Most people remember the debacle of the Bush vs. Gore election of 2000 where the infamous Hanging Chad first debuted.  I make light of this merely to get your attention for I know that not many people like talking about politics whatever the form.   However, the majority of people reading this should be concerned for this is our sport and unfortunately politics affects some aspects of it, especially in NAFA.

Not long after my last post, Let the People Vote, I received private email concerning the last election complaining of “irregularities” in the NAFA voting process.  Obviously, this sparked my curiosity so I fired off some email and talked with several people about what had taken place.  What follows is a culmination of what I found.  I’m not going to go into a “he said she said” and I will not name anyone.   I have contacted NAFA and they assure me that a reply is forthcoming.

I have tried to stay as neutral as I can, but I have offered my opinion.  Hopefully, after reading this, you will be able to form your own opinion and I welcome your comments.

The Ballot

This year’s ballot was different than those in the past in that only one ballot was sent out by NAFA.  So if your club had 8 votes, they were all on a single ballot.  From what I can understand, one or more people complained about the ballot, believing this would cause block voting.  In other words, clubs would not be able to split their votes.  The word from a Board member was that voting patterns over the last three elections showed that only a few clubs split their votes, so only a single sheet of paper was sent to each club to save money.

The only rule that I could find that would come close to violating the single sheet ballot was in Chapter 4, Delegate Voting, paragraph (d), which states, “Delegate voting may be conducted by paper ballot, electronic balloting, or a combination of both.”   Does a single ballot violate this rule since “a combination of both” could not be accomplished with a single ballot?

Not long after a complaint was made (or maybe at the same time), a function on the NAFA balloting website was added to allow club owners to split their ballots.  However, there were no instructions on the ballot or the website about making a combination vote.

For me the biggest question is whether the ballots were tabulated correctly, and I have some other concerns too.  What is the likelihood of an error by the voter because of the ballot?  Could someone voting online think they were casting all of their club votes for a candidate or MVP and only cast a single vote?  Was the ballot confusing to the voter?  In my opinion a yes answer to any of these questions is a reason for concern.

One other concern I have deals with the destruction of the ballots after the election.  The NAFA rule book, Article V, Section 2, Paragraph (h) clearly states, “… 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.”  So, if this is the case, how would anyone know the trend and voting patterns of a club or clubs?

The Chat Transcript

The chat transcript that appears on the NAFA website is not a complete record of what transpired during the chat.  Apparently, the chat transcripts have always had some minor revisions made to them before being posting to the website and this is something that I never questioned or even knew about.  Who would ever think the chat transcript was not a complete and accurate record?

The way I understand it, one of the transcripts had a major change to it because of a reported personal attack toward one of the candidates.  I did speak to the person that made the attack and I can only surmise that it wasn’t that bad but since I have not read the original transcript, I really cannot make a judgment.

I don’t like quoting a source but in this case they make a compelling argument, “Imagine if the Kennedy/Nixon debate was edited to remove the sweating from Nixon’s face.  Kennedy might have not won that election.”  We can only imagine the unknown effects of editing the chat transcript.

Politics get messy sometimes and if you are running for office you just have to take your licks and let the people decide.  I am under the opinion that people have a way of seeing the truth no matter what is said.   I believe the record is the record and should not be altered.

My Thoughts

What follows is just me talking and really has nothing to do with the election results.

Board Diversity

I would like to see more diverse views in my Board members.  If you look at the people that currently serve, most run on a Division 1 team running in the top of their regions.  Not that this is particularly bad, but it does breed a certain mind set.  Additionally, they hold a point of view that is different from most of the people they serve.  This is purely my opinion, but it seems like the same people serve over and over again.  When they are not on the Board, they serve in different capacities until they can run again. Serving multiple times brings on a form of elitism, i.e. I know best.

Do term limits sound unreasonable?  I am talking about a 2 term maximum for a total of 6 years in an individual’s lifetime.  That would give a member 3 years on, 1 year or more off, and then 3 more years if they are selected again.

Board Appointments

Appointments are going to happen and there is just no way around it.  However, at the end of the appointment these people run for the board and almost always get elected.  To me, this gives the appointee an unfair advantage over anyone outside that wants to run.  I would like to see the rule changed so that an appointee cannot run for the Board until one year after leaving their appointment.  This means that the vacant position they are filling would go to someone not serving on the Board already.  If any appointees would like to serve, they can run in the next election.  This would be a much fairer way to handle appointments.

Lastly, I would like to thank all of the NAFA Board members for serving us.  I know that they give of themselves more than any of us will really ever know.  I know they don’t have an easy job and are called upon to make tough decisions for our sport and I only want the best for each of them.

Larry

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

Since March of 2009 this blog has been dormant, and I think it may be time for its resurgence. I’ve been contacted several times by businesses wanting permission to guess blog but I’ve resisted because I believed that this is your blog, the flyballer. I didn’t create this blog for profit but it does require funds to keep it on the Internet. So far I’ve been lucky and receive a very small amount from ads to keep it going and I want to thank you all for clicking on the Google ads.

For everyone on Facebook, i-Flyball now has a fan page and I encourage you to become a fan by using the link on the left side of the page. Please feel free to post on the i-Flyball Facebook wall and to use the discussion tab. I will use the note tab for post from this Flyball blog.

