PDA

View Full Version : DVCTA - DaD Parting Ways?



Pages : [1] 2

rosinante
Oct. 2, 2006, 06:08 PM
So, is it happening.....rumors abound.

lorik
Oct. 2, 2006, 07:51 PM
I sit on the board of both organizations. Basically, each was an insurance liability to the other. Dressage at Devon is now it's own entity and has applied for non-profit status which should be finallized within a year. The separation was welcomed by both organizations.

rosinante
Oct. 2, 2006, 09:18 PM
"Basically, each was an insurance liability to the other."....hmmmm. Hasn't been a problem for 32 years what happenned?

DAD is a show that grosses over half a million dollars. Did the members of DVCTA get to vote on the split? Will DVCTA get royalties from the show?

tannaman
Oct. 2, 2006, 10:14 PM
this isn't really a surprise, from a business perspective. there are GMOs that runs horse trials as separate entities from the mother organization for the same reasons. but it doesn't mean the people running it will be any different. its just how its being run under its own name so the liability of the show doesn't take the rest of the GMO down with it. god forbid Sydney took a blow from the black knight and sued ;)

centsohuma
Oct. 2, 2006, 11:09 PM
how perceptive of you rosinante - things are never what they seem in real life or the horse world. The thing I found curious is that there has been no mention, even by way of a formal good-bye statement, in any DVCTA publication, newsletter, or website. When things "appear" to be done behind the door of the membership at large one must wonder why. If it's so amicable a split why all the silence????

ASB Stars
Oct. 3, 2006, 09:23 AM
I certainly understand LoriK's wish to sanitize this- but I am quite removed from caring...so...here is what I have heard...

My understanding is that there was allegedly at least one- possibly two- lawsuits that were aimed at DAD due to the fact that the DAD folks had entered into contracts with, in one case, a company that would bring in sponsors for the show. Apparently, DVCTA was not aware of the existence of this contract until such time as it had gone way south, and the company was threatening legal action.

In addition, it is alledged that DAD promised substantial funds to USDF for the new headquarters in Lexington, without obtaining permission from DVCTA.

My personal opinion is that things can only get better with the changes at the top. I think that it is apparent that any time you let people run rampant with control over something like this- which they consider to be a BIG deal, you wind up with huge issues. And they did.

lorik
Oct. 3, 2006, 09:44 AM
This split was just finallized in early September. I'm sure the members will read about this in the next newsletter.

The DVCTA Board of Directors voted on the split. It was a hot topic in the monthly meetings for several months with the 'separation agreement' changing several times. These meetings are open to the entire membership. If any member wants to keep abreast about anything that DVCTA is doing, I suggest that you go to the meetings. There is not now, and never has been an intent to do anything 'behind the members backs'.

There are financials from the show that will continue for DVCTA.

Yes, the liability issue has been there since the show began, but after taking a long, hard look at the what if's, it was decided that one law suit against DAD could keep DVCTA from having other shows, clinics and horse trials, and one lawsuit against DVCTA could keep DAD from opening it's gates. DAD had been the tail wagging the dog for many years.

BTW, I was not trying to 'sanitize' anything. I tend to be succinct when I post. Anyone who wants the long version, should stop listening to rumors and get to a meeting to hear first hand what's going on.

ASB Stars
Oct. 3, 2006, 11:21 AM
My understanding is that with a lawsuit pending, DAD would be unable to have insurance that would allow the show to open- which is essentially what you were saying, Lori.

If anything that I have stated as being "alleged" is untrue- for those who are not in the area, or do not wish to join DVCTA- please feel free to correct the "rumors".

In the absence of such correction, my statements regarding the donation to USDF, and the lawsuits stand.

ASB Stars
Oct. 3, 2006, 11:21 AM
My understanding is that with a lawsuit pending, DAD would be unable to have insurance that would allow the show to open- which is essentially what you were saying, Lori.

If anything that I have stated as being "alleged" is untrue- for those who are not in the area, or do not wish to join DVCTA- please feel free to correct the "rumors".

In the absence of such correction, my statements regarding the donation to USDF, and the lawsuits stand.

ASB Stars
Oct. 3, 2006, 11:21 AM
My understanding is that with a lawsuit pending, DAD would be unable to have insurance that would allow the show to open- which is essentially what you were saying, Lori.

If anything that I have stated as being "alleged" is untrue- for those who are not in the area, or do not wish to join DVCTA- please feel free to correct the "rumors".

In the absence of such correction, my statements regarding the donation to USDF, and the lawsuits, stand.

lorik
Oct. 3, 2006, 11:53 AM
ASB Stars,

The first lawsuit you mentioned happened prior to my DVCTA mebership (let alone election to the board), so I can not comment on the knowledge, or lack thereof by the DVCTA board when the contract was signed. It went on for years and was settled by the (then) president of DVCTA without the DAD committee agreement.

The other lawsuit was related to an accident/injury that happened at DAD. It had nothing to do with contracts. The judge dismissed it. This, however really opened the eyes of everyone concerned as to the insurance liability issue and was a catalyst for the separation.

The gift to USDF fit into the agreement that DAD can give a certain amount of money to 'other charities". It also fit into the DAD and DVCTA mission of education. That, too was done before I was elected to the board so I do not know when the DVCTA board was notified.

sm
Oct. 3, 2006, 12:00 PM
best of luck towards the future, everyone.

