Jo, You said..." the Division ran great for decades but if that's true then where are the people who sat on that Board for years like Bob Newcomb? Van Blevins? Jim Armstrong? Brenda Newcomb? Frank Cobb? THAT"S why it ran great for decades, not the group in there now..."

First I need to say I have been in this Division for many years and never had the pleasure of meeting you.... now with that said... you did forget a lot of wonderful people that have sat our Division IV as officers... they are Dixie Little, Lucille Inmon, Jim & Kathy Moss, Elaine Andrew, Lee Ann Tate, the Bunk's, the Berger's, the Brown's, Robin Stansell, Bob Vincent, Linda Sigle, Richard Maze, Dr. Jim Young, and the countless others that have given of their time for the betterment of our Bulldog Breed here in Division IV. Some still working at Club level.

Then you said..."Your right, it did run great for decades but give credit where credit is due."

I do not usually drop names about but as you see I have now... Credit is now given where credit is due along with last years officers.

Terri
MyToyBulldogs
Division IV Member
LSBC Member


MyToyBulldogs
http://www.mytoybulldogs.com

had received any outside legal council before the made their decision?

You hear neither....try again Cati! Let us guess...Judy Cooley is your friend also?

This was NOT a unanimous decision!!! For those sick of Dan and Elaine's efforts to hide the truth of the matter....contact Lucille Inman.

Cheers Dan!

They are GOOD PEOPLE!! From where I sit you are damn lucky you weren't kicked out for good!!!

Do I hear a round of applause??? hmmm..a standing ovation even?

Since you seem to think yourself the expert on this subject matter Dan...instead of telling everyone else to go "read" a vague statement (without any guidance as to what specifically to look for)....why don't you read it for us??? Without you, and your endless wisdom...we are all lost.

While you are quoting passages from this, maybe you can also tell everyone how and where you applied it to justify suspending someone? Or maybe not…as I strongly suspect you can not.

What "part" of what…people do not trust nor understand what you did was right…do you not understand?

Patrick

Dearest "Dan Bandy" (the…latest appointed “leader” of damage control by the incompetent & corrupt Div IV board),

I beg to differ from your opinion! Until YOU or anyone on this board can rightfully come clean and clearly answer the begging question as to “why” this board of yours came to the unprecedented decision that they did…I will not be the last to question you!

This was a “wrongful termination” case! And although it is not subject to the requirements of “employment law” it is nonetheless a VERY good analogy by “Jo.” An analogy and argument (mind you) that would go a long way in a real court of law if it should come to that. As your expertise (I understand) is specialized to that of a Vet Tech and NOT an Attorney, it does not surprise me that you can’t see that.

What does surprise me (and many others) is your efforts along with those of Elaine Andrews to act as if you do know something about civil law! How many times are you going to throw out the blanket generic statement of “By-Laws” and the phrase "conduct prejudicial to the best interest of The Bulldog Club of America or the Bulldog breed?"

Can you PLEASE be more specific Dan or for that matter prove it? Never mind that "conduct prejudicial to the best interest of The Bulldog Club of America or the Bulldog breed" was NOT a specific charge by the complainant and NOT what this board was to rule on (per the BCA constitution & its “By-Laws”…the same one that you LOVE to hide behind).

Now Elaine I understand to be a secretary within a law firm (so it is rumored), familiar maybe with some civil law (by default)….but nonetheless still not qualified to be knowledgeable enough to properly speak on this subject. A “subject” that YOU Dan, and Elaine…brought the BCA into harms reach with in the court of civil law that governs all who live in this country to include those like yourself!

Was this the act of responsible Div board member(s) who were merely acting in "the best interest of The Bulldog Club of America or the Bulldog breed?"

I think it’s obvious now that many do NOT like the quote “disciplinary procedure” you and your calibrators brought forth (albeit in “theory” approved by the National Council and membership). It is disturbing on many levels, and sets a standard that none in this “club” want to live with in the future. Just because it says you “can do it,” does not mean that you “should or must!” Especially if the rules set forth on how it should be done were not followed correctly, due process was NOT properly followed, and not all agreed it should be done.

