Isn’t it past time that NAFA let the people vote? With recent voting results just posted on the NAFA website, I thought this would be a perfect time to discuss voting.
For those that are new to Flyball, specifically NAFA Flyball, they may not know that they really have no voice when it comes to voting. During the voting season for Board members, Clyde Moore Memorial Hall of Fame, and MVP awards, or when NAFA calls for a delegate vote on a major rule or policy change, only delegates are allowed to vote.
I’m not going to post the rules on delegate voting here (except for one), but I encourage everyone to read the rules that can be found on the NAFA website under tab ‘About Flyball’. The rules for delegate voting can be found in Chapter 4, Delegate Votes, paragraph (b) which states “All delegates shall be assigned to the club owner.” The other applicable reference is under Article VII, Affiliate Clubs, Section 2, Delegates.
During this recent voting season, something happened with our club votes and it appears that our votes were not counted. No one really knows what happened and it is somewhat irrelevant at this point. However, if you look at the voting results on the NAFA website you will see that some club owners choose not to vote. This is not new to NAFA voting but for those of us without a vote it’s somewhat disconcerting. I am sure that members in those clubs that didn’t vote would have loved for their voices to be heard.
It doesn’t seem fair to me that, we the people, the ones who pay our tournament fees and participate in this sport have no voice. We are the ones that made this sport what it is today. Without us there would be no sport. Then why should club owners, judges, and board members be the only ones that have a vote? I may be able to see the reason for this when NAFA was in its early stages; when there were few clubs and the technology wasn’t what it is today. But today with over 5000+ dogs registered and running in this sport we should all have a voice.
If you look over the NAFA chat transcript from before the election, you will see that some candidates for the Board ran on a platform of technology and its expansion. Extending the vote to the people should not be that great a technical challenge. If you have a dog(s) that played during the year in a NAFA sanctioned tournament, you should have a vote. In fact, I would say that it is your right to have a voice in your organization. Please let your voices be heard and tell the NAFA Board of Directors that you have a right to be heard. Tell them also that this should not be up to a delegate vote for it would be like telling the president to vote himself out of office; it’s just not going to happen. Let your voices be heard.
Larry
55 comments ↓
I totally agree!
NAFA is actually a “club of clubs”. The term “delegate vote” came from the day when clubs actually named their representatives to NAFA. The AGM was the main meeting where issues were discussed and decided by the representatives of these clubs and the number of delegates that a club could send to represent them was directly proportional to how much that club participated in flyball. This dates back PRIOR to NAFA collecting fees for anything.
NAFA “assigned” all the delegates to the club owner for two reasons:
1.)Some club owners would forget to send to NAFA who their delegates were for the current election season. This oversight by club owners would result in a club “losing” all of it’s votes since NAFA had no record of who their delegates were.
2.)Delegates failed to update NAFA when they changed addresses and NAFA would receive a significant number of ballots back from the Post Office as “undeliverable” resulting again in a club losing it’s representation to NAFA.
But, this year, NAFA combined all of a club’s “delegate” votes into ONE ballot (piece of paper) counted as “x” number of votes! This completely ignores the concept that the “delegates” are flesh and blood PEOPLE! That each “vote” earned by a club is supposed to be the voice of a person who participates on that club and who represents the views of and for that club!
They may as well remove the word “delegate” from the rulebook.
No matter how many “voices” tell the Board to include them, I don’t believe that this Board is willing to change anyhing about the elections or the voting process unless they perceive it as benefiting themselves.
The only way to truly change this so that ALL of us have a “voice” is to elect candidates to the NAFA Board who pledge to us that they will work to change this if we elect them to the Board.
Chris
flyball is a team sport, so it makes perfect sense to me that your team is the one with the voice. individuals don’t participate in flyball, CLUBS do. within your club, you should make your feelings known about election issues. if you feel that your club owner (who controls the delegate votes for your club) isn’t receptive, by all means, FORM A NEW CLUB, own it, and receive your own delegate votes.
the team aspect is one that i treasure about NAFA flyball. there is no other dog sport where individuals must work, run and compete together as a cohesive unit, a team. in my opinion, it stands to reason that votes should come from a club and not from individuals. if you don’t agree with the way your club is voting, maybe you are on the wrong club.
Julie
I have heard this argument before and this is an old argument and it doesn’t mean much in today’s environment. With the introduction of the Open Class more dogs and handlers are running together and they are not from the same club. This diminishes the club concept and in today’s Flyball world you don’t even need to be in a club to run your dog. You can just hookup with anyone that has an extra dog. You are right that you have to “run and compete together as a cohesive unit” but you no longer need to be in a club to do it.
but you do have to be a member of a club to compete for a regional championship, and you do have to be a club unit to vote.
there are plenty of dog sports for individuals, but NAFA flyball is about being part of a club or a team. as a long time participant, i love this about the sport i play. personally, if an individual can’t function as part of a club, i don’t think they need to be a voice in governing NAFA flyball.
Most people that play Flyball will never be on a team that wins a regional championship. If you look at the stats over the past 5 years or so you will see that the same clubs win the region each year. These clubs have a cult like following and pretty much control the region that they are in.
It’s obvious that you only care about the club, possibly the one you own. As such you like to control the votes that your club makes. Therein lies the problem. Why are you so afraid to give the people a voice?
i am not a club owner. i’m just someone who plays
why do you equate winning regional championships with control and influence within a region?
seems like a gross generalization to me.
As a member of Julie’s Club let me say that you are misguided Larry. There was an invitation to discuss who the club should vote for in an open team forum.
Not every club is dysfunctional. I love playing Flyball and being part of a club and team. And my dog stinks half the time, but I always feel valued and supported. That’s what participating in Flyball means to me.
If an individual would rather it be their selves and a dog, there are many other dog sports, such as agility, that you can run, win, earn titles and vote as an individual.
“individuals don’t participate in flyball, CLUBS do.”
…but, clubs cannot participate in flyball unless INDIVIDUALS do. A Team Owner or Team Captain CANNOT commit an entry to a flyball tournament unless they can convince the owners of (minimum) four flyball trained dogs to participate together.
“if you feel that your club owner (who controls the delegate votes for your club)”
But, WHY? do they “control” the delegate votes? Its because the NAFA Board (9 people) made a decision for ALL of us participating in the sport! At one time, a Clubs “delegates” (individuals representing the “best interests” of their club) individually voted on issues, MVPs, HOFs and the BoD. When the NAFA Board made this “decision”, they NEVER consulted the “delegates”.
“it stands to reason that votes should come from a club and not from individuals. if you don’t agree with the way your club is voting, maybe you are on the wrong club.”
…but, its NOT the “club” voting. Its the individual “Club Owner” who is standing on the shoulders of all the hard work of the individuals on their club!
The problem isn’t whether or not I agree or disagree with the way my “Club” votes. The problem is the manner in which NAFA conducts elections! You aren’t suggesting that I play in another flyball sanctioning venue, are you?
