The NAFA delegates have spoken with 918 total ballots returned (56.81%). It’s really a shame and there is really no excuse for the lack of participation. At least I’m glad that in my region (14), 80% (second highest rate of return) of the ballots were returned.
The Board of Director Votes and Percentages:
- Dale Smith - 768 (83.66%)
- Scott Stein - 591 (64.38%)
- Alisa Romaine - 417 (45.42%)
- Zachary Chernik - 320 (34.86%)
- Chris VanWert - 314 (34.20%)
I have my own idea as to why the voting turned out as it did and I will leave you to form your own opinions.
Clyde Moore Memorial Hall of Fame Votes and Percentages:
- Lyric - Whippet - 322 (35.08%)
- Bizzy - Border Collie - 319 (34.75%)
- Crackers - Mix - 269 (29.30%)
- Tab - Welsh Corgi (Pembroke) - 223 (24.29%)
- Cyrano de Bordercollie - Border Collie - 113 (12.31%)
For complete election results, please see the NAFA website here.
Larry
Related Post:
13 comments ↓
The unknown Greg’s comment has being removed.
First, congrats to the winners.We were not able to vote although we wouldv’e liked to.
I do feel the shame is correctly directed to those clubs who didn’t cast their votes - and let’s use this blog to open some eyes to some possibilities as how this process can change for the better in the future.
My region dissappointed me too, because they had less than half of thier ballots returned. Unfortunately, my club hasn’t yet “earned” the right to vote because we’re too “new”. Regaurdless that we have paid the same monies as everyone else for our dog’s racing numbers and paid into every tournament that we can attend. (Not to mention the many years the majority of us paid into NAFA from when we ran with our “old” club) - how is this fair for newly formed clubs?
Some regions are lucky as travel isn’t affected by weather, border crossing issues, or just plain numbers of and distance to tournaments, not to forget cost. This may take some new clubs much longer than others based on the region you happen to live in.
I noticed the low percentage of returned ballots in many of the regions across the country. This topic of when to give votes and the amount allicated, I hope will be addressed in some fashion by the new BOD.
I’m sure there are other new clubs out there that would have loved to have the opportunity to be heard with those votes that were not cast.
Here’s an idea I will throw out there to the masses, it could make all NAFA members feel some sort of REPRESENTATION in this organization that we all pay into. Not just the people who have been doing this for “years” - Don’t become elitist flyball snobs.(said with a smile)
I’m aware NAFA is not a lucrative business - but representation shouldn’t COST US and by not using a vote that has been issued to your club, I feel it costs some of us. Please consider this idea in the future. Perhaps you could ask a “new club” what vote they would cast. Only if you don’t want to take the time to do it and aren’t going to mail it in anyway….if votes weren’t cast to make a statement of revolt of some sort then I back you 100% - but if you just didn’t vote….well, vote. (or ask a new club) Just an idea…..
Greg, Greg, Greg,
Since when did “sportsmanlike” mean rolling over and playing dead, or perhaps imitating sheep and going with the herd wherever the beasts with teeth tell you to go?
Your petty demand for congratulations for other people stinks of mutual admiration and ass kissing. It’s about as genuine as a school marm telling little Jimmy to say ‘thank you.’ Say your own congratulations, you’re scoring no points wagging your finger here.
I don’t have a dog in this race, my two are still in training, waiting for the next season to start to be put on teams and start racing. NAFA and U-Fli and their members and fan clubs and the politics mean nothing to me.
But I’m well aware of the politics that gets played within the sports organizations, especially when the popularity of the sports grow faster than the ability of the old timers to keep up and evolve. The entrenched old timers (and 5 years ago is the good old days in some of these sports) versus the precocious newcomers is not limited to Flyball.
And if my observations of other human and dog endeavors holds true, I think this quote is fitting:
“We have, I fear, confused power with greatness.”
- Stewart Udall
I’ve seen countless people with talent try and turn it into power, and plenty more who try and go straight for the power without any sort of expertise or talent at all.
Few people and dogs are great, and even fewer can be great athletes and great leaders, or as great in retirement/management as they were as a handler.
These are all very real issues that should be discussed and aired out. It seems to me from the comments here and elsewhere that NAFA has some serious issues to work out, and if they are worked out it would be to the betterment of the sport and for NAFA itself.
Taxation without representation, which a previous poster is implying is a serious issue, not just some minor little gripe from one of the jealous little people. Calling the board “new” when it seems there is only one new member is also telling. Is one fresh face really what’s needed when from all accounts, NAFA is getting its ass handed to it by a new organization, mostly because of NAFA’s failings, not U-Fli’s perfection?
