DPCA Nominating Committee's choices: Pfleuger, Christiansen and Brown

[Elaine]

The Nominating Committee (which was made up of Ron Babics, Elaine Hooper and Linda Ballon) selected the following candidates for the DPCA Board of Directors for terms beginning in October of 2008:

Sharon Pflueger.
Judith A Brown
Nancy Christiansen

All three are currently on the Board. While on the one hand I admire that they are willing to serve the DPCA yet again, I am not so clear that we need more of their leadership. I can't help but ask, "Is this the best we can do?" For example, I have watched Ms. Pflueger ringside for a few years now, can't say that going in the ring after the judging to "discuss" the judge's decision makes a very good impression on those of us standing ringside. And her conduct (along with Mr. Brucker’s and a few others), as revealed with the very questionable publishing of some Discovery material of a recently settled lawsuit, came across as biased, petty and vindictive to this observer. I am not clear that she is the right person to lead the DPCA forward.

The DPCA membership can (and probably will) rubber stamp this slate... but we (the membership) must accept responsibility for what happens when we abdicate our responsibility to be informed voters. We get the elected officials we chose. If we don’t bother to learn about the candidates and their track records, we really can’t complain that they are making poor decisions, which ultimately reflects their poor judgment.

I can think of dozens of well qualified candidates for the DPCA Board... who would be a breath of fresh air for the club. Even more on point, we have people in the membership who would be willing to serve the club, as opposed to using the club to advance their personal agenda, be it political (in some grander sense), or simply using the club to "pimp" the dogs they breed and show.

Ultimately, our club’s leadership reflects the effort we are willing to put into the club.

[LoveThoseReds]

Did these DPCA members who are willing to serve let the nominating committee know of their willingness BEFORE the selections were made? That is the process that was outlined in the DPCARep email that came out when the nominating committee was announced. If they did not, I would imagine the nominating committee is more likely to go with who is already serving.

***This post from lovethosereds was sent in a private email by the author. She was having trouble posting on DSNN, so it has been posted here for her. She may wish to edit it or delete it... the question she raised is well worth addressing...as is the entire process.

[Elaine]

Did these DPCA members who are willing to serve let the nominating committee know of their willingness BEFORE the selections were made? That is the process that was outlined in the DPCARep email that came out when the nominating committee was announced. If they did not, I would imagine the nominating committee is more likely to go with who is already serving.
We were contacted by a member of the nominating committee... Arthur was asked if he would consider running... he had to decline. The email opened a dialogue with one of the Nominating Committee members, and I expressed the opinion that, though I have absolutely no political ambitions of any kind, I frankly felt I was more qualified than Arthur to sit on the DPCA Board. Without any question, Cathy Ceely is overwhelming qualified to sit on the DPCA Board. There are many many other qualified DPCA members who should have been considered.

At a later point in time I was told that the three seated Board members wished to serve again... and that terminated any further searching.

I have no problem with the Nominating Committee doing exactly as they please; that is entirely within their discretion. They may have thought the three seated Board members were the best choice from out of our entire DPCA membership. I do not know what their final thought process was. They may have simply not wanted to ruffle feathers. I do not know.

What I do know is that we have a depth of talent in this club that goes unutilized. We need leaders with vision who are willing to lead (which may mean taking an unpopular stand from time to time). Our DPCA leaders must be above reproach with respect to using their DPCA positions to influence the wins of their dogs, be it the dogs they sell or show. Above all, we need leaders who have the balls to put the club’s best interests before their own private agendas.

We see the same people in key positions year after year after year, just like we see the same judging panels at Nationals and Specialties year after year after year. At some point I think it is toxic to the club (to any club) to have such a consolidation of leadership... so much power in the hands of so few.

I think that the DPCA membership is faced with serious challenges in 2008, over and above BSL, and the rest of tthe AR agenda. We are facing declining entries and increasing show costs. We need to make every possible effort to support each other while remaining focused on the best interests of the Doberman breed long term. And we are overlooking a potentially huge problem, that was hinted at in Skaer v. Babbitt ( a court decision that could easily drive all breeders out of business much faster than any Mandatory Spay Neuter). We need to revise what we think we know about genetic disorders, we need to move away from misleading ads and phraseology that suggests a given health test is predictive of what an animal will transmit. We need a clear statement to the public that ALL living creatures have health problems, that all dogs have health problems, that there is NO SUCH thing as a genetically perfect dog or genetically perfect pedigree (whether purebred or mutt) and we need to entirely re-vamp the DPCA webpage with respect to what we’re implying about health disorders.