“but you do have to be a member of a club to compete for a regional championship”
That ignores hundreds, maybe two or three thousand “individuals” who play “for their dog” and could care less about competing for a Regional Championship.
“personally, if an individual can’t function as part of a club, i don’t think they need to be a voice in governing NAFA flyball.”
NAFA Flyball in Alaska would hardly exist at all if it was not for the “Open” Class. That class allows the handful of “individuals” that can afford to make the journey to Alaska compete in a NAFA sanctioned event. It also allows “individuals” from the Alaska Clubs to travel down into the lower 48 and participate without leaving the home “Club” identity behind. And, they earn votes for this participation.
Surely, you would support the concept that Alaska should have a voice in NAFA affairs even though their Region does not have enough clubs or events to crown a “Regional Champion” or that a lot of Alaskan flyballers participate in NAFA running on Clubs other than their own?
What I want to know Julie, is “Do you support NAFA removing the word “delegate” from NAFA’s election procedures since NAFA is treating its voting procedures as a “vote acrual system” and there are no more delegates?”
Helen,
I know what is going on here and I’m not “misguided.” I’m glad that “Julie’s Club” (even though she says she doesn’t have a club) gives you a voice but many others do not. You don’t need to come to Julie’s defense because she is just giving me the NAFA party line, and I understand why.
Larry,
I am not a club owner, I run on Fur Fun, which is owned and captained by Deb Norman, not me.
Being flip and saying that i am giving you the NAFA party line isn’t very fair either, I have my own opinions to express. I speak for myself, not my husband or anyone else.
Julie
Sorry Julie, I just have to laugh at this because it’s funny how his views are your views. We should poll the club owners and the NAFA board. My bet is that they would vote to keep things just the way they are. After all, why would they want to let the people that actually foot the bills (the investors) vote?
Where do you buy shares or bonds in NAFA? I’m just curious since you see yourself as an investor, which would imply that you own a part of NAFA, and that is the only way to be an investor. Otherwise you are simply paying a fee to participate in activity (customer).
The way I see it, NAFA, well it’s kind of like a bowling alley…. You can go and rent a lane and pay as you go and throw as many frames as you want (an Open team) and strive for that 300 on your own casually or you can join a league, form some great friendships and pay the weekly fee.
Either way if you go up to the bowling manager and demand a voice in the color of bowls they purchase or the recipe they use for their pizza sauce you’re not going to get far.
But if you belong to a league and have a tiff and get other people on your team to see your point of view and approach your captain who approaches another team’s captain and suddenly you have a mob, it is much easier to get the manager to do something to make you happier. Otherwise you’re just being another whiny, kooky customer (not saying you particularly, just in general).
Helen,
Yes, I think of myself as an investor. I’ve invested many hours into training my dogs, training other people’s dogs, owning and managing a team, and yes even running on the team that won a regional championship. I’ve attend hundreds of tournament and paid my dues to use the “bowling alley” called NAFA.
I’m sorry if you think of NAFA as your “bowling alley” but I look at as my organization. NAFA is a non-profit organization and as such the fees that I paid to register my dogs and enter them in NAFA tournaments go to the betterment of NAFA. So excuse me if I think that makes me an investor. I’m not just “another whiny, kooky customer.” If you think you’re a customer I suggest that you find another organization. Please let me add that this is not a disparagement of U-FLI because they have a fine organization, which brings up another point.
If it wasn’t for U-FLI and the competition they have brought to the table, NAFA would have never changed their jump height, measuring, etc… Maybe the changes that came about by competition would have come about quicker if the people had more of a voice in the organization.
I see a couple of problems with attempting to make changes. The first is that clubs are run differently. I’ve been on one team where the owner was the only person who could make decisions, whether it was voting, lineups for tournaments, or anything else. Other teams I’ve been on go by consensus and decide among themselves. That brings us to the second problem (which Chris has touched on). Most people I know in Flyball don’t follow the issues, don’t know the players (or candidates) and aren’t on the list or other sources of info such as I-Flball. Two of my teams have basically told me to go ahead and vote the way I wanted, because I’m the only one who really follows NAFA goings on. I get the distinct impression a lot of clubs have no one who follow what’s going on, even their owners. For the most part they only check tournament dates and stats on the NAFA web site. It’s hard to come up with a system that accommodates everyone, from the casual “bowler” (to use that analogy) to the passionate one who wants to contribute and have input in the sport.
Larry, should a rookie handler with one dog who comes out a couple of times a year, or maybe for local tournaments only, have the same say as the veteran handler who has 4 dogs and goes to every tournament they can? Just a rhetorical question, but a relevant one when discussing the “everyone should have a vote” approach. Or maybe it should be a vote per active dog.
Pierre, I think you have hit the nail on the head with your analogy. We have all been bloviating on this and your comment is the first to arrive at the crux of the matter. Most people just don’t care. I guess I’m getting to the same point.
I think it’s bunk that each competitor doesn’t get a chance to vote. Not speaking for my team, but not every flyball participant has a team owner who is into the political issues and not everyone has a team that sits down and reaches consensus on voting. and right now, those flyballers are being silenced.
My spouse and I often discuss the issues when voting in “real” elections but we aren’t required to vote as one. That’s part of the awesomeness of voting – I get to make my own decision.
My solution would be either one vote per dog owner or one vote per active racing dog within the previous NAFA year.
“Where do you buy shares or bonds in NAFA? I’m just curious since you see yourself as an investor, which would imply that you own a part of NAFA, and that is the only way to be an investor. Otherwise you are simply paying a fee to participate in activity (customer). ”
Helen, I hate to burst your “bowling ally” analogy but, the “shareholder” concept of NAFA by its participants comes from NAFA itself. It was the way it was structured when the Articles of Incorporation were drawn up and legal papers were filed to make NAFA a tax-exempt non-profit corporation.
Don’t believe me? Ask any member of the Board “Who owns NAFA?” They will answer, “the delegates own NAFA”.
The delegates used to be people within a flyball club. Real, flesh & blood individuals designated by a club to represent that club TO NAFA. And, when you read the Corporate Policies and Procedures, the NAFA Rulebook still uses the term “delegate” whenever it talks about NAFA election procedures.
The problem is, NAFA’s Clubs grew to such a large number in places far, far away all over North America that the “system” of calculating the number of “delegate representatives” for clubs, printing up ballots for these “delegates”, mailing them out, receiving them and counting them all up became just too much of a burden for the NAFA Election Committee. Understandable since that “committee” usually consisted of one BoD member. ….so, in an effort to ease this burden, practices were put in place that began to “erode” the concept of the delegates being REAL people.
First, they assigned all the delegate “votes” to a single contact person for a club. That made it easy. Place all the ballots in a single envelope, send it to the club owner and they could distribute them as they see fit. That seems reasonable.