And your slinging around “unsportsmanlike” reminds me of another dog sport where anyone who questioned the entrenched leadership was charged with that exact sin, where peaceful debate was cast as “attacks” and “unsportsmanlike conduct” and thus the clubs bylaws could come into play to ostracize and silence anyone who dare question the idiocy and overreaching thought police actions of those with power.
We should strive for greatness, not power. And we should not let those with power go unchallenged. Nor should we fail to take a step back and ask where are we now and where could we be if things were better?
Take your thought police badge off and stuff it.
In talking about the election I wonder if there were any votes returned with no votes on them? If so how were they counted? I know that we placed our votes. Also did anybody notice something strange happened when you voted on line? I know that we did not place a vote for the ED position (why bother since it was only one person). But when I went to submit it placed a vote there. Hum glick in the system it would seem. I know it doesn’t make a difference on the ED position (that is probably why we haven’t seen any vote numbers listed in the results for the ED) but it would make one wonder if there were any other glicks (just a thought). Funny that nothing has been mentioned regarding this voting issue either.
Judy, I noticed the same thing when I placed our blank votes for ED.
In regards to “no votes” - they can be determined by looking at the number of ballots received and the totals for each “level”. 918 ballots were submitted.
1 2 3
ZC 118 78 124
AR 124 121 172
DS 397 264 107
SS 189 287 115
CV 71 88 155
Total 899 838 673
No Vote 19 80 245 for a total of 344
No votes came in FOURTH place!
I am confused how one can be “embarrassed” by someone else’s opinion? It is quite obvious from reading anything from Larry, he is frustrated by the direction (or lack of) by the NAFA board. But, clearly he loves flyball, and, is not afraid to put his opinion out there - popular or not. He is clearly thinking what alot of others are thinking as well - those not so inclined to put their heads on the proverbial chopping block.
NAFA has some issues. In order to improve, we need to have a TRUE representation of the flyball community. The way NAFA stands today, it represents the established firm. That does not, necessarily, represent the current flyball community.
HELLO no one noticed how few people vote for the PRESIDENT of the USA (sorry Canadian friends I don’t know what your polls are like)??? People seriously expect a high turnout for a dog sport organization? Maybe, much like with the US Politicos you hear so many empty promises with any election you loose interest. (Hey I’m in IOWA, political hell right now!). I can only say that we’ve had very few useful interactions with NAFA board members. Those who have helped us or seem to actual get stuff done in office get our votes, those who dismiss us do not. When it comes to electing new BOD members we take into account the whole experience we’ve had with that person on lists, in person, whatever our basis is. If they were nasty, engaging in verbal smackdowns they are not going to get our votes.
Mostly I figure that the BOD has to figure out that it needs to be more responsive to it’s members. We have choices now & that means they have to be competitive. People can vote with their ballots (or lack there of) or they can vote with their $$’s either way is effective.
I would have loved the opportunity to vote. Unfortunately my club is new so we are not considered part of the voting community. the funny thing is that with my previous club I didn’t get a chance to vote either, because the person in charge made all decisions without consulting the rest of the club… but that’s a whole other story. funny thing is that on a larger scale, that’s exactly what happened with these NAFA elections — we were once again excluded. pity.
That’s another reason why the votes need to go to the people playing and spending there money and not the club.
I’m probably beating a dead horse here… but a GOOD Captain includes all of his/her team members in ALL voting decisions. Maybe there should be a discussion about poorly Captained teams!!
I could write a book about my previous Captain… and it would probably make you all blush! Hence why I am a fair and democratic Captain of my own team now.
I agree with you BC Rescue mom, which is why it would be easier to give delegate votes to persons rather than teams. You can say you have to consult with your team, but, ultimately, in the eyes of NAFA the team Captain has the ultimate say, so it would be REALLY hard to enforce.
Very true Jackie! Unfortunately, because of the way the system currently works (ie: votes based upon how many tournies teams play in, host, etc.) I don’t see a feasible way for individuals to get votes vs. teams (trust me… I wish I did!). If a team gets 8 votes but has 12 members there is not way to split them up evenly - which could be why they do it the way they do.
In a perfect world… every individual that had dogs registered and active would get a vote and every vote would count. But NAFA seems as though they want to ‘reward’ the clubs that host the most and play the most. I guess the argument might be that the teams that host and play the most are essentially ‘making’ the most money for the organization. But what about the new clubs out there and the smaller clubs in the middle of nowhere that have to travel out of region just to play and for who hosting a tournament just isn’t feasible? I just don’t think the system is necessarily fair to them.
It’s definitely a flawed system… but having dealt with some of the members on the BOD directly, I just don’t see things changing anytime soon. They seem to be content with leaving things as they are and breaking into the ‘inner sanctum’ of the NAFA BOD isn’t that easy to do. It’s a popularity contest like every other form of election out there and some no-name, even with great ideas and the best of intentions, would be hard pressed to pull off that kind of an upset.
Leave a Comment