I have heard from lots of people, looking for insight into some of the Yes votes on the Hunte application. It really does get complicated, things are not as clear as we might wish they were. When you analyze this situation, and decide how those votes might affect your decisions regarding the candidates in this election, there are important details to consider. Some of those who voted YES were committed Board members, who did not understand their options then. That was not their fault. Here is why: There never had been an application for membership with these overtones there never had been an application for membership opposed by hundreds of members. In the past, when membership applications were disputed, the issues were limited and the discussions focused on issues of care of animals, violations of the law, breach of contract or guarantees with puppy buyers, etc., issues we have all encountered in the past. This time was different. Some felt that they did not have the right to vote NO due to weaknesses in the By-laws. Sadly, those in a position of leadership on the Board, the President and the Legal Affairs Chair, did not take any action at all to clarify these issues for the Board members, to open them up to discussion or understanding of what the options truly were. When the matter came before the Board in January, there was no outside legal opinion obtained or presented regarding the Board's options, there was not even any discussion of what alternatives existed, what authority the Board had. The only thing that was ever said was the repeated warning to Board members to obtain personal umbrella coverage 'in case'. This was very misleading, and caused a number of Board members to misunderstand what they could do and could not do. Had they understood that there was no impediment to their voting no under the circumstances, several of them would not have voted differently. As everyone knows the process was redone and those who voted "Yes" reversed their vote. It was corrected. I can't help but remember back to Ginny Altman's term as President. Whenever there was anything of consequence before the Board, Ginny would ask the Board if it felt it had enough information to vote, and on all important issues, she would ask for analysis and explanation by the then Legal Affairs Chair, LaMar Frederick, and she usually suggested deferring the vote by at least one quarter on the most significant issues to allow for additional reflection by Board members and input from the membership. For all those reasons, it is misleading to be guided merely by the NO and the YES votes. At least some of the YES votes are attributable to a lack of information by those who voted YES, which seems to me to be attributable to a lack of leadership by those who could and should have provided it. I hope this helps to clarify this very complicated situation. This is probably the most important election ever held in the GSDCA. You have much to consider, which is impossible to do in the dark. If you have any questions or want to discuss further, please don't hesitate to contact me. Margy Golant ============================================================================ POST is Copyrighted 2007. All material remains the property of the original author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE PROSECUTED. For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx VISIT OUR WEBSITE - www.showgsd.org ============================================================================