Then, they allowed the option to vote “electronically”. That cut down on the number of paper ballots to be counted. That sounds “reasonable”, too. ….but, what happens to the electronic ballots after the election? The rulebook says they are to be destroyed. How do you “destroy” something that has no substance?
The next change to the process was to allow people who had more than one “ballot” to vote (for whatever reason that they were in possession of multiple ballots) to add an option that allowed the voter to enter the codes of all their ballots so that they could vote them as a “block”. This was within a club’s right, to vote all their ballots the same. And, it sounds real “convenient” for a few clicks of the mouse, whammo, you voted and you’re done!
…….but, then comes NAFA elections 2009 and the “ballots” don’t come singular anymore. A Club Owner cannot distribute them to the individuals who are that Club’s “delegates”. They cannot avail themselves of the option to vote their multiple votes BOTH electronically and by mail. The election committee didn’t even get prior approval from the rest of the NAFA Board. ….but, when questioned as to “how” and “why” the answer came back, “After looking at the voting practices of the last three elections, there were only one or two Club Owners who did not vote their votes as a “block” so…….”
hmmmmmm….IF the “electronic” ballots were destroyed as called for, how does ANYBODY know that club owners usually vote their club’s votes as a BLOCK? and, who is NAFA to put impediments in the way of club owners wishing to vote a “combination” of electronic and paper ballots?
And, NAFA ignored multiple pleas to fix the problem. They went ahead and held an election with a BALLOT that DID NOT CONFORM to NAFA’s Corporate Policies & Procedures.
So, NAFA turned their back to the Clubs that continue to designate INDIVIDUALS within their club to act as “delegates”.
That’s a problem that I desire the “new” NAFA Board to address but, I’m skeptical that they will. Maintaining the “Status Quo” is their track record and if I understand Julie & Helen correctly, the evidence is that the status quo will be defended.
And, I am “OK” with the people who do not care about politics and elections and proper voting procedures. I’m ok because we do allow people to “abstain” from casting a vote. Everybody has the RIGHT to choose “Not to choose”.
Chris
I am not the club owner but my husband and I run the club. The club owner has a lot going on and I doubt she got a chance to send in our club votes. I did email her with my choices though but don’t know if she voted.
I am sorry even with the convoluted way our club runs I still believe the votes should be Club and not individual votes. There are way too many people who just don’t care or follow what is going on. I would prefer not to leave it to them to make the decision. They would most likely vote for the name they recognize. We have members who don’t even know how to get to the NAFA site to check anything. They depend on our club message board for just about everything.
In the past our club owner has taken a club vote on who we want to vote for on different things.
And before you say I am all about NAFA, I do play U-Fli and have gone to the U-Fli Championships since it started. I would play more U-Fli but there is nothing close to us (nothing under 8 hours).
Kim
With the technology that is out there now I think the voting should be individual. Voting is a priviledge and a right in North America and each person that participates should be treated equally. No one person should be alloted the power to vote for others. How you vote should be your choice to tell people or to keep it private.
I don’t get the argument. Our club received the right to vote. I “own” the team as far as NAFA is concerned but truly I am only listed that way because NAFA wants to have teams “owned”. I talked with my friends, My Teammates, and we discussed what was being voted on and we were all given a voice as to who our Team, Our Club, would vote for.
Are you arguing just for arguments sake or because those that you voted for did not win?
I have a couple comments. #1 Thanks for the information and opinions everyone. There were things I didn’t know or different perspectives on things I thought I knew, and that’s great!
#2 I believe that the club “delegates,” “owners,” or whatever term you want to use have the ethical obligation to discuss the issues with their teammates and present the views of the majority. Our club, River Runners in Saskatchewan, usually get together, go over the options and vote.
My other comment is that I think it’s rather sad that some of the posters feel the need to belittle the others. The point of a blog is to express your opinions, everyone should be able to do that without being humiliated, embarrassed or targeted. If your opinion disagrees, great, but you should be able to offer a different viewpoint or information in a polite and respectful fashion. Rudeness is petty, immature and diminishes your credibility.
“Sorry Julie, I just have to laugh at this because it’s funny how his views are your views”
There are a lot of people playing flyball. I imagine many individuals are going to share the same opinions, I also believe that individuals who share the same ideals often band together, so it’s highly likely that a lot of people in the same club will share opinions. I don’t find that surprising at all, and I don’t know why you’d bother to comment rather than just taking her opinion at face value. Seems a little petty and immature to me.
As near as I can tell Amy, our club votes were not counted (1 out of our 8 may have been). I think that Chris explained the voting situation with the ballot quite well. You can also read my last post, The Hanging Chad of Flyball.
The original post was about letting everyone with a dog who raced that year vote. Somehow it seems the argument morphed into going back to delegate voting. Chris also brought up what seems to be a point about votes not being anonymous that Dale Smith already explained. NAFA could determine that clubs voted primarily in a “block” because Dale could tell which votes came from the same club. BUT, he explained that **he could not tell which club the votes came from.** That’s a really important distinction, and I wonder why the same question has been brought up when it’s already been answered. I think it’s good management to be able to evaluate voting practices, and I believe Dale when he says that voter anonymity is protected.
Clubs are registered with NAFA, and dogs. Should there be one vote per dog? If I have multiple dogs racing, I’ve paid more in CRN fees and am paying more in tournament fees than someone running only one dog. Shouldn’t I therefore get more votes? If I have one dog and only enter one tournament during the year, should my vote count the same as someone with one dog who enters 10-20 tournaments per year?
Votes should belong only to the club owner. And yes, I am a club owner, but I would have the same opinion if I were “just” a club member as I have been in the past.
The solution to me would be for people who are really concerned about voting issues to make sure they are discussed amongst their club’s members, or at least with the club owner. If consensus can’t be reached, well, that’s sort of the nature of a team sport. You either go along with the majority, or if the club owner makes all the decisions without club members’ input, go along with the club owner. If the club owner doesn’t care about the issues, ask to have the voting responsibility turned over to people who do. And if you’re not happy with how things are, either work to change things within your club, or become a club owner so you can make the decisions yourself.
Our team Captain polls ALL of the members of our club prior to casting the vote. The majority is what is submitted. Our team felt that we voted for the 3 people who have put their heart and soul into NAFA and NAFA only.
Dede’s last paragraph sums up exactly how I feel, so no need to repeat it.
Lori
Just to clarify a point. Julie’s husband is on the Board of Directors, which may or may not be relevant to Julie’s post but does explain Larry’s comment and puts it in context..
No, Pierre it doesn’t explain Larry’s comment or put it in context.
My parents are married and very close. My father was on lots of different boards and very vocal about politics and other issues. Sometimes my mother agreed with his opinion and sometimes she didn’t. I can’t imagine someone being rude and petty enough to assume she wasn’t capable of thinking for herself and stating her own opinions nor accuse her of parroting his beliefs for political reasons.