[LoveThoseReds]

If willing and worthy DPCA members are sitting on the sidelines waiting for the nominating committee to contact them, they could have a long wait. When the nominating committee is announced, it would have been best for the candidate to contact the committee expressing interest and listing their qualifications while they make it clear they want to be considered for nomination.

Even now, it's not too late to be on the ballot for any position. You just need to follow the guidelines outlined in the DPCA C&BL.

[Elaine]

I agree wholeheartedly that we need other people to come forward to serve the club... in fact, I agree with you right up till you get to the part about contacting the Committee. Do you really think that Ron, Hooper and Ballon are going to consider anyone else? Nothing against these fine folks, but they've made their decision... I don't seem them changing it. IMO, approaching them would be a complete waste of time.

[Elaine]

Maybe we should pause a moment to discuss our ideal Board member... and our ideal DPCA Board and leadership.

Fisrt, I think that any officer or Board member of the DPCA should be above reproach, specifically, they should not use their position with the DPCA to advance a private agenda, whether it be a handling career, a judging career, a given show dog’s career, or selling semen, puppies or a product. And it goes without saying that it is entirely unacceptable for a DPCA officer (or Board or Committee member) to accost a judge, to say essentially, “I’m So & So, I’m on the DPCA Board or Committee, and let me tell you why you what you just did was wrong, or let me tell you why you should put up my dog.” That kind of behavior is offensive, self-serving and should not be allowed.

Beyond that, I think we need to consider the entire mix of the DPCA leadership in the context of what we want overall. Personally, I want DPCA leadership that is experienced and open with the membership, responsive to the membership, yet willing to take the occasional unpopular stand from time to time. I want leadership that unites us, not this divisive disharmony of the past few years. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like the club is stogy, rude and sour... with deeply divided factions that are toxic to us as a whole (i.e. the Helsdon - DeHetre fiasco). The DPCA used to be a lot more fun. I'd like to get back to it being fun.

It goes without saying that we need to be effective against the AR agenda, we need to re-vamp what we are claiming about health testing so that the claims we make are supported by credible science (and do not mislead the public), we need to be clear that there is no such a thing as a genetically perfect animal (or breeders will be sued out of existence), we need to support our breeders or there won’t be any next generation of Dobermans... but we still need make it fun to be a DPCA member. We need to be supportive of each other and inclusive. We need to stop excluding good productive members (e.g. Ann Lanier).

I hate to name names, but simply for the purposes of this example, my ideal leadership group would include the kindness and wisdom of a President like C.T., the depth of experience of those who’ve done it all, seen it all and survived to tell the tale (like Pat Hastings, Ann Lanier, Michelle Lewis), the objectivity and knowledge of people currently in the trenches like Carmen Pitts, Cathy Ceely, Michelle Santana ... and the style and panache of people like Tony and Sheila DiNardo, who set the bar high and make the game fun.

[andyhilt27]

It goes without saying that we need to be effective against the AR agenda, we need to re-vamp what we are claiming about health testing so that the claims we make are supported by credible science (and do not mislead the public), we need to be clear that there is no such a thing as a genetically perfect animal (or breeders will be sued out of existence), we need to support our breeders or there won’t be any next generation of Dobermans... but we still need make it fun to be a DPCA member.

What is the AR agenda? Is this an acronym for a person's name?

[Elaine]

AR = Animal Rights Agenda... which is essentially that we not own or use animals. That means no pets, no companion animals of any kind... we'd turn them all loose to live in a symbiotic relationship with us, but we would not own them... and we certainly would not breed them. Humans would not use animals in any form or manner... so, no seeing eye dogs, no breeding of dogs period... no use of animals of ANY kind, not even mosquitoes used in medical research... none, nada, zip. This is essentially the AR agenda of PETA.

[LoveThoseReds]

I agree wholeheartedly that we need other people to come forward to serve the club... in fact, I agree with you right up till you get to the part about contacting the Committee. Do you really think that Ron, Hooper and Ballon are going to consider anyone else? Nothing against these fine folks, but they've made their decision... I don't seem them changing it. IMO, approaching them would be a complete waste of time.