I have some thoughts on future blog topics but would like to solicit your help in this area. So if you have anything that might be of interest to everyone in the Flyball community, by all means please pass it on to me and I will do my best to research the topic and write about it. Additionally, if you would like to write anything for the blog I will welcome your thoughts and posts.

Again, I would like to thank you all for your past support and look forward to your continued support in the coming year.

Larry

It’s been about 6 months since I posted here and it appears that other Flyball related blogs have been somewhat dormant too.   I know that people are posting on the Flyball forum but it has also been slow.  I guess more people like to play than talk about it.

By now people have chosen one organization or the other.  Some play in both but here in the south it seems that some have gone over to one or the other and only play in one.  I have tried to keep out of it and I haven’t been keeping track of any announcements from either organization.  I only look at my dog’s points and that is it.  I’ve stayed away from board minutes, Chairman Announcements, and just about anything from either organization.  It seems that I’ve completely lost interest in it all and I’m happy.

I don’t play near as much as I used to and try to steer clear of any and all politics.  I don’t even own a club any more.  I really have found it much easier this way.  I still enjoy playing Flyball but I’m a lot less intense.  I’m writing this just to get the politics off the front page.  Plus I’m wondering how you are all doing.  Like I said, I don’t go to as many tournaments and I don’t see a lot of the people I used to see.  I’d like to know if the economy has changed your Flyball participation or if you have come to a place like I have i.e. enjoy it while playing but overall less intense.

Can’t wait to hear from you!

Larry

I know that you have all heard the political rhetoric from both sides of the spectrum and are probably tired of it and want it all to be over.  However, I just received something that has started me thinking and has shed more light on an area that anyone interested in animal issues should review.  For me, it brings back thoughts of breed banning in parts of the United States and Canada.  I’ve tried to vent this as much as I could for errors and misrepresentation but there may be some.   After all, any time something involves politics you have to take it was a grain of salt.

I’ve given a lot of thought about whether I should post this or not but I thought it important enough to bring it to light in case you haven’t seen it and let you decide.  Notice I said, “you decide.”  This is not a forum where I want to discuss U.S. Politics but it has something to do with animal issues and protection and that is the only reason I decided to post it.

Larry

A SAOVA message to sportsmen, pet owners and farmers concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged.

The Most Critical Election in your Lifetime
10/21/08

Dear Friends,

Early voting has already begun and November 4th is fast approaching.  The outcome of this election will have far reaching and long lasting impacts on animal agriculture, hunting, and animal ownership.  Amid all the political rhetoric and campaign ads, important serious warning alarms are sounded. The combination of a Democrat supermajority in Congress and a liberal Democratic president will structurally imbalance our government to historic proportions. Constitutional checks and balances will be voided, making this the most critical election in your lifetime. Every aspect of American life could change.

The Wall Street Journal editorial observes: “If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.”

In the area of animal issues, nearly 40 bills introduced on behalf of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) weren’t passed by the 110th Congress.  Strong Democratic wins could be a guarantee that many of these bills are likely to become law in the next Congress.

In 2006 a GOP Senator blocked the horse slaughter bill from being heard and voted on the Senate floor.  More recently HR 6598, the horribly misguided and misleadingly named Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act, received a favorable vote split along party lines.  HR6598 would turn horse owners and ranchers into felons for having a connection to a horse transported for slaughter. HR 6598 is likely to return in 2009. http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=261648

The Pet Animal Welfare Statute 2005 (PAWS) was thwarted by a GOP and moderate controlled Senate Agriculture Committee in 2006 and was re-introduced in September by HSUS supporters as the Puppy Uniform Protection Statute (PUPS).  After 8 years of failed attempts to regulate retail dog breeders, will the 2008 election finally bring victory for HSUS in its goal to federally regulate home hobby dog breeding?

RESHAPING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

The next president will have extraordinary impact on the ideological shape of the nation’s federal courts for decades to come. It is likely the next president will appoint Supreme Court judges as six of the nine are turning 70. In addition, hundreds of federal and appellate judges will be appointed. Appellate appointments shape lasting constitutional interpretations and they cover multiple states. Although these require Congressional approval, that will be a slam-dunk if this election creates a Democratic supermajority. One out of three federal judges now owes a lifetime-tenured job to the current president.

The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that judges should interpret the law as it is written. Seventy-four percent (74%) of men favor that approach along with 65% of women. Sen. McCain supports that view and he has consistently campaigned on a “strict constructionist philosophy” for the courts.

Sen. Obama, on the other hand, believes that judges should be required to possess “empathy” and should “reach decisions on the basis of his deepest values, core concerns, and broader perspectives on how the world works.”  During the Roberts nomination debate, Sen. Obama stated, “Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”

Considering the skyrocketing number of lawsuits filed by HSUS and other animal rightist groups to ban hunting, change livestock regulations, and alter husbandry standards, the stakes are very high for the animal owning public.  The best interests of animal owners, hunters, and ranchers would not be served by liberal appointees who choose to rule based on imaginative and empathic interpretations of property rights and the constitution.

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it’s controlled by the best informed and most motivated. Vote on November 4th. It’s the most critical election in your lifetime.

Please cross post this message widely.

Susan Wolf
Director, Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA)

The message above was posted to North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky residents by the Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA).

SAOVA is a nonpartisan volunteer group working to protect Americans from the legislative and political threats of radical animal rightists. It is the only national organization fighting this struggle for both sportsmen and animal owners, natural allies, in these arenas. Visit our website at http://saova.org for this program’s goals, methodology and list signup details.