Even if Larry does feel that Julie is parroting her husband’s beliefs and that there are political reasons for doing so, what does it really matter? It’s only an opinion, you can agree or disagree, politely state your reasons and move on. There is still no reason to attack, humiliate or be petty at any time.
If posting can’t be polite, it may be time to take a break and get thoughts and behaviours back on a mature and compassionate level. Just my opinion.
There are two schools of thought on this.
The first is Larry’s post that individual dog owners should have the right to vote. That is a simple concept. You own a dog that does flyball, you get to vote. We could make it “One dog owner (person) One vote.” Or, we could count each Active Dog as one vote, which would please multiple dog owners and not the single, one and only dog owner.
The other school was my point about the delegates. I made the point because in the days when the “delegates” were designated to NAFA and NAFA had to mail them their copy of NAFA News and their own personal ballot for voting issues, there were no debates concerning “who” should have the right to vote in NAFA. This was because the people who considered themselves as ordinary flyball citizens felt they and their clubs were adequately represented in NAFA affairs.
“…votes not being anonymous that Dale Smith already explained. NAFA could determine that clubs voted primarily in a “block” because Dale could tell which votes came from the same club. BUT, he explained that **he could not tell which club the votes came from.** That’s a really important distinction, and I wonder why the same question has been brought up when it’s already been answered.”
It’s been brought up again because I do not have the same “blind faith” in Dale’s explanation that you have. And, that should be OK. There was a time when the “majority” voters in NAFA were more charitable to the losing voters views. Since U-FLI, that “understanding” of a minority viewpoint has gone away. Too many “NAFA Supporters” seem to think you must agree with them or you are hurting NAFA. Nothing could be further from the truth. NAFA NEEDS ALL points of view if it is to remain the leader among the world’s flyball sanctioning bodies.
Having said that, what I think is important in all of this is NAFA should be perceived as “all inclusive”. That means that slow clubs or fast clubs, hosting clubs or racing clubs, Regional Champions or just “for fun” flyballers, ALL should feel included in NAFA’s affairs.
If a group feels left out….that their voices aren’t heard….that their views are disregarded and dismissed.
THAT should be cause for concern by us all. That is a perception that needs to be addressed. And, what I’m hearing is more of a “defense” as to why NAFA should NOT care about a group (however that group is defined) that feels it is not being represented. That’s sad.
We should be working HARD to make sure everyone feels included in NAFA.
Chris
Hello- I will say this about all of that. Having been a previous Board Member and Elected President of a large non profit orginization I say this with experience
Within ANY large orginization/club a certain set of parameters (bylaws) are determined to be necessary in order to be fair, impartial and yet do whats right for the orginization. Delegate voting is one of these parameters. It helps to ensure the future of an orginization/ club.
That being said- I am listed as our clubs “owner” but can assure you that we are a completely democratic run club. (a small 8 person team)When the voting comes up- I call a team meeting and we discuss- AT LENGTH- all matters. Research is done and we determine as a majority on how to vote.
I recognize not all club owners are as responsible- to that I would say if you feel you are not being represented well by your owner- maybe you need to change owners/teams.
I see no reason to change the ruling what so ever.
Sometimes what happens is that there can be a minority faction which is unhappy about how the results of an election/ vote wnet and they be come very vocal and try to change the system. I dont know if this has anything to do with that, but if it does, then this is sad.
The system works.. you will gain nothing but headaches by changing it. The logistics alone for a every person with a dog registered type of vote alone would bring NAFA to a standstill for 6 mos.
So I have to ask where is this motivation coming from? The clubs have voted those they think will do a fair and ethical job into position. YOu may not agree- and you are entitled to your opinion but to me it smacks of distrust and I have to ask why?
Who dont you trust and why? If I see someone I dont trust I bring that up during our voting meeting and we discuss it. We wont vote a board member in that wont represnt the majority. And if someone in a elected position acts unfair and partial, we will remember that at next election time. So again I see no reason to change it.
Larry- I know I wont make any friends here- I will add that Julie’s opinions can certianly match her husbands and still be her own. Please if you know her you know she is no robot! That was just disrespectful.
Dede- Well said.
well thats my two cents- and if this proposal were to come up for a vote- our team will gather and decide what is best- most likely keeping the system the way it is for OBVIOUS reasons. Since all of our member have also belogned to other large orginizations and realize that this is the best way.
Regards
Andy
One other thing I wanted to say and forgot.
Have you taken into account the expense of mailing out ballots to everyone you feel has the right to vote?
My National Club does this every year we have contested positions and even though our club has under 300 voting members it is quite costly.
Lori
A) It was a piece of information you didn’t seem to have;
B) Larry has made comments like “his views are your views” or “she is giving me the NAFA party line, and I understand why” or “just giving me the party line” in a different post.
C) As far as I’m concerned Julie’s marital status is a relevant fact which MAY influence your perception of the converstion, and does put Larry’s comments in context. Totally up to you to decide if it explains Larry’s or Julie’s comments or not. I did not mean to imply in any way that Julie’s posts are being influenced by anyone else. I know very well and agree with Andy that she is perfectly capable of expressing her own opinions.
D) Julie’s husband is a really funny guy. That is an example of something that doesn’t explain Larry’s comments or put things in context.
BTW If anyone’s wondering, this is Pete Ness. Using Pierre since I just moved from Calgary to Montreal and I have to practice my French since my new team is bilingual. Vive la Balle Mouche.
I found mention of U-FLI on a blog discussing voting odd because to my knowledge U-FLI has never asked its participants to vote on anything. Yet they’ve been credited for being a catalyst for positive change in the sport of flyball. Conclusion: Flyball would be better off if no one voted on anything.
I’m not thinking it’s likely that the voting structure will change for the simple reason that such a determination would probably be left to the current delegates. That would be like residents in a state without income tax approving a constitutional change to create one. I as a club owner would oppose a general vote because of the number of uninformed individuals to which it would give a voice. There are a lot of participants who haven’t so much as read the rules of racing. They aren’t subscribed to any of the lists and are unaware of current topics of discussion.
Having said that, if having a voice is important or your club owner doesn’t adequately represent you, you are free to affiliate with or create another club or organization. Therein lies your voice.
Cult followings and regional control? To date there have been no flyball mass suicides, and I’m pretty sure the only stockpiling is of yellow fuzzy balls.
“I found mention of U-FLI on a blog discussing voting odd because to my knowledge U-FLI has never asked its participants to vote on anything. Yet they’ve been credited for being a catalyst for positive change in the sport of flyball.”
I’m sorry Dana because it may have been before your time but U-FLI is a rather new organization. Back then, before U-FLI, jump heights and measuring were discussed many times within NAFA but the Board resisted these changes. Then there was this big blow up and the people that wanted change just up and created their own organization and they called it U-FLI. They made the changes that NAFA resisted making. When NAFA saw the success of these changes, they finally allowed a vote and surprisingly some of the same changes took place in NAFA.