And a big thanks to you, Lori, you always keep everything pulled together so nicely. BTW, we loved the IBC#65 this year, everyone there had a great time. Thanks again for all your hard work.

tannaman
Oct. 3, 2006, 12:25 PM
as someone who was on the BoD of a GMO (not DVCTA) for 5 years, i can tell you that the board of a GMO doesn't do anything without voting and considering the ramifications on the entire club and its members. when you run a special event of this magnitude it SHOULD be run as a seperate corporation to isolate it from the other activities. as was said you don't want a rider falling at a fence at a horse trial suing the DVCTA for negligence which then shuts down DAD. it may have been a heated debate and change is difficult, but it was the correct thing to do from a business perspective.

getting people to run on the board is difficult, nobody wants to devote that kind of time and responsibility and if they think they are singing up for a couple horse trials and a dressage show then end up being responsible for DAD by association it's even more daunting. its real easy though to sit back as a member and be critical of executive decisions. attend some meetings, even the annual banquet, understand why decisions are being made.

half the fun for me being on the BoD was seeing how these corporations run the events that we all take for granted. and you also get a lot of information about things that aren't apparent from reading GMO newsletters.

there are very few GMOs running activities of this magnitude anymore. its just good business practice.

ASB Stars
Oct. 3, 2006, 03:29 PM
ASB Stars,

The first lawsuit you mentioned happened prior to my DVCTA mebership (let alone election to the board), so I can not comment on the knowledge, or lack thereof by the DVCTA board when the contract was signed. It went on for years and was settled by the (then) president of DVCTA without the DAD committee agreement.

The other lawsuit was related to an accident/injury that happened at DAD. It had nothing to do with contracts. The judge dismissed it. This, however really opened the eyes of everyone concerned as to the insurance liability issue and was a catalyst for the separation.

The gift to USDF fit into the agreement that DAD can give a certain amount of money to 'other charities". It also fit into the DAD and DVCTA mission of education. That, too was done before I was elected to the board so I do not know when the DVCTA board was notified.

Lori, without saying more than I think that your answers are quite coy, considering the fact that you have been a part of DAD itself for many years, and the fact that every member of that tight-knit "disfunctional family" was more than aware of the details throughout, I don't question the absolute, and careful, veracity of your statement.

The fact that the DAD committee didn't settle the first lawsuit, for me at least, is more about the parent taking care of what the children had gotten into.

And the fact that you doo't know "when the DVCTA board was notified" is more indicative of the issues of which I speak. Shouldn't DVCTA have VOTED as to what funds where offered where- especially in light of the fact that DAD was simply a standing committee of DVCTA at the time? Rather than one individual, as an example, deciding for the group that they should donate, say 50K, without the approval of the GMO? Just asking...LOL...

lorik
Oct. 3, 2006, 04:09 PM
ASB,
Although I have been the breed show secretary at Dressage at Devon for quite a few years now, I was only added to the executive committee (now board) three years ago. The law suit in question happened long before that. Three years before being added to the ex. com. I started going to the general committee meetings just before the show to let them know how entries were coming. Then I started going to all of them the year after that. You seem to think I have a whole lot more knowledge than I actually have. I am really not being coy. I simply will not pass on information of which I do not have first hand knowledge. To do that is just to feed (or start) rumors.

The pledge to USDF was voted on in the executive committee meeting of DAD and also in the general committee meeting and is paid over a 5 year period of time.

As a 501c3, the books are open and are audited anually. Anyone can gain access to them. I really don't see the point in belaboring all of this.

ASB Stars
Oct. 3, 2006, 08:02 PM
No, I don't either...but I do think more of the facts are available now to those who have asked than were before.

Thanks!

centsohuma
Oct. 4, 2006, 08:25 AM
ASB Stars,

The first lawsuit you mentioned happened prior to my DVCTA mebership (let alone election to the board), so I can not comment on the knowledge, or lack thereof by the DVCTA board when the contract was signed. It went on for years and was settled by the (then) president of DVCTA without the DAD committee agreement.

The other lawsuit was related to an accident/injury that happened at DAD. It had nothing to do with contracts. The judge dismissed it. This, however really opened the eyes of everyone concerned as to the insurance liability issue and was a catalyst for the separation.

The gift to USDF fit into the agreement that DAD can give a certain amount of money to 'other charities". It also fit into the DAD and DVCTA mission of education. That, too was done before I was elected to the board so I do not know when the DVCTA board was notified.

Well, this back and forth banter is certainly intriuging. So much so that the "detective" in me did a little sleuthing LOL. Turns out the horse community is a small one. My trails led me to seek out a few prior DVCTA board members to ask a few pertinent Q's. Wow - what you find out if you ask the right peeps.

First let's discuss the "gift" to USDF by DAD; I was told that the DVCTA Board learned about the money to be gifted after the fact - it had already been pledged when the then president learned about it. Understanding the liability posed to DVCTA (after all, if DAD would default, however unlikely) DVCTA would be on the hook to honor the gift. Wow - my thought was how would I like my relative to go out, secure a loan/liability in my name, and not tell me??? Whew! So the board voted that Dec. to "table" the pledge pending further information and financial info. until the new year. I was told that no one questioned the purpose of the gift, just the amount. Funnily enough, that was when all of the election fiasco (their words not mine) took place; the then president and vp were challenged in the election and resignations took place all around. If you look on the DVCTA's website you'll notice that there are several board members from the DAD comm. that gained seats on the board that year. USDF got their pledge. Hmmmm.....coincidence or just helpful volunteers caring about their association???? You decide.

