to score points we need need to look
for accommodation. When you get right down to it, USCA has
most of the cards, at least in the short term.

I have had a certain amount of communication with Frank and 
particularly Jim Alloway. They talk to me. They may not agree
with me, but they keep things in focus. I am pretty sure of at
least one instance of where the reaction was "Oh my god" but 
they react rationally.

Alloway has an open invitation to call him, phone him or EMail
him, he is the decision maker.

AWDF has serious systemic problems, and we need leaders who
can step forward, communicate and ultimately compromise. 

As I say, USCA has the cards right now. But the SV, the WUSV
and the German Shepherd has big internal problems.
SV puppy registrations have fallen from 30,000 per year in the
middle 1990s to about 12,000 last year. This is what you call
a bubble, and when bubbles collapse the end comes quickly.

The Malinois is on the rise right now, the GSD is trending down by any
measure.
I do not take any joy or satisfaction in this, I admire and respect
the GSD, and take satisfaction when they progress, as in winning
the KNPV championships. 
Two good police breeds are better than one, competition, in
a sportsman like way, is good for all

I despise the SV leadership, as do most working German Shepherd
people, but they can not admit it.


----------



## Joby Becker

I am not a sport dude.

BUT...

it appears to me that all the clubs DO ACTUALLY pay the same amount currently.

they pay a flat rate per club and per member..

that means to me that they are paying the same.


----------



## Joby Becker

I am not a sport dude.

BUT...

it appears to me that all the clubs DO ACTUALLY pay the same amount currently.

they pay a flat rate per club and per member.. 

that means to me that they are paying the same.

.75 per member is chicken scratch..what is USCA membership fee per year anyhow?

if the AWDF ever has to issue anything on a per member basis, that might cover the postage supplies for one mailing..


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Frank Phillips said:


> your missing the point...AWDF entries have NOTHING to do with the amount of dues you pay....


Frank,

You're missing the point. The number of entries any member club can have depends on how many members they have.
No other club can put 100 competitive entries on the field.
Lets go back to the Team Championship concept. Every member club is allowed 3 entries and one must be an IPO I or II. The winner is the best average team score. Govednik/ UScA wanted unlimited entries and the big trial. You guys wanted another avenue for the FCI Worlds. You guys wanted (until recently) another qualifier for the WUSV team. The smaller AWDF member clubs shouldn't have to pay for another big trial dominated by GSD's. They shouldn't have to pay to bring in European Judges or to pay for the Govednik vacation fund either


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Joby Becker said:


> .75 per member is chicken scratch..what is USCA membership fee per year anyhow? ..



BINGO, give the man a cigar.
UScA charges $100 dues and are pissing and moaning about paying 75 cents each for the benefits of belonging to an all breed organization ? :-(


----------



## Jim Engel

Let's get a little perspective on this.

All USCA ever needed the other clubs for was the pretense of
being some sort of ofmulti breed organization.

AWDF is never going to have more presence within the FCI
because they will not cross the AKC. But to be a partial or
associate member whatever you call it their political proces
requires the multi breed pretense.

We all knew that when we sat down with Paul Maloy in the
first place. 

So all the other clubs really amount to is a fig leaf.

All of this discussion is over the price of a fig leaf,
not even the actual fruit.


----------



## Ted Summers

oh my gawd..... this is stupid. This is one of the main reasons I left IPO. To what end are these changes being made?


----------



## John Sequino

Thomas Barriano said:


> John,
> 
> UScA pays more because they have more members and the dues structure (approved by all member clubs including UScA)
> is based on membership. UScA pays more so more of its members can compete at the AWDF "team" championship and have access to the FCI Worlds. Isn't the fact that 3/4's of the AWDF entries are GSD's enough bank for your buck? I don't see the AWMA bitching that they pay more then DVG (or is it visa versa?) or either bitching that they pay more then the UDC or the bull dog club ?


I don't think that is true. You mean if USCA didn't pay the largest portion of dues that the AWDF would limit the amount of entries? And 3/4 of the AWDF entries are GSD's, I would say that is supporting the AWDF and paying more than their share of the load. I agree, 1 vote and each club pays a fair split of the operating expenses, whatever that may be. USCA could put that 2500 dollars to good use I'm sure.


----------



## John Sequino

Thomas Barriano said:


> Frank,
> 
> UScA has more AWDF Championship entries because they have more members. They pay more dues because they have more members. It wouldn't be fair to have every member club pay the same dues if one club has 3K members that are eligible to compete and another club has 100. As far as BRT's there wouldn't be a BRT club if Ann-Marie didn't want another UScA
> friendly vote on the AWDF EB


Really, read what you are typing.... If a club has a large number of members that enter the 1 trial that the AWDF puts on per year...YOU MAKE MORE MONEY. How does it make sense that you would want to penalize the club the brings you the largest amount of entries. And it really doesn't have anything to do with entries, but what are you thinking?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

John Sequino said:


> Really, read what you are typing.... If a club has a large number of members that enter the 1 trial that the AWDF puts on per year...YOU MAKE MORE MONEY. How does it make sense that you would want to penalize the club the brings you the largest amount of entries. And it really doesn't have anything to do with entries, but what are you thinking?