“I as a club owner would oppose a general vote because of the number of uninformed individuals to which it would give a voice.”
I would say that there are close to 700 clubs within NAFA and within that number there are probably 400 to 600 active clubs. I’m sure we could do further study and find the exact number. However, for argument sake I think we can split the difference and say there are 500. I read somewhere that there are now close to 6000 registered dogs and for argument sake we can say there are 3000 active participants. So with the statement you just made that I quoted, you just called about 2500 people “uninformed” and not worthy of a voice. With that analogy, you are saying that most of the people in the United State of voting age are mostly uninformed and should not be allowed to vote. I guess I can agree with you based on who is running the country right now, but can we really tell the people they are uninformed and can’t vote?
I think I will leave the “fuzzy balls” comment for another time.
Mail Outs.
I would suggest people register to vote and have on line voting. The Club I am with discusses who votes for who and then we vote as a club. That is all fair. But I have always taken an interest in NAFA Politics and not many in my club have the same interest, so based on that I would like to vote for myself and have that vote count for itself. No insult to anyone or any organization in what I would like. It is just what I would like
)
If wasn’t before my time in flyball that U-FLI came into existence, although it was around the time that I moved and began running in Region 14. Subsequently, I, as a club owner, voted for the jump height change that we all appreciate so much now.
I wasn’t TRYING to offend any specific number of competitors when I said I didn’t want the uninformed voting. Had I wanted to offend them, I might have asked what rock they crawled out from under. My point is that I don’t believe flyball would be better off simply by giving every participant a vote.
There are a lot of participants in NAFA, and, yes, the success of the organization rests on all of their shoulders. That was a great comment made earlier in another individual’s post. The current structure has a mechanism for them to be represented but not heard directly. It is not a perfect system, and there are breakdowns. But if a club owner isn’t doing an adequate job of representing his members, those members might try bringing change within their own clubs or organizing new clubs where the owners better represent their views.
I can concede that the development of Ufli influenced NAFA’s rule change on jump heights, but larry you keep mentioning measuring in the same breath. Did I miss something? There has not been a change in the way dogs are measured for NAFA
thank you to those of you who spoke up in your comments.
Apparently some of you believe that the only way my husband and I could share the same view is because I am parroting him or spouting the party line. Is it so far fetched to believe maybe our opinions are similar because we are both intelligent people with basic reasoning skills?
I can only hope all of you get this fired up about politics, voting, and policy in the “real world”. I love flyball dearly, but it is glorified fetch we play with our dogs and friends. In the big picture, its really a small speck
Peace out!
Julie
I would like to publicly apologize to everyone that I may have offended especially Julie and Helen. As everyone knows, I feel strongly about this subject and before the controversy only a very small handful of people even read this post. I am sorry for doing what I did to draw people into this but I believe I met the objective. As of this morning, more people have viewed this post than any other on the site (several hundred). If nothing else, I got a lot of people to view a subject that normally most people wouldn’t give 2 minutes to.
As for the measuring comment, I believe NAFA use to subtract 4 inches and now subtracts 5. I would have preferred a different way of measuring but small steps are better than none.
Many thanks to everyone that took the time to think about this and especially to those that felt strongly enough to comment.
I have read some good points from both sides written above. To me I have to side with the current system. And I dont have to be a club owner to say so. I think Pierre said it best and I quote:
“Most people I know in Flyball don’t follow the issues, don’t know the players (or candidates) and aren’t on the list or other sources of info such as I-Flball.”
This is true and I would not necessarily want those people voting in what direction NAFA should go on any stance especially elections.
Off topic slightly: Interesting note about U-Fli and the NAFA rule change about jump heights (it was brought up): As I recall- we (clubs that belong to NAFA) voted for this rule change as a majority. But we did not do it to speed up the teams, but rather due to the concerns of the height dogs and the their overall health. U-Fli has just about taken the HEIGHTDOG out of the sport completely with it’s rules on measuring and jump heights. And Correct me if I am wrong but NAFA’s world records were set BEFORE the NAFA rule change on jump height…..
Yes U-fli is faster as evidenced by their incredible records. However, NAFA as an orginization still believes in the height dog principal.
Do we really want NAFA to be like U-Fli? I mean whats the point. I will agree we want the best orginization possible for the sport and I am not opposed to new ideas. However, if all we want in another U-Fli then why not just go to U-Fli? (I am not suggesting that at all, nor do I think anyone was suggesting that) Just making another point.
I am glad that so many people are passionate about this sport and the orginization. Good things. I thank Larry and this blog for allowing me to express my views on the topic.
Regards,
Andy
(buried in about 30″ of snow…. LOL)
Andy….I play UFLI and NAFA and I can assure you that the height dog is just as important as ever. I have heard over and over again about how UFLI has “eliminated” the height dog. Go to a UFLI tournament….look around …you will see many dogs of all heights. Every team still needs a height dog. Yes there are teams in both NAFA and UFLI that will jump the maximum height. But not many people want to do that. I’m always looking for the fast little dog that will bring the jumps down. What I think lowering the jumps did do, was make it a safer sport for the dogs. But it in no way eliminated the need for a height dog. All of this controversy from disgruntled people is what makes flyball not so fun. Im all for discussion, but the remarks re cults, etc are a little much for me. JMO
First off, I’d really prefer to leave the NAFA vs. U-Fli pissing contest out of it. Last month, I heard some really rude remarks by a NAFA only team during a captain’s meeting so my tolerance level’s pretty low on this subject.
I agree that a lot of folks current aren’t interested in voting. That’s because they can’t!
I feel that opening up voting to each active participant in flyball will only increase both interest and, more importantly, discussion about the important issues facing NAFA flyball today. In addition, we may acutally see candidates with different platforms and view points not just what looks like variations on the same opinion.
My solution would be a postcard to each participant asking them to go to the NAFA web page and register for current and future elections with a password. If you do not have email/computer access and would prefer a paperballot, then you’d need to send a postcard back to a NAFA staff member. While there may be a small number of people out there without access, NAFA is moving more and more towards electronic processes (CRNs, etc). Then voting opens each year for X number of days, if you want to vote – then log-on and make your choices. If you asked for a paper ballot, then it must be postmarked during that time.
Teams, families and married folks can still discuss and vote as a block if they choose to – but then again they don’t have to.
Wouldn’t it be great for someone to conduct test voting . . . put up an unofficial site where participants can be involved in mock voting on real NAFA issues for some trial period? It would be interesting to see what kind of participation it drew and how the general vote tracked or deviated from the decisions made under the current system. It could convince me that things should be different . . . or maybe not.