Also couldn't resist asking about lawsuits real or imagined. Yes, Lori is correct there was only one that was long standing - I believe they said five years or so w/DAD being unable to settle it. The then president (the "ousted" one, poor girl) settled it in a week with what I was told were careful negotiations and guidance from a very qualified law firm. So happy news for the gmo you'd think. Well, the DVCTA board was happy about it of course. But I was told that there were several DAD comm. members that attended a meeting to question the legality of the DVCTA president to settle the lawsuit without THEIR permission!!!! At this point the conversation got very funny because it was described to me that they came in with everything but "flaming torches". Heavens, don't you just love clubs??? Well, again I was told that the DVCTA leadership was certainly well within their rights to settle this to the benefit of the club - actually, I'd think it was their responsibility! So, I guess there was some disgruntled folks.

I guess what all of this says to me, providing it is true, is that a "divorce", separation, or whatever you wanna call it, between the gmo and the show was a necessary thing or finding anyone to take the DVCTA leadership would become, I would think, increasingly difficult. I mean who wants to be responsible and put up with that kind of stuff? Yikes! Very sad indeed.

Last but not least I have to address the notification to the gmo's membership about a decision of this magnitude. Lori, notifying the membership in the newsletter after the fact is like shutting the barn door after the horse is galloping down the driveway. I also take issue with your assertion that the meetings are open to all members. Well, if no agenda is published to notify the membership at large that something BIG is being discussed that seems to be a bit back door does it not? Minutes do not appear in any of the newsletters I've ever seen so how is the membership to be kept informed of any of this? Is it not unreasonable to expect the membership to attend all meetings on the off chance that something of import is being discussed? Maybe even a mass mailing outlining what's in the works would have been a prudent and respectful way to proceed? Maybe the membership will be delighted with the separation and decisions made on their behalf. After all, that is why they elect their board. I do think though, that the DVCTA membership was done a disservice to be left out of this club-altering decision regardless of the ultimate outcome.

Finally, best wishes to DVCTA and DAD as separate entities - long may they wave.

ASB Stars
Oct. 4, 2006, 09:19 AM
Your explanation is EXACTLY what I have been given to understand. However, I'll take it a step further....

My understanding is that the DVCTA board- at that time- was appalled at the stance taken by DAD- in essence, DAD had already become it's own entity, in the mindsof those at the top. They considered themselves to be autonomous. The contract that was signed with the sponsorhip firm was executed by them, allegedly, without the blessing of the DVCTA BOD. Whe the deal went south, they found a pro bono attorney who, apparently, made things even worse- antagonizing the principle, who was referred to, by one of the DAD top doggies, to me personally, as "Mr. Slimy Sport". Not a great way to address those you were doing business with, eh?

The DAD folks then determined that they simply would take over the BOD of DVCTA, allegedly, and worked very hard to get the positions on the board, encouraging like-minded people to join and vote, lobbying members for proxies, etc.

This, I believe, was the election where Lori came to be on the BOD of DVCTA, along with others.

I am quite sure that they all believe that THEY have the correct view, and that THEY are the ones who can get this done- better, perhaps, than anyone else. Maybe so, but time will tell, as DAD is reorganized into a kinder, gentler, organization.

lorik
Oct. 4, 2006, 09:56 AM
Memories of events are often colored by opinion. I'm sure that all of the principles in all of these events remember things differently from one another.

During the time in question, DAD had no representation on the DVCTA board of directors. This, to me is akin to 'taxation without representation'. And, yes, I was one of the newly elected board members at that time.

Since that election, the meetings have been friendlier, the clinics and educational opportunities have multiplied exponentially, the horse trials have been re-instated, and the club is getting more younger members involved in the day to day workings of DVCTA. It is my opinion that DVCTA is a stronger club now than it was three years ago with more to offer it's membership.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 4, 2006, 10:17 AM
Your statement is incorrect. There have been for years, 2 DAD liason positions on the DVCTA Board. Whether or not they chose to report for DAD to DVCTA, was their personal decision. From what I recall in my experience from the DVCTA mtgs, (& my mental status is so far pretty good,) the DAD liason slept through most DVCTA mtgs. & had to be awakened to make his statements on behalf of the club.

ASB Stars
Oct. 4, 2006, 10:50 AM
Your statement is incorrect. There have been for years, 2 DAD liason positions on the DVCTA Board. Whether or not they chose to report for DAD to DVCTA, was their personal decision. From what I recall in my experience from the DVCTA mtgs, (& my mental status is so far pretty good,) the DAD liason slept through most DVCTA mtgs. & had to be awakened to make his statements on behalf of the club.


I was under the impression that, particularly some years ago, the co-chairs of DAD made a point of attending those meetings, and I always heard that one of them DID fall asleep...arrogant ass.

As a standing committee, as opposed to a separate entity, I cannot possibly fathom how they did not believe that they were absolutely responsible to DVCTA in terms of ANY decisions- particularly the 50K.

Taxation without representation? Give me a break. How about running amok irresponsibly?

Fortunately, that era seems to have ended, and a new one, as described by Lori, seems to be on the horizon.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 4, 2006, 11:19 AM
I too, have high hopes for a better organized show run fairly by those with no personal agenda's, however, with the exception of a few, it's the same bodies at the top.

lorik
Oct. 4, 2006, 11:25 AM
Excuse me???
There's no need for name calling.


Yes, the DAD chairs did go to meetings as liasons, but that's a far cry from having a vote. They were there to give a report on the committee's progress for the show, answer questions that arose, and take the board's questions and decisions back to the committee.

ASB Stars
Oct. 4, 2006, 11:42 AM
Excuse me???
There's no need for name calling.


Yes, the DAD chairs did go to meetings as liasons, but that's a far cry from having a vote. They were there to give a report on the committee's progress for the show, answer questions that arose, and take the board's questions and decisions back to the committee.