What happened to good old fashioned common sense Dan? The very basic trust the voters of this Division put in you to follow if anything at all!

Finally, if you are losing sleep over those who may be “chastising” you (as you put it) because you made such a controversial and unprecedented decision (without proven just reason)…then maybe you should step aside and allow someone else to do the job. If you were the only person willing to do that job, I might consider your play for sympathy on this matter…but you are NOT!

If you have not noticed, people in the BCA "ARE" working to change the rule you abused on your power trip. If anyone needs to stop chastising people here its YOU with regard to your threats to the BCA membership with your arrogant and ignorant statements. Leaders like you are hard to find, where did you get your training?

Regards,
Patrick

It's nice to see you acknowledging that there are two sides to every story, although you have been advocating and spreading your close friend's side of the story for the past nine months and have no way of actually knowing what the "other side of the story" is.

Amazing, isn't it, that when slander has been given free rein for nine months or so, that the moment "the other side of the story" shows its face it suddenly becomes an issue that should "stay between two parties?"

Sharon

"Just like Elaine was not aware of the letters the Lynn's attorney sent."

Where was this stated? Where oh where are you coming up with this stuff?

Elaine

The Board of Directors can be held financially liable on a personal basis if found guilty in a court of law.
For those not familiar with D & O insurance the following is interesting.

Directors and Officers Liability Insurance

Directors and officers are quickly joining the ranks of the professional and business owner as targets for liability suits. By taking on the highly visible position of director or officer, you assume great personal risk. You could be held liable for any number of things from abuse of authority and libel to slander and financial mismanagement brought against you by shareholders, creditors, customers or employees -- to name a few.

Considering the ever increasing amounts that juries award in today's courtrooms, a liability suit could conceivably wipe out your life savings and drive you into personal bankruptcy, not to mention wreak havoc in your company. By covering the litigation costs and damages in the event you are sued, director's and officer's (D&O) insurance may save you and your company from a financial disaster.

Coverage

Designed to help protect both the assets of the company and the personal assets of the individual, D&O insurance covers those liabilities that may result from an individual or group performing their task(s) as directors or officers. Anyone acting as a director or officer for a legal entity is covered under most plans. This includes positions of chairman, deputy chairman, president or vice president of the board of directors, the managing director, general manager, comptroller, secretary or treasurer and any other person who performs the corporate functions similar to those performed by an officer.

Jo

This e-mail has been sent privately to the Division IV Board members:

To the members of the Division IV Board:

It has come to my attention that my post on BulldogLife several weeks ago has stirred some emotions with your members, and apparently there are those among you who feel that it is a personal attack as opposed to a public questioning of the actions of an elected body who in the weeks prior to the post had sent campaign letters and thereby opened a public discourse on their records as elected officials accountable to the membership of the BCA. It would appear that some of you have also attempted to make this "all about you" by tying in your own personal conflicts with an individual who has become "the evil one" in this Division and whom neither I, nor my husband, know personally. So be it.

However, what you are ignoring (or choosing to ignore) is that my husband, myself, and our attorneys have been seeking and asking for greater clarity on our suspension and the reasons for it since the end of May. My attorney contacted Herb to ask why we were suspended and received no answer. Twice in a letter sent in June, he again stated that we did not know why we had been suspended - in the Board's response, that lack of information was once again ignored. In pursuing this information, we have attempted to be above board and professional in seeking further information that, as suspended members, we feel should have been provided without our having to ask. Instead, we have been turned away, talked down to and about, and refused further information.

In that post two weeks ago, I asked that division board members contact us to clarify these issues. No one did. Instead, I see posted this morning that Elaine and Dan e-mailed Susan Somers privately to talk about the process you followed, and Elaine now claims that in publicly querying the process you followed and asking you to contact us with answers to our questions, we have "released the board from their obligation of confidentiality."

It appears to us that in this case, the only confidentiality that has been followed up to this point has been in withholding information from us. It leads me to ask, what is the point of suspension, or any type of disciplinary action, if you are not going to tell the party being punished what you feel they did wrong?