John,

Do some research. The original AWDF trials were team championships with each team limited to 9 members (3 at each level) the winner was the average of the top three scores with at least one score having to be a level I or II. Most of the other breed clubs had a hard time fielding a team of 9 but it evened the playing field and every team had a chance. The UDC even won the team championship on I believe two occasions. UScA wanted (pushed through by Govednik, Roetemeyer and O'Kane) no limit on entries so UScA members would have a better chance at making the FCI team. The big AWDF trial benefits the UScA and the AWMA to a lesser degree, not the smaller breed clubs. You need entry fees to pay for the Three Foreign judges you insist on instead of using UScA or DVG judges.  
I don't want to penalize anyone I want every member club to pay the same ($300 year plus .75/member) like it has always been. I don't want UScA being able to have 10x more entries and not want to pay extra.
The AWDF is NOT about the one trial per year. It is about access to World Competition and should be about each breed club having a equal voice and say in how things are run.


----------



## Jim Engel

*AWDF - What really matters*

The real issue is where is Al Govednik in all of this?

As AWDF president he should be the public face, providing
leadership and a public face to the organization.

The problem is the baggage.

There is still north of $10,000 in the various Hex funds,
and the promised accounting has never come forth.

This whole thing is about to snap into focus.

If Govednik remains as AWDF president the fact that
AWDF will remain essentially leaderless is the small point.

The big point is that if Govednik remains as AWDF president
then nothing will have changed at USCA, it would mean that
USCA is still run by and for the insiders, only some of the
names would have changed.

I don't think that is going to happen, and when there is 
credible leadership at the top of AWDF then there there is
the possibility of progress on some of these issues.

This organization desperately needs needs some transparency,
some leadership and some direction.


----------



## John Sequino

Thomas Barriano said:


> John, The AWDF is NOT about the one trial per year. It is about access to World Competition and should be about each breed club having a equal voice and say in how things are run.


I agree, equal payment for each club and 1 vote for each club, that is an equal voice and say in how things are run, each club has the same skin in the game.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> What is the AWDF status with FCI--guest or contract partner? Given that the agreement with AKC is it realistic to think they will ever be anything other than a "guest?" AHBA [American Herding Breeds Association] has [non-voting?] guest status with AWDF but pays like everyone else under the dues structure. Currently, how does AWDF participate in FCI trials and how does the latest --non-qualifier status--affect that?
> 
> T


Can anyone answer my questions?

T


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Can anyone answer my questions?
> 
> T


The AWDF is a guest FCI member (through the working committee I think) they get to send a team to the FCI IPO Championship by invitation only.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Thomas, thanks. AHBA just joined and looks like is considered a guest. I'm trying to figure out, to what benefit. Can AWDF hold FCI trials? Does FCI always invite them to send a team? What I'm getting at is that FCI hs a herding trial system. Can AWDF hold sanctioned trials under that system and FCI will recognize the titles? Frank Phillips, do you have any knowledge you can share regarding this? Also, what does guest status with AWDF mean exactly?

T


----------



## Frank Phillips

I'm not sure about the herding community recognizing the titles. I would suggest you ask the AHBA. I know AWDF IPO titles are recognized in the FCI. As for guest status, I think all clubs start out as guest members and then are voted into full membership after some time (not sure if it is 1 year or what).

FYI, it was voted and passed unanimously for all clubs to pay the same amount of dues and all clubs have 1 equal vote.


----------



## Christopher Jones

Why couldnt they look at a sliding scale of fees?
1-100 members = 90 cents per member
101- 500 members = 85 cents per member
501 -1000 members = 80 cents per member
1001 + members = 75 cents per member

That way USCA pays less per member and they can stop bitching.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Christopher Jones said:


> Why couldnt they look at a sliding scale of fees?
> 1-100 members = 90 cents per member
> 101- 500 members = 85 cents per member
> 501 -1000 members = 80 cents per member
> 1001 + members = 75 cents per member
> 
> That way USCA pays less per member and they can stop bitching.


That would be fair, but it's about UScA wanting more votes/control then anyone else IMO They already control the BOD and have paper clubs for additional votes but are still not happy.


----------



## John Sequino

Thomas Barriano said:


> That would be fair, but it's about UScA wanting more votes/control then anyone else IMO They already control the BOD and have paper clubs for additional votes but are still not happy.


It's a done deal, and IMO the right decision was made, all the clubs pay the same amount, all the clubs get 1 vote and USCA saves 3,000 they can put to good use in a program. You'll need to find something else to complain about.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

John Sequino said:


> It's a done deal, and IMO the right decision was made, all the clubs pay the same amount, all the clubs get 1 vote and USCA saves 3,000 they can put to good use in a program. You'll need to find something else to complain about.


What are you talking about? What was voted on and when?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Frank Phillips said:


> FYI, it was voted and passed unanimously for all clubs to pay the same amount of dues and all clubs have 1 equal vote.


Frank, 
What vote are you referring to and when ?


----------