Lori:

I was most certainly NOT calling YOU an arrogant ass. The individual sleeping at the meetings- him, I called an ass. I have more decriptions of his behaviour, but I sure you don't want me to get into those.

As far as reporting in- what is it that you believe that they were supposed to do? This is a committee for a larger entity that is repsonsible for it's existence.

When you work for a corporation, do you decide that your group should secede from the Union, because it makes more money that other groups, or because you don't like the CEO? If you sign on to work for the group, that is what you have agreed to do. This whole idea of the DAD committee deciding that they were bigger and better is old news, and still beyond the pale.

lorik
Oct. 4, 2006, 03:04 PM
ASB,
I know you weren't referring to me (at least I hope not!:eek: ), however, I feel there's never a reason for name calling.:(

centsohuma
Oct. 4, 2006, 03:23 PM
Your explanation is EXACTLY what I have been given to understand. However, I'll take it a step further....

My understanding is that the DVCTA board- at that time- was appalled at the stance taken by DAD- in essence, DAD had already become it's own entity, in the mindsof those at the top. They considered themselves to be autonomous. The contract that was signed with the sponsorhip firm was executed by them, allegedly, without the blessing of the DVCTA BOD. Whe the deal went south, they found a pro bono attorney who, apparently, made things even worse- antagonizing the principle, who was referred to, by one of the DAD top doggies, to me personally, as "Mr. Slimy Sport". Not a great way to address those you were doing business with, eh?

The DAD folks then determined that they simply would take over the BOD of DVCTA, allegedly, and worked very hard to get the positions on the board, encouraging like-minded people to join and vote, lobbying members for proxies, etc.

This, I believe, was the election where Lori came to be on the BOD of DVCTA, along with others.

I am quite sure that they all believe that THEY have the correct view, and that THEY are the ones who can get this done- better, perhaps, than anyone else. Maybe so, but time will tell, as DAD is reorganized into a kinder, gentler, organization.

Boiled down to the lowest common denomintor what took place is called, in unstable and developing nations, a "coup". After hearing out those in a position to know, I've come to believe it was the ultimate slap in the face to a gmo that supported this competition for over thirty years and a blemish on the memory and integrity of the founders of both DVCTA AND DAD. I've been told by those in the know that some of the tactics used to bring this about were unconsionable bringing politics to a new low and certainly not the finest moment by some of the players. To those players, and they must know who they are, I say shame on you. Surely nothing is worth sacrificing the only real thing of value a human being has - his integrity??

There is no accounting for behavior of so-called adults when in their tiny worlds personal agendas and "thrones" are being threatened or preceived as being threatened. It's like congress - why do would-be senators spend millions for a job that pays a fraction? It's the power baby, the power.

Your analogy of the CEO/Board relationship is right on but maybe that concept might be a bit over their heads if behavior and attitude is any indicator.

I too hope the show grows bigger and better for the sake of the sport not the dignitaries at the top. But in the wise words of Dr. Phil "you cannot change what you will not acknowledge." Maybe someone can take those words to heart and become a better person not just for the sake of a horse show but for the sake of themselves.

______________________

"while I have no trouble believing in talking lions, emerald cities, and winged monkeys, I refuse to accept there is no paperwork involved when one's house lands on a witch."

centsohuma
Oct. 4, 2006, 03:23 PM
Your explanation is EXACTLY what I have been given to understand. However, I'll take it a step further....

My understanding is that the DVCTA board- at that time- was appalled at the stance taken by DAD- in essence, DAD had already become it's own entity, in the mindsof those at the top. They considered themselves to be autonomous. The contract that was signed with the sponsorhip firm was executed by them, allegedly, without the blessing of the DVCTA BOD. Whe the deal went south, they found a pro bono attorney who, apparently, made things even worse- antagonizing the principle, who was referred to, by one of the DAD top doggies, to me personally, as "Mr. Slimy Sport". Not a great way to address those you were doing business with, eh?

The DAD folks then determined that they simply would take over the BOD of DVCTA, allegedly, and worked very hard to get the positions on the board, encouraging like-minded people to join and vote, lobbying members for proxies, etc.

This, I believe, was the election where Lori came to be on the BOD of DVCTA, along with others.

I am quite sure that they all believe that THEY have the correct view, and that THEY are the ones who can get this done- better, perhaps, than anyone else. Maybe so, but time will tell, as DAD is reorganized into a kinder, gentler, organization.

Boiled down to the lowest common denomintor what took place is called, in unstable and developing nations, a "coup". After hearing out those in a position to know, I've come to believe it was the ultimate slap in the face to a gmo that supported this competition for over thirty years and a blemish on the memory and integrity of the founders of both DVCTA AND DAD. I've been told by those in the know that some of the tactics used to bring this about were unconsionable bringing politics to a new low and certainly not the finest moment by some of the players. To those players, and they must know who they are, I say shame on you. Surely nothing is worth sacrificing the only real thing of value a human being has - his integrity??

There is no accounting for behavior of so-called adults when in their tiny worlds personal agendas and "thrones" are being threatened or preceived as being threatened. It's like congress - why do would-be senators spend millions for a job that pays a fraction? It's the power baby, the power.

Your analogy of the CEO/Board relationship is right on but maybe that concept might be a bit over their heads if behavior and attitude is any indicator.

I too hope the show grows bigger and better for the sake of the sport not the dignitaries at the top. But in the wise words of Dr. Phil "you cannot change what you will not acknowledge." Maybe someone can take those words to heart and become a better person not just for the sake of a horse show but for the sake of themselves.