Cindy and Dana,
I was trying to figure out where the word “cult” came from in both of your comments. I couldn’t even figure out what you were both talking about at first and had to do a search of the page to find it. I didn’t even remember making the comment but I can only assume that I must have struck a nerve on that one because you both picked up on it and there must be over 10,000 words on the page. I guess from someone on the outside looking in it may seem that way.
If you are calling me disgruntled, I can assure you I am not. I brought up this voting issue because I think a greater number of people would become more involved and informed if given the responsibility of voting. I know that when I was given the chance to vote I started paying more attention and took the responsibility seriously. I can only assume that others would do the same if they had the same opportunity.
For the life of me I just can’t figure out what great tragedy would ensue if everyone had a vote. Please tell me because I haven’t heard it yet.
Most people that play Flyball will never be on a team that wins a regional championship. If you look at the stats over the past 5 years or so you will see that the same clubs win the region each year. These clubs have a cult like following and pretty much control the region that they are in.
ok that’s the statement you made. It
didn’t hit a nerve at all. I’ve just never
had much of a following, cult or otherwise.
So if there was a following out there, I
was kinda excited. ….:)
Staying offtopic for a moment – as someone playing both U-Fli and Nafa (mainly Nafa) please don’t bash U-Fli until you have actually participated or been to a tourney. Height dogs are plentiful in the organization. U-Fli has its issues but so does Nafa.
And someone who does not technically have a vote in Nafa and stated my view earlier, I still think the vote should be a club vote. If the club owner is NOT discussing what is up for vote then club members should take that up with the club owner or look at a new team or starting one.
Even with notifications from Nafa about the candidate chats there was very minimal participation and our regions (9 and 15) had the information about the chats posted on our region messageboards. If people can’t even take the time to participate in a chat, messageboards, email lists or just visiting the site, why would you want them voting on things they don’t know anything about? Again I think some of the people would vote for what they know and not necessarily vote for what is best.
“Again I think some of the people would vote for what they know and not necessarily vote for what is best.”
The best comparison that I can find with the argument above can be found on the follow website: Voting Rights
“Again I think some of the people would vote for what they know and not necessarily vote for what is best.”
I find TWO things that are interesting about this “reasoning”.
First, what makes you think that the way we have NAFA’s voting system set up today that those who receive ballots to vote are not already “voting for what they know and not necessarily for what is best”? Don’t most of us reason that what we know IS best?
Second, your “reasoning” that you are using to argue against change is the same argument we are using “for” change. That is, the current “system” is “what you know” but, is not necessarily what is “best”.
You have to have the ability to clearly see both sides of a question (without bias) in order to choose what is best. So, play “devil’s advocate” with yourself for just a bit and ask, “what is the worst case scenario” if we allow everyone to vote in NAFA elections?
Changing the procedures on how NAFA votes and finding a way to include more people involved in NAFA to cast a vote will not substantially change the outcomes of future elections. But, it will offer an avenue that will increase NAFA’s players feeling a sense of belonging to NAFA and, therefore, more “loyalty” to NAFA.
Would that improve NAFA players flyball experience with NAFA? Would that contribute to increasing NAFA’s growth of our sport?
Think about that.
Chris
Referring to Post #28:
There is a big difference between accepting another person’s viewpoint and accusing someone of lying, as it appears you are accusing Dale of not telling the truth about the ballots. I have no problem with people holding and expressing different views, I have no problem with people having heated arguments as long as they stick to the actual issues and are based on fact and don’t deteriorate into personal attacks and unfounded accusations.
How many “NAFA Supporters” seem to think you must agree with them or you are hurting NAFA? How do you know? Who are the people you are talking about? I don’t think not agreeing with anyone hurts NAFA. I don’t think questioning NAFA hurts NAFA. I don’t even think making baseless accusations hurts NAFA. But making baseless accusations does get in the way of having a meaningful debate. If you stick to facts you can substantiate, or state your personal opinions (and identify them as such) and don’t make nebulous generalizations, we’d might actually learn something from each other. There’s a while before the next election. Inflammatory rhetoric isn’t going to accomplish much now.
I am owner of a new, slow club. I feel included. Please present some numbers regarding all these disenfranchised masses.
Sometimes the answer is no. Sometimes things don’t go your (generic “your”) way. Sometimes you vote for the losers. That doesn’t necessarily mean your views are disregarded and dismissed.
If you mean the “delegates” are no longer being heard, I’ll say this. Having ballots sent to individual delegates is not much more inclusive than having them sent to club owners. My club earned 2 votes and we have 6 members, so 4 people still would have been left “without a voice.” Is that really better? Why?
There was another comment in Post 33 (different author than Post 28) that took a statement about NAFA voting and then compared it to voting in US elections. That’s another example of a comment that makes reasonable debate difficult if not impossible. Statements about NAFA voting do not in any way correlate to voting in the US political system. Something very specific that Dana said about NAFA voting was twisted, with the author attributing something to him that he never said or even implied.
Referring to Post 46:
You can’t possibly know what the effect(s) would be of changing the voting procedures. It might change the outcomes of elections. We wouldn’t know unless we had a vote the current way, then had the same vote with whatever you want the “new” way to be and compared the results.
You also don’t know how it will affect people’s feelings about NAFA. How do you know how my club members currently feel? Or the members of any club other than your own? That’s what I mean about nebulous generalizations.
It’s my considered opinion that changing the voting procedures would not improve players’ experience with NAFA. Nor do I believe changing the voting procedures would have any measurable effect on the growth of the sport.
My club members are perfectly happy with their experience of NAFA right now. That might change in future of course, but knowing them I doubt being able to cast their own votes would make a difference one way or the other.
Before you mislead future readers of this blog and my posts, I never accused or even implied that Dale was lying about the anoymity of the ballots. That is YOUR interpretation of my comments and I am offended. I believe that NAFA doesn’t necessarily “Know” which candidates MY club voted for.
What I am in disagreement about in Dale’s “explanation” is HOW does he know that ALL clubs vote as a BLOCK (with the exception of one or two). Is he keeping track of the voting patterns of the paper ballots NAFA received? How does he know which ballots came in which envelope? And, WHY? does it matter if clubs vote their votes in a block or not? It is NONE of NAFA’s business how my club’s delegates vote their ballots.
The electronic ballots are truly troublesome. You enter a code to signify you are in possession of a valid ballot. How far does this identifier continue with the system? It may not identify MY club but, I can assure you that not only does it bother me but, my club captain/owner and those in MY club who used to have their own ballot to cast since my club owner would distribute them individually in past elections. As a club, we do not feel that NAFA has the right to track “what” or “how” ANY club casts or retains or distributes their votes.
The NAFA Corporate Policies & Procedures states that delegates may vote by paper or electronic means or any combination of both. This years ballot could NOT be voted a “combination of both” and MY CLUB received NO ANSWER when this problem was brought up to NAFA through official channels. That is the way NAFA “dismissed” and “disregarded” my club in this most recent NAFA election. …but, that is the subject of a separate article on this blog.