Yes, it's too late to contact the nominating committee now. Please reread my post as I did not say to contact them now. The January DPCARep email instructed interested parties to contact the nominating committee BEFORE their decision was made.

To get on the ballot now, you have to follow the C&BL instructions.

You may want different people on the board, but who do you know who would actually DO IT? People who will give of their time, fly to meetings on their own dime, give up most of the Nationals week sitting in meetings, etc.

[dobesign]

I understand your point, but the statement about "flying to meetings on your own dime", that really made me feel ill at ease. In this sport, a good deal depends on money, and there are many of us that are in the "have nots" category but are none the less qualified and willing and perhaps even for some, better applicants than those whose credentials are written on greenback. With the economy being what it is, and since I live in the NW, (where EVERYONE is expected to single handedly stop global warming), I must say flying everywhere when such new inventions as that telephone are now available, I find it difficult to accept socioeconomic status as a resume item for candidacy. Maybe it's just me, though....:cool:

[Athy]

To get on the ballot now, you have to follow the C&BL instructions.


And while the C&BL instructions aren't difficult (you need to get 10 DPCA member signatures to be nominated and run from the floor,) you'll get a real education on what that's all about if you ask someone what happened to you when you were nominated by membership to run for a board position!

There is a faction in our club that for some reason views "choice" in an board election as an insult to either the current board or the nominating committee. I have seen signature lines revised during election time to proudly proclaim "I WILL VOTE FOR THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE SLATE!" as though voting for a membership noimnated candidate is a sin against God and all creation.

I believe this is why fewer and fewer people are interested in being nominated for the board by membership nomination. They know that a certain list will do its utmost to simply trash and thrash them into failure in their bid. This is why the DPCA no longer has a CHOICE when it comes to elections. No one is willing to endure the abuse that is sure to follow when a person is nominated from the general membership.

Athy

[Elaine]

I think you raise excellent points Athy.

Going back to the Tarheel in 2006, Arthur and I have been rather vocal about DPCA Board members and Committee members abusing their leadership positions with the DPCA to advance their private agenda’s (whether it be pimping their breeding lines, their dogs or something they are selling). After the Tarheel in 2007 I was approached to say something on McNealy's rag about this type of conduct (based upon a particular incident during the circuit), which I did. People more directly involved said a few words... there was a bit of heat about it, but, as is sometimes the case, I was the one with the balls to address the issue. I was willing to stand up and take the heat because Arthur and I had witnessed the conduct and felt it was wrong. Next thing I hear is a nasty comment from the Board member's life partner, made ringside at the National.

I have a hide like a rhinoceros, the comment meant nothing to me personally, but it was a reflection of the Board member’s feelings, suggesting that, when challenged about offensive conduct, rather than a moment of introspection and possibly a modification of the conduct, the Board member choose to attack personally. That may work for pubescent 13 year olds, but for adults in leadership positions, it struck me as entirely inappropriate. And, after reading the Discovery published by McNealy... I have even greater concerns.

[Elaine]

Yes, it's too late to contact the nominating committee now. Please reread my post as I did not say to contact them now. The January DPCARep email instructed interested parties to contact the nominating committee BEFORE their decision was made.

To get on the ballot now, you have to follow the C&BL instructions.

You may want different people on the board, but who do you know who would actually DO IT? People who will give of their time, fly to meetings on their own dime, give up most of the Nationals week sitting in meetings, etc.

Sorry, I did indeed mis-read your post.. and maybe you are mis-reading mine. We were contacted by the Nominating Committee. We did make suggestions, of qualified people willing to serve. My understanding is that when the current Board members indicated that they wanted to run again, the Nominating Committee abandoned the prospect of looking for other candidates.

As for the self sacrifice of attending the Nationals and sitting through meetings... it is a commitment, no question, but I do not think that the three candidates selected are the only three DPCA members willing to serve the club. And I agree with the point that Brenna is making. The DPCA leadership should reflect the socio-economic diversity of our DPCA members. With the communication avenues available to us in 2008, much of the club’s business could be conducted via the internet.

Overall, my concern is the direction of the club on several key issues, not which one of us old geezers looks good stuffed into a TUX (or formal gown) standing around ringside at the Nationals because we can afford to "fly in on our dime."