______________________

"while I have no trouble believing in talking lions, emerald cities, and winged monkeys, I refuse to accept there is no paperwork involved when one's house lands on a witch."

centsohuma
Oct. 4, 2006, 03:23 PM
Your explanation is EXACTLY what I have been given to understand. However, I'll take it a step further....

My understanding is that the DVCTA board- at that time- was appalled at the stance taken by DAD- in essence, DAD had already become it's own entity, in the mindsof those at the top. They considered themselves to be autonomous. The contract that was signed with the sponsorhip firm was executed by them, allegedly, without the blessing of the DVCTA BOD. Whe the deal went south, they found a pro bono attorney who, apparently, made things even worse- antagonizing the principle, who was referred to, by one of the DAD top doggies, to me personally, as "Mr. Slimy Sport". Not a great way to address those you were doing business with, eh?

The DAD folks then determined that they simply would take over the BOD of DVCTA, allegedly, and worked very hard to get the positions on the board, encouraging like-minded people to join and vote, lobbying members for proxies, etc.

This, I believe, was the election where Lori came to be on the BOD of DVCTA, along with others.

I am quite sure that they all believe that THEY have the correct view, and that THEY are the ones who can get this done- better, perhaps, than anyone else. Maybe so, but time will tell, as DAD is reorganized into a kinder, gentler, organization.

Boiled down to the lowest common denomintor what took place is called, in unstable and developing nations, a "coup". After hearing out those in a position to know, I've come to believe it was the ultimate slap in the face to a gmo that supported this competition for over thirty years and a blemish on the memory and integrity of the founders of both DVCTA AND DAD. I've been told by those in the know that some of the tactics used to bring this about were unconsionable bringing politics to a new low and certainly not the finest moment by some of the players. To those players, and they must know who they are, I say shame on you. Surely nothing is worth sacrificing the only real thing of value a human being has - his integrity??

There is no accounting for behavior of so-called adults when in their tiny worlds personal agendas and "thrones" are being threatened or preceived as being threatened. It's like congress - why do would-be senators spend millions for a job that pays a fraction? It's the power baby, the power.

Your analogy of the CEO/Board relationship is right on but maybe that concept might be a bit over their heads if behavior and attitude is any indicator.

I too hope the show grows bigger and better for the sake of the sport not the dignitaries at the top. But in the wise words of Dr. Phil "you cannot change what you will not acknowledge." Maybe someone can take those words to heart and become a better person not just for the sake of a horse show but for the sake of themselves.

______________________

"while I have no trouble believing in talking lions, emerald cities, and winged monkeys, I refuse to accept there is no paperwork involved when one's house lands on a witch."

rosinante
Oct. 4, 2006, 11:37 PM
Ok, I'm having a flashback......Shades of the USET vs AHSA.......Things seem to get curiouser and curioser.....

Let me see, based on the 2 pages of comments, DVCTA spends 32 years developing a small local GMO show into one of the premier dressage shows in the US and then:

1) The committee responsible for this doesn't report on its activities to the GMO
2)The Board never challenges committee to 'fess up and/or yanks someone's leash
3)This committe makes contracts and commitments that the DVCTA Board never knows about until after the fact
4)The separation of Dressage at Devon is not publicly disclosed to the membership and told that the premier money making activity for the GMO is being split off from the GMO

Shades of Enron!!! Boards as potted plants......This sounds more like coup d'etat….no, a hostile take-over….better yet a rape of the membership.

Questions immediately arise.

a)Was it all legal in the first place?
b)Why the insurance smokescreen as a ruse for the separation? A simple insurance payment would take care of the whole liability question.
c)Why wasn't there a mass mailing the the membership announcing that this separation was being considered?
d)Who is going to be president of this "new" organization?
e)How will assets be divided up?
f)Since DVCTA started this show, what do the members get out of this split?
g)Will anyone have the balls to stand up and put on the brakes?

Hmmmmm......as Deep Throat said during Watergate, "Follow the Money".....I think I need to do the Bob Woodward act.....I'll be back (with apologies to Ahnold) after further burrowing.....

workinprogress
Oct. 5, 2006, 09:53 AM
DVCTA and DAD have aired enough dirty laundry. I am a DVCTA member and attended the Annual Dinner - the one that all members are invited and encouraged to attend. At that meeting, it was reported that DAD and DVCTA were parting ways. It took 8 more months to happen. As a former board member, I was aware of the reasons. There is no question of the insurance liability concerns on both sides. As a committee of DVCTA, DAD is unable to purchase separate insurance. On its own, it must have its own insurance. It would be nice if the meeting minutes were published in the newletters - most GMOs with newsletters seem to have the meeting minutes in them. If someone feels strongly enough to go to a DVCTA meeting and make that suggestion, you would be more than welcome. As far as mass mailings to the membership, it has been done, with almost no response. Most people join a GMO for the same reason I did - to ride thier horse. If you think that you can do a better job than the volunteers that are doing it now, please step up - there are not enough volunteers to go around. It is time to move forward with shows and activities that we can all be proud of. Let's just all go out and ride our horses and remember why we love the sport of Dressage.