Yes, we have had to seek answers elsewhere, but only after three months of trying to find out the information through "official channels." If you feel that my post had "inaccuracies" in it, then perhaps you should clarify your process so that any misapprehension on our part can be rectified. If you feel that you're being wrongly accused, or that innuendo and "defamation" is taking place by others based on the information I put out there, then perhaps you can, for the first time, understand what we have had to live with for the past nine months, and what you have contributed to in making the decision the way you did and, to all appearances, telling everyone except us about it.

In Elaine's post today, she stated, "If you want to know the truth, go directly to a board member and ask them. " We have repeatedly asked and repeatedly been ignored. So, here it is once again: WHY WERE WE SUSPENDED? WHAT ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE COMPLAINT AGAINST US WERE PROVEN AND HOW DID WE VIOLATE BCA'S CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS OR CODE OF ETHICS?

We put a great deal of trust in you and your adjudication of this issue. Based on how we have been treated, spoken to, and spoken about by you in this matter, you have sent every signal that our trust was misplaced. Please prove us wrong in this conclusion.

Respectfully,
Sharon Lynn

why cant someone just say why, then its known? crap its a simple question....lol

webmaster.
2008 Bulldog Calendars now ready!
Bulldog gifts, click below
http://www.cafepress.com/bulldogsworld

Since you remember Lucille Inmon sitting to your right then perhaps you remember why the Lynn's were suspended? Mind telling anyone? if not on this list then perhaps the Lynn's??????

As for transporting a dog, your wrong though perhaps no one has shared that information with you. Just because you haven't heard about it yet does not make anyone a liar.

Lucille has spoken to quite a few people about this so again just because you are unaware of her thoughts does not make anyone a liar. Though I would like to see you tell her she is wrong about this or that she was manipulated.

You just don't get it do you Dan? You just get angry that not everyone chooses to believe the way you do.
You believe your friends and the information you are given. Just like Elaine was not aware of the letters the Lynn's attorney sent. Apparently the left hand is not aware of what the right hand is doing on that Division board.
Like Liz said, scary.

Jo

But it does seem kind of funny that nobody can answer why they were suspended.. Heck, how about just saying why you can't say why they were... I think most everybody was emailed the contract and vet notes even if they didn't want to see them.. Just saying...

i think it would be easier pulling teeth than getting a straight answer!

webmaster.
2008 Bulldog Calendars now ready!
Bulldog gifts, click below
http://www.cafepress.com/bulldogsworld

Elaine

Nice tap dance.
The point was not "where" were those members but that they had guided Division IV for the last couple of decades. Nice try at avoiding and making a mountain out of a molehill to distance the post from it's real meaning.

As for Jim Armstrong.....yes, he lost his bid for re election after a slanderous email was sent out to all members of Division IV prior to the vote.....many are well aware of what group sent it........

Bob Newcomb cannot run for office since he is an AKC Delegate and is not allowed to hold office.

Van Blevins is running for office now and ask an entire NEW slate of people to run against the standing board for a reason Elaine so don't try to sugar coat the situation in Division IV.
No one but the friends of the standing board are happy with the things that have been done for the past couple of years. Heck Bob Newcomb doesnt even attend meetings at the OKC club any longer so don't try to make people believe that the respected people in Division IV are happy with the way things are being done.

As for it not being anyone's business?????Who the heck do you think you think you serve??? THE MEMBERSHIP of division IV and they have a right to ask and KNOW! whether you like being questioned or not.

Jo

You remember when I said this was going to get ugly months ago and that is why I didn't want to be pulled into it? Well, I didn't understand it then, and I still don't..

Dan

No where do I address a time line????
My post was about their acting before the court ruled. Whether you guys like it or not people are going to have opinions on this and if they don't agree with yours or the boards that doesnt make them wrong.
AKC does not take the route the Division IV Board took and they don't because they don't want to leave the AKC open to lawsuits.
If the board you sit on thinks it's o.k to do that then people have a right to know.

I understand your wanting to answer but please answer in regard to what I posted........

Jo

"Jo"

The Lynns were absolutely suspended by a unanimous vote of the Board. Every member, including Lucille, voted for suspension. If Lucille has actually told anyone anything to the contrary, and I won't believe it until I hear it from her, she is simply buckling under pressure. She was sitting to my immediate right during the meeting and I know for a fact and will be happy to testify to it in any court that I am dragged into that she voted to suspend the Lynns.