I do not differentiate which of my comments are simply “my opinion” and which are rooted in facts because I TRUST readers to be intelligent enough to make the distinction on their own. By the same token, I can tell when you are stating an opinion, Dede. You don’t need to tag it as “your opinion”. It shortens things up a bit.
The “NAFA Supporters” I’m referring to are the ones who make crude remarks in Captain’s meetings against U-FLI players. They are the ones who will answer complaints about NAFA with, “…well, if you don’t like it, go play U-FLI”. I will not make a “nebulous generalization” that they are everywhere but, they are in enough different places and have done these things to enough different people to know that they are real, they exist and that exact numbers are not necessary to know it is a fact.
“You can’t possibly know what the effect(s) would be of changing the voting procedures. It might change the outcomes of elections. We wouldn’t know unless we had a vote the current way, then had the same vote with whatever you want the “new” way to be and compared the results.”
Scientific poll takers accept that a small sample containing a “representative” portion of the larger population can be an accurate predicter of the outcome of elections within a “margin of error” usually described as + or – (3%-5%.) Having proved that over many, many elections in different places over many years, accepting that method saves a lot of time over taking two different elections and comparing results. Extrapolating that information and applying it to the results of the recent election, (and taking the most “conservative” approach to calculating error) I find that Karen would have won the election with a 75% (vs 79.84% actual) vote total, Leerie would still win with 61% (vs 66.61%) vote total and Dana would still win with 61% (vs 66.34%) vote total. Of course, that is “theory” and not a fact but it is theory based on accepted scientifc practices and research.
“You also don’t know how it will affect people’s feelings about NAFA. How do you know how my club members currently feel? Or the members of any club other than your own? That’s what I mean about nebulous generalizations. ”
No, I don’t know how it will affect people’s feelings about NAFA. Those are “rhetorical questions” asked to give people something to think about but, not necessarily to be answered since all any “individual” can do is provide their own answer to such a question. Again, I don’t think I need to tag that as “opinion” since that is self-evident.
Dede, I’m glad that you report your club members are perfectly happy with the way things are now. Would they be unhappy if NAFA decided to change the way we vote and give everyone a ballot? And, if it doesn’t make any difference to them or you either way, why get so worked up over a difference of opinion?
Respectfully submitted,
Chris
Thanks for the clarification, Chris. As you don’t wish to have your posts misinterpreted, neither do I. I am not “worked up over a difference of opinion.” I’m not worked up at all and I’m not sure why you’d assume that since there is no “yelling” in my posts. I am questioning things that don’t make sense to me.
There are still some points that I don’t understand. You say you believe NAFA doesn’t know which candidates your club voted for, but in the next paragraph you say it’s none of NAFA’s business how your club’s delegates vote their ballots.
I didn’t keep his post that was on the flyballdogs list, but if I remember correctly Dale said the ballots’ code numbers identify which votes come from the same clubs (but not which club). So the envelopes have nothing to do with it, it’s all based on the codes. I don’t remember exactly, but I think it was the first several characters of the code were the same for ballots from the same club. As to why, well, I would think the answer is to evaluate and try to determine if there’s a way to streamline the voting process.
Tracking how people vote is kind of crucial to an election, isn’t it? As long as anonymity is maintained, I think it’s NAFA’s right to analyze voting patterns in whatever way the organization chooses. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about this point.
Thanks for the specific example of an issue that went unaddressed. That is much more informative than vague references to “groups” being unheard, etc.
Regarding “NAFA Supporters,” it’s unfortunate that people who play flyball can sometimes be rude. I agree that comments like the one you mentioned are uncalled for. It seemed in your first reference that you were characterizing a large number of people as intolerant of opposing views about NAFA and that’s what I questioned. I’m not clear on what some rude remarks to people who play U-FLI have to do with the topic of who should vote in NAFA elections.
The polling information was interesting. I wish I had the time to look at the research myself. Oh well.
I was not responding to your questions at the end of Post #46, I was addressing your blanket statement that changing voting procedures “will offer an avenue that will increase NAFA’s players feeling a sense of belonging to NAFA and, therefore, more ‘loyalty’ to NAFA.”
As you admit, you don’t know what affect it will have on how people feel about NAFA. It might have little or even none. You’ve said it will make little substantive difference to the outcomes of elections. So let me ask you, Chris. Why push so hard for a change that could create a lot more work for people who already volunteer a significant amount of time keeping the organization running, and that could significantly increase the cost of holding elections? Change can be good when there are clear benefits. Change simply for the sake of change, not so much.
NAFA By-Laws:
These Bylaws govern the affairs of the North American Flyball Association®, a nonprofit corporation organized under the Michigan Non-Profit Corporation (the “Act”).
ARTICLE V-COMMITTEES OF DIRECTORS (h) Election Committee –…..The Election Committee shall receive completed ballots at or before the beginning of the Annual General Meeting and shall be responsible for tallying the results and reporting the results to the presiding officer of the Meeting. The Election Committee shall ensure that all returned ballots are authentic and shall destroy the ballots, after reporting the results, at the adjournment of the Annual General Meeting.
“Dale said the ballots’ code numbers identify which votes come from the same clubs (but not which club)…..it’s all based on the codes. I don’t remember exactly, but I think it was the first several characters of the code were the same for ballots from the same club. As to why, well, I would think the answer is to evaluate and try to determine if there’s a way to streamline the voting process.”
The By-Laws clearly state that the ballots shall be destroyed after reporting the results at the AGM. It doesn’t provide for “exceptions”. If Dale is in possession of “codes” that represent a unique club “identifier” then, the electronic form of NAFA’s ballots have not been “destroyed”. They still exist in code form. They are still associated with a unique club. That condition violates the By-Laws.
The By-Laws also do not provide any Election official or committee member the authority to “to analyze voting patterns in whatever way the organization chooses.” So, although you may see it as NAFA’s “right”, that premise is not supported in NAFA’s By-Laws.
Now, “why?” would destruction of the ballots be specifically addressed in NAFA’s By-Laws? I am theorizing here but, I believe that it is recognized that there is potentially much more information contained in those ballots in whatever form they exist (paper or electronic) than just “to evaluate and try to determine if there’s a way to streamline the voting process.” So, that is Dale’s explanation offered but, it is NOT the only “possible” explanation that may exist. I can’t prove that Dale had more than one motive but, you can’t prove that he did not. That’s why there is a rule.
Rules are meant to be followed by EVERYBODY. If Dale had a proposal that would “streamline the voting process” then he should have presented that to the BoD and changed the By-Laws or Corporate P & P PRIOR to the Election cycle.
Tracking how people vote is NOT “crucial” to an election. Determining how many votes were cast for a candidate or cast for or against a proposal IS. Using information extracted from past election balloting has the potential to give one side an “unfair advantage”. That is why the By-Laws were made and should not be broken because it creates doubt in the integrity of the system.