workinprogress
Oct. 5, 2006, 09:53 AM
DVCTA and DAD have aired enough dirty laundry. I am a DVCTA member and attended the Annual Dinner - the one that all members are invited and encouraged to attend. At that meeting, it was reported that DAD and DVCTA were parting ways. It took 8 more months to happen. As a former board member, I was aware of the reasons. There is no question of the insurance liability concerns on both sides. As a committee of DVCTA, DAD is unable to purchase separate insurance. On its own, it must have its own insurance. It would be nice if the meeting minutes were published in the newletters - most GMOs with newsletters seem to have the meeting minutes in them. If someone feels strongly enough to go to a DVCTA meeting and make that suggestion, you would be more than welcome. As far as mass mailings to the membership, it has been done, with almost no response. Most people join a GMO for the same reason I did - to ride thier horse. If you think that you can do a better job than the volunteers that are doing it now, please step up - there are not enough volunteers to go around. It is time to move forward with shows and activities that we can all be proud of. Let's just all go out and ride our horses and remember why we love the sport of Dressage.

workinprogress
Oct. 5, 2006, 09:53 AM
DVCTA and DAD have aired enough dirty laundry. I am a DVCTA member and attended the Annual Dinner - the one that all members are invited and encouraged to attend. At that meeting, it was reported that DAD and DVCTA were parting ways. It took 8 more months to happen. As a former board member, I was aware of the reasons. There is no question of the insurance liability concerns on both sides. As a committee of DVCTA, DAD is unable to purchase separate insurance. On its own, it must have its own insurance. It would be nice if the meeting minutes were published in the newletters - most GMOs with newsletters seem to have the meeting minutes in them. If someone feels strongly enough to go to a DVCTA meeting and make that suggestion, you would be more than welcome. As far as mass mailings to the membership, it has been done, with almost no response. Most people join a GMO for the same reason I did - to ride thier horse. If you think that you can do a better job than the volunteers that are doing it now, please step up - there are not enough volunteers to go around. It is time to move forward with shows and activities that we can all be proud of. Let's just all go out and ride our horses and remember why we love the sport of Dressage.

ASB Stars
Oct. 5, 2006, 10:18 AM
I don't think that this is really about the DVCTA meetings- it is more about what the DAD committee was doing that wasn't being reported to the DVCTA BOD, which, as it happens, is alot.

For all of the interested parties who were not privy to the behind the scenes goings on, and the fiasco of the "coup", while it is old news to many, it is still news to some.

In reality, there is more lust in the dust, and Peyton Place to this thing than you can shake a stick at. It is a typical story- power corrupts, and absolute power (or the quest for the illusion of it) corrupts absolutely.

A cautionary tale...

rosinante
Oct. 5, 2006, 03:09 PM
I am not a member of DVCTA. I am just a student of corporate politics.

Enron. WorldCom. Adelphia. Tyco....and most recently HP where the chairman of the board has been criminally indicted.

In the horse world we had the AHSA-USET debacle....

And now DVCTA-DAD.....

In all these cases, perhaps if there were no "dirty laundry" in the first place, there would not be dirty laundry to air.

Warmblooded707
Oct. 5, 2006, 10:59 PM
The Good Book says "and the Truth will set you free"....

It appears as though the Fear of the Truth will also send some folks runnin' for the hills - one DAD self-proclaimed spokesperson has been curiously silent. Definitely not the norm. LMAO :lol:

dirtyhouse
Oct. 6, 2006, 12:18 AM
i personally applaud people who seek to make changes THEY view as correct. that is part of the american way - that ability through one's vote to effect changes in government, even in something as mundane as a horse club. the "poor ousted one" chose to resign instead of fighting for what SHE viewed as correct. if the energy that's been put into these postings could be used to create a better show or a better club, just think what could be accomplished.

Warmblooded707
Oct. 6, 2006, 01:14 AM
Rosinante,

The DVCTA president of ’04 understood the gravity of the situation a show the size of DAD posed to DVCTA, a mid-sized gmo, and tried to bring about some substantive change – as you say, fess up or face the music. Allegedly, some of the bod at that time evidently wanted no part of anything serious in nature and did not welcome serious business brought before them. As the song goes “girls just wanna have fu-n…” From the firing of the first shot over the bow of the ship of fools war was waged. NOT by the DVCTA bod but by the keepers of the DAD flame. Their autonomy was being directly challenged. Most likely in their mindset DVCTA had no right to anything but minimal “invasion”. It is my guess that the DAD principles felt threatened and misread the DVCTA officers intentions which was simply to help keep all parties safe for years to come. To add further insult to injury, due to the bod’s resistence to catch the balls being desperately thrown in their direction, the officers found themselves out on the limb, alone, with the DAD chainsaws revving in the background. :eek:

A mass mailing went out to each and every member of the gmo outlining what was afoot for the coming election - hard to believe but the principle officer's received not one call to question what was happening to THEIR GMO. If the membership en masse did not care enough to ask a few questions then riddle me this Batman - why would any volunteer want to bring that kind of stress and bs into their personal lives? Simply said - if the membership didn't care enough about their club to help someone who was fighting FOR THEM, then what exactly is the point?

For years DVCTA CHOSE to abdicate responsibility for this show; the "heavy lifting" was left to the DAD volunteers and heavy lift they did. Is it any surprise that when the need arose to take back some control it was met with resistence?

DVCTA has gotten precisely what it asked for, good or bad. Sad to say, I feel no sympathy for them.

In these posts DAD has gotten beaten up pretty badly; admittedly, some of it may be deserved. People behaved badly. For that there is no excuse. However, to be fair it is NOT all their fault. For over thirty years DAD volunteers have worked hard and long to build a wonderful event. This did not happen by accident. And at the end of the day it was up to the parent organization to exercise due diligence and oversee the show IN CONJUNCTION WITH the DAD managment - neither entity had the right to be exclusive of the other. If there had been consistent communication, coordination, and cooperation between the two then perhaps they'd still be one body today.

It's easy to blame and finger point, none of which helps or gets a job done. MUTUAL respect works along with trying to see the other guys side of things. Factions, cliques, spreading falsehoods, and highschool behavior does not.

