Well, I tried to post this earlier and somehow it got lost in web space, I think. No telling where it ended up? I'm just not good at this stuff.
Anyway, I posted the following to the sheepdog-l list in response to the proposal. I don't reguarly post to this forum, but check it out frequently. I don't have the time, desire, or the technical know how to be a regular contributor. However, I do feel strongly that this proposal is a bad idea. I urge all of you to contact your directors with your feelings on it, even lurkers such as me. That's a little old fashioned way of having input, that still works. Works better than fundamentally changing the way our fairly healthy working dog organizations are run.
Here is what i posted to sheepdog-l:
Gary and all,
This proposal, while it seems well intentioned, is a bad idea. I guess I'm struggling to see the need for this vehicle. I fail to see a problem with transparency and a "secret society". In fact, just the opposite. I imagine every USBCHA member personally knows their directors. I imagine every USBCHA member would feel comftorable contacting their directors, or any director, for that matter. I don't subscribe to the "black helicopter" theory that underlies this proposal. All these people that serve on these boards are our peers. They are elected from the same pool of handlers we see running at trials every weekend. I have visited with many of them frequently about HA business, and always received courtesy and a welcoming of feedback, even when we have disagreed on policy.
We should expect our directors to be competent, reasonable people that think through items that come before the board. We shouldn't expect them to march in lock step with all members. We should expect them to welcome input and idea's, but eventually decide the course of action after weighing all sides of the issue. I certainly don't expect the directors from district 5 to agree with me all the time. I do expect them to be reasonable, fair, and informed. If enough members from a district have a problem with their directors, then elect new ones, or run yourself.
My real problem with this proposal is that eventually when the 50 or so people sign up for it, just like with any of these electronic or web based communication devices, there will be a minority of people that dominate the discussion. Eventually, there will a very small group that chatters the most, which is hardly a consensus of any group. The ones that are satisfied with how things are going will mostly remain silent, or will resort to private e-mails or phone calls, which defeats the whole purpose. You can go to any working Border Collie website or discussion group currently and find many examples of this happening, including this one. Oftentimes, the best way to solve a "crisis" is to let some time pass.
If communication to the membership is a problem, and this is always a challenge, there has to be a better way to solve it than to move away from a representative form of decision making. The working dog community has always made decisions on basically a consensus basis. Oftentimes it can be cumbersome and slow, but there is still not a better way of operating.
Respectfully,
Mike Neary