“Why push so hard for a change that could create a lot more work for people who already volunteer a significant amount of time keeping the organization running, and that could significantly increase the cost of holding elections? Change can be good when there are clear benefits. Change simply for the sake of change, not so much.”
I want to thank you for challenging me to crystallize what I am advocating. At first, all I wanted was my ballot back. That was the way things were done in the past. Your post has clarified to me why it is NOT possible to fix this. By assigning all the delegate “votes” to one person, by having a “weighted vote”, that is an “unfair system” by definition.
I do not advocate change just for change’s sake. I advocate changing (reforming) an unfair system into a “fair” system. Not weighted by any factor but by reducing everybody to just one vote. “One Person, One Vote”
The weighted system delays the AGM because at the end of of the racing year, racing results have to be tallied in order to determine how many votes each club earned. Any delays in receiving tournament results also delays vote calculations. Why defend keeping the “status quo” system (that is weighted and unfair) that continuously creates a LOT more work every year for the volunteers who keep this organization running and will eventually probably have to be outsourced in order to be accomplished at who knows what cost to NAFA?
The clear benefit for “one person, one vote” is this: It is fair to everybody. Costs for holding elections can go down by moving to a simplified, all electronic voting system. You register at NAFA with a valid, active CRN and email address and receive your ballot by email. Your vote would not be associated with any other “code” signifying your association with any unique club identifier.
So far, the only arguments against change has been offered by people who offer “the system is what they know”. Show me how “what you know” (status quo) is what is “best” for NAFA”. What is best for NAFA is what can be proven to be “Fair” and equitable to everybody.
Chris
I’m glad I could help you clarify your thoughts.
Regarding the destruction of the ballots, do you know for a fact that they were not destroyed by the time the AGM was adjourned, or are you making an assumption? Isn’t it possible Dale saw that most clubs voted their ballots in a block at the same time that he was seeing the percentage of ballots returned from each region? (do you think we shouldn’t have that information either?)
The bylaws do, in fact, give the Board the authority to analyze voting patterns:
ARTICLE IV – BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 1. Powers. The business of the Corporation shall be managed by and under the direction of the Board of Directors, which may exercise all powers of the Corporation and do all such lawful acts and things not prohibited by statute or by the Articles of Incorporation or these Bylaws.
I did not see anything in the bylaws prohibiting voting patterns from being analyzed.
It would be pretty easy to argue that “one person, one vote” is unfair. If you want the bylaws to be revised to eliminate weighted voting, why not “one club, one vote”? Or since you suggest people register to vote with a valid, active CRN, why note one vote per active dog (which to me would mean the dog has earned at least one pt. during the racing year)?
I don’t think there’s any system that couldn’t be argued as unfair in some respect. It seems to me that one vote per dog would be the least unfair. I don’t know that presented with a ballot right now I would vote for that as opposed to one vote per club, I’d have to think about it some more because there’s the whole “flyball is played by clubs” aspect to consider. But I would definitely vote for either of those over one vote per person.
Regarding the destruction of the ballots, do you know for a fact that they were not destroyed by the time the AGM was adjourned, or are you making an assumption?
At this time, there is no information or evidence to determine beyond reasonable doubt: 1.) That the ballots were destroyed or, 2.) That the ballots were NOT destroyed, or, 3.) “When” the ballots were destroyed if 1.) is true.
Isn’t it possible Dale saw that most clubs voted their ballots in a block at the same time that he was seeing the percentage of ballots returned from each region?
Percentage of “Returned Ballots” is not related to “block voting” by unique clubs. It is possible that he saw block voting patterns simultaneously with the return percentages. Could you demonstrate a specific example to prove how this is possible?
(do you think we shouldn’t have that information (the percentage of ballots returned) either?)
Perhaps you are just joking again but, I feel like you are attempting to provoke me. The returned percentages have been openly provided to the public for years and have not been cited by any NAFA official as a cause to “limit” the available ballots to be voted by “combining” votes onto a single sheet of paper.
The block voting pattern that was invoked was not made “public knowledge” until well AFTER this information was used to change the format of the ballots. In fact, tracking this information by NAFA would NEVER have been made public if complaints had not been made by Team Owners to NAFA concerning their inability to distribute their club’s earned delegate votes to the individuals within their clubs that they considered to be their club’s “delegate voters”.
So, I believe it is reasonable to continue to ask questions about the proper gathering and application (“use”) of information about the “Public” that NAFA has NOT made available to the public.
I think it is within my rights and my club’s rights to ask questions about “How” NAFA designed and prepared a ballot that does not appear to conform to NAFA’s Corporate Policies and Procedures so that a club can vote their votes as a “combination of both paper and electronic means” and to continue to ask questions until all our doubts are satisfied.
I think it is the responsibility of NAFA to continue to provide answers to questions as long as the questioner can continue to demonstrate their reasons for doubt. “Doubting” does not translate into accusing someone of lying. It means that not all “possibilities” have been fully explained.
There may not be anything in the bylaws prohibiting voting patterns from being analyzed. But, NAFA officials are ethically bound to treat all issues and all candidates (including dogs) fairly and without prejudice. Withholding the “information” that led to a decision to combine the votes onto a single piece of paper may have given one side an “unfair advantage” and I reserve the right to ask questions until I am satisfied that is not the case.
Assuming that enough factual evidence can be brought to public scrutiny to decide these issues.
BTW, did you notice that under “Section 1. Powers. The business of the Corporation shall be managed by and under the direction of the Board of Directors…” ..it refers to the “Board of Directors”. Plural. Dale took sole responsibility for this change in the ballot without seeking consent from the rest of the Board or even inform them of the change. He said this in his post to the FB list and it is confirmed in private email to individual Board members.
Can you provide the section of the By-Laws that supports a lone Board member acting alone? (Not as an “Officer” but, member et al.)
Our team has not received any voting ballots in over two years. We do not host tournies as we have not been able to find a good venue, but we attend plenty of tournaments.
Kristie,
I’m assuming your team is considered “active” by NAFA? Have you contacted NAFA as the reason you do not receive ballots?
The most recent election included clubs who earned delegates in racing year 2009…which means if your club entered a tournament and raced anytime between October 1, 2007 and September 30, 2009, your club’s contact for NAFA, the “Club Owner” should have received ballots last fall.
The only reason I can think of why this didn’t happen for your club is that maybe NAFA does not have current contact information for your club.
I would definitely be contacting NAFA to find out why you haven’t received those ballots.
Chris
Chris,
Leerie said our address was wrong. We had made sure tha captain’s address was right, but the owner (me) address was outdated. I am not on the big flyball list so had never seen a post asking for updated info. Not sure why they didn’t just email the captain or I (my email address was correct). Hopefully we will get ballots in the future.
And yes, our club is very active in attending tournies. We probably send 3-5 teams to 10+ tournies a year.
Leave a Comment