It is over. Finally, each organization will be directly responsible for their behavior and actions both good and bad. That is how it should be.

Now, on with the show. :rolleyes:

rosinante
Oct. 6, 2006, 02:00 PM
"Due diligence".....what a concept.....music to my ears. For a person who reads annual reports, proxy statements and 10K's for fun, I'm a strong advocate of transparency and minimizing obfuscation.

Due diligence......it's how I chose the GMO I now belong to. Incredibly, in the past, officers of DVCTA argued that by being a 501-c(3) "non-profit" DVCTA could not "make a profit"...

Amazing.....Perhaps it is time Sarbanes Oxely was rigorously applied to 501-c(3)'s.

Warmblooded707
Oct. 6, 2006, 04:12 PM
Rosinante,
Thank you so very much for underscoring my point. Quality of officers and board members for any association counts for much. Time will tell who has which.
"Non-profit not being able to make a profit" - That is an amazing statement indeed. Rather frightening too. Look up confused in the dictionary :confused: and you may find pictures of officers and board members who've crossed our paths. :lol:
Never being one to suffer fools gladly :no: , I've seen enough of them to last my lifetime.
Before there are a thousand posts defending all volunteers who sit on bod's and how wonderful they are to do so let me hastily add this; no one appreciates and understands the need for volunteers in our associations more than I. It's unrealistic to expect them all to possess a degree in business or the like. However, if you accept a position of responsibility then you need to take your job seriously and perform to the best of your own personal ability. If you accept a position of GREAT responsibility then again, IMHO, it is not acceptable to adopt the attitude of go along to get along. That dish has been served up for years and the cook shouldn't be proud. Lastly, with great responsibility comes great accountability. Pesky detail I know but none the less true. :yes:

rosinante
Oct. 6, 2006, 08:22 PM
WB707....I am doing some due diligence at the moment....could not restrain myself....must have run out of SEC filings to keep me occupied.

Stay tuned for the analysis, but if you care to join me, have fun surfing
http://www.guidestar.org

It is my favorite place to check out how charities/non-profits are doing with their funds. In choosing a GMO, I looked for value for the money and good stewardship of members funds.

ASB Stars
Oct. 7, 2006, 09:49 AM
I have been given to understand that the individual who made the commitment to USDF for the 50K moved out of the area several months ago, and probably is no longer a factor. The other co-chair is no longer a co anything, but is back to her former position in the organization, at this point. Perhaps this, combined with professional management, will make a difference in DAD as it moves forward.

I can certainly understand why the membership might not, at this point, want their dirty laundry aired, but the reality is that this was one truly nasty situation, and the fact that as much impropriety as happened behind the scenes with the DAD people actually DID happen, is appalling. Especially since all of the players were still driving the bus until fairly recently.

I have never been a member of DVCTA, however, many moons ago, I allowed them to have schooling shows at the facility I was running. They were to supply the volunteers to run the show, and we gave them the facility for the day. We actually had more shows for them- gratis-in one 18 month period than any other facility in the area.

In any event, the day of the first show came, and no volunteers showed up. I ran around asking boarders to step up, and help- which they did. We got through the show. The next show, I staffed the thing with clients, and it ran great, so we kept doing the staffing ourselves, just to keep things going. The last show we did, a lone volunteer from DVCTA showed up, who was apparently supposed to scribe. I explained that there was currently someone doing that- and if she wanted to help in some other capacity, we'd be happy for the help. She threw a big, hairy, ugly tantrum. She also went back to DVCTA, and told them we had insulted her, etc. etc.

We didn't offer to do any more shows for DVCTA. The lack of communication and organization from DVCTA, and total lack of appreciation for the use of a facility was just unreal.

I am no longer a professional, and I look at all of the goings on in the horse world with a jaundiced eye- no question.

Still in all, this DAD/DVCTA debacle stands alone for it sheer nastiness.

rosinante
Oct. 7, 2006, 01:31 PM
As I said, I'm a student of corporate politics. The Wall Street Journal is better than Peyton Place.

Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard, just wrote a book discussing her rather sudden ouster after tussling with a meddlesome board member. This started the series of events that has led to the criminal indictment of HP's Chairman of the Board.

In General Motors, Jerry York, the board representative of GM's largest shareholder, Kirk Kekorian, has just walked out of the board stating his grave reservations of GM's ability to compete.

So....DVCTA-Dad are in good company....

dirtyhouse
Oct. 8, 2006, 01:56 AM
this description of the dvcta/dad split as a "debacle" has me wondering if i don't understand the meaning of the word. dvcta continues on it's merry way, once again sponsoring combined training activities, still has schooling shows, had a successful spring dressage show, no longer has the insurance liability of dad hanging over its head. meanwhile, dad under its separate leadership had a successful show. seems to me both organizations are continuing to exist and do what the are set up to do. hardly a debacle. that two groups or different individuals battled for control, is not that unusual. not everyone agrees on how things should be done. i think everyone has way too much time to worry about the supposed horrible things that have been done. i say again, that time and energy could be better spent.

and yet, here i am contributing to it.

ASB Stars
Oct. 8, 2006, 08:25 AM
this description of the dvcta/dad split as a "debacle" has me wondering if i don't understand the meaning of the word. dvcta continues on it's merry way, once again sponsoring combined training activities, still has schooling shows, had a successful spring dressage show, no longer has the insurance liability of dad hanging over its head. meanwhile, dad under its separate leadership had a successful show. seems to me both organizations are continuing to exist and do what the are set up to do. hardly a debacle. that two groups or different individuals battled for control, is not that unusual. not everyone agrees on how things should be done. i think everyone has way too much time to worry about the supposed horrible things that have been done. i say again, that time and energy could be better spent.

and yet, here i am contributing to it.