No member of this Board has ever transported a puppy for the complainants. Just another lie that YOU are quickly becoming known for.

The only way Elizabeth would have had any contact with a malcontent who posted here today would be if you called her up yourself. What? She's not on your list of people to call and spread outright lies to?

Peh-lease!
Dan Bandy

that my husband and I had first hand experience with when my husband was appointed as a Commissioner.
As an Officer or Commissioner as in his case, no correspondence went to anyone without him being fully aware of it. This Agency also had legal council which was great, but he never let them speak for him.

ps This is only my opinion. I have no knowledge of this particular case

<

for yourself Vicky.

One thing that all of this has made me aware of is that a large number of people who are officers in their divisions do not appear to be familiar with what the BCA Constitution and By-Laws actually say. Especially not the updated version which contains the most recent amendments which were approved for submission to the membership by the National Council at their '03 meeting and then voted on and passed by the membership. Those amendments were then approved by the AKC in June of '04.

The handling of complaints and disciplinary matters was completely changed by those amendments.

So please, everyone, don't go by "so and so told me", read what the By-Laws say for yourself.

Dan

You say the Division ran great for decades but if that's true then where are the people who sat on that Board for years like Bob Newcomb? Van Blevins? Jim Armstrong? Brenda Newcomb? Frank Cobb? THAT"S why it ran great for decades, not the group in there now.
Your right, it did run great for decades but give credit where credit is due.

Jo

The case already went to court and they threw the case out for lack of merit.
The Board should have waited on the court to rule like AKC does.

Jo

Terri Dan and Liz all good points you have. Div is taking the heat for doing there job. They and only they know of all the facts of the case But many of us out here think they did what they were voted in to do there job. Only they know the whole story to what went on. There are two sides and while things are still on going in the courts I think it should stay between the two partys and not on the net were the whole truth is not being said.

Elizabeth,

You hit the nail squarely on the head. My experience has been that holding a position in the Division often draws you into conflicts that you have no desire to even be privy to much less have to be involved in. I'm sure it is the same, and probably much worse, at the National level.

It seems very few people care enough to take time to come to quarterly meetings and listen and have some input, but people come out of the woodwork to gripe after the fact. In the same line, very few people who are not Councilors attend the Council meetings at Nationals or even read the minutes that are always published in the Bulldogger.

I have also been amazed in the recent "hubbub" in our division that so many people who hold offices in other divisions feel compelled to chime in on subjects that they know very little about, other than what they have heard through the grapevine or read on the internet. Not to mention the ones who obviously have not made themselves familiar with the current Constitution and By-Laws that govern how things are handled within the National Club and at the Division level. It becomes very frustrating, and even insulting, after a while.

Thank you for an insightful post.

Dan Bandy

..the misconception that these positions somehow give the person power.. I have heard some people voice concern over one person or another getting power if they get in one of these positions.
What kind of power do you think comes with these jobs?
Committees nomimate judges.. not any single person... so there is no power there...
Is there power in contributing hours of precious free time to an organization whose members more often criticise than praise or even thank?
I don't see power there....
Does getting to a show extra early and staying extra late give people power? Maybe in getting a better set-up spot.. but then non-committee members often show up early to get spots too.. without volunteering to help set up..
Power here?
Being yelled at by ignorant exhibitors who don't realize that you are only doing your best? Some power...
Let's see....power in recognition? If they show, chances are they are somewhat well known anyway.. if they don't show, what kind of power can they get from holding a political post?
Now, some positions of power do get control over some things and from time to time that position is abused.. but with the way the organization is set up, no one person can truly run amok for long.
So, for those of you who think that you need to be scared or freeked out by one person or another gaining a spot on an executive committee or Board.... can you define power or explain what it is that is so intimidating that you need to waste your own valuable time slandering these people?
I guess I just don't get it.. but then I have been a bulldoggy "public servant" in some way shape or form for some 20+ years. I guess I just was never smart enough to know how to manipulate my posts to gain me some sort of magical power....
E