I am certainly thrilled that the DVCTA is doing what it should be- supporting and promoting dressage and combined training activities in this area. That's GREAT!

The debacle desciption is about the ethically bankrupt approach that the DAD committee, and everyone that they could sign on, took in order to take over the DVCTA, and thus, at that time, DAD. These weren't people out to promote the greater good for horse lovers in this area- they were out to grab the power they felt they so richly deserved.

I had emails forwarded to me at that time that were running back and forth between the perpetrators. They are unreal in that they would have, and DID, stoop to just about anything, in order to attempt their coup.

They followed their leader- who has since flown the -er- coup- who was masterminding the thing, and sending the minions running forth.

Have the organizations split- well, the ground work is apparently in place. Is this for the better- you betcha! Would this have been the best thing to do- from thebeginning? Probably.

But you can't unring the bell, and say that the behaviour that these folks demonstrated is acceptable...unless you just don't care about how things get done- or, you are one of them.

rosinante
Oct. 8, 2006, 05:06 PM
this description of the dvcta/dad split as a "debacle" has me wondering if i don't understand the meaning of the word. dvcta continues on it's merry way, once again sponsoring combined training activities, still has schooling shows, had a successful spring dressage show, no longer has the insurance liability of dad hanging over its head. meanwhile, dad under its separate leadership had a successful show. seems to me both organizations are continuing to exist and do what the are set up to do. hardly a debacle. that two groups or different individuals battled for control, is not that unusual. not everyone agrees on how things should be done. i think everyone has way too much time to worry about the supposed horrible things that have been done. i say again, that time and energy could be better spent.

and yet, here i am contributing to it.


Ahh, DH....."dvcta/dad split as a "debacle" has me wondering if i don't understand the meaning of the word"....perhaps some clarification....

Perhaps DVCTA just killed the golden goose.....thus the debacle....for the members.

According to American Heritage Dictionary
Debacle:
A sudden, disastrous collapse, downfall, or defeat; a rout.
A total, often ludicrous failure.

Between 1997-2004, based on publicly available tax returns:
http://www.guidestar.org
DVCTA total assets (Form 990 line 21) increased by about 200%, averaging about 30% per year (starting at $56,256 in 1997 and $169,317 in 2004)

DVCTA activities spent on its members increased only 58% in total over that time, averaging only 8% per year (Form 990 Line 43). Between 1997 to 2004, spend in funding schoolig shows, clinics, horse trials & activites went from $41,040 to $65,312).....an average annual increase of 8%

According to the auditor's report attached to the FY2000 tax return (p.17), Dressage at Devon kicks out about $100,000 free cash flow each year.....think about the member activities that could be funded with that kinda cash....hell, DVCTA could have hired Klaus Balkhenol for personal schooling of the members!

Between 1997-2004, DVCTA gave away to Thorncroft as follows:
1997-$37,567
1998-$70,000
1999-$75,000
2000-$80,000
2001-$90,000
2002-$70,000
2003-$40,000
2004-$55,000

According to the information filed with the tax returns:

"Dressage at Devon is an event which produces the income disbursed & simultaneously promulgates the exempt purpose of the Association (DVCTA) to provide and interesting and educational device to allow MEMBERS to reach their equestrian goals and to strategically improve and promote dressage with the maximization of benefits for the Thorncroft Therapeautic Horseback Riding, Inc."

So....how/why did Thorncroft get in bed with DVCTA and why did DVCTA give away most of its DaD earnings......to the detriment of its members....thus the lable of "debacle".

And further, based on the 2004 returns total DVCTA assets are about $170,000....what organization gets that? the "New DAD" or is it retained by DVCTA????

Additionally, how will the split be structured? Will DVCTA members retain any income from the show they spent 32 years growing...though based on the 3 pages of comments perhaps it was really DAD Committee that did the work anyways...so, will the funds go to "New DAD"?

Disclaimer:.....I'm not a member of DVCTA. I have no skin in this game. This is just another interesting chapter in corporate governance.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 8, 2006, 05:55 PM
Ahh, DH....."dvcta/dad split as a "debacle" has me wondering if i don't understand the meaning of the word"....perhaps some clarification....

Perhaps DVCTA just killed the golden goose.....thus the debacle....for the members.

According to American Heritage Dictionary
Debacle:
A sudden, disastrous collapse, downfall, or defeat; a rout.
A total, often ludicrous failure.

Between 1997-2004, based on publicly available tax returns:
http://www.guidestar.org
DVCTA total assets (Form 990 line 21) increased by about 200%, averaging about 30% per year (starting at $56,256 in 1997 and $169,317 in 2004)

DVCTA activities spent on its members increased only 58% in total over that time, averaging only 8% per year (Form 990 Line 43). Between 1997 to 2004, spend in funding schoolig shows, clinics, horse trials & activites went from $41,040 to $65,312).....an average annual increase of 8%

According to the auditor's report attached to the FY2000 tax return (p.17), Dressage at Devon kicks out about $100,000 free cash flow each year.....think about the member activities that could be funded with that kinda cash....hell, DVCTA could have hired Klaus Balkhenol for personal schooling of the members!

Between 1997-2004, DVCTA gave away to Thorncroft as follows:
1997-$37,567
1998-$70,000
1999-$75,000
2000-$80,000
2001-$90,000
2002-$70,000
2003-$40,000
2004-$55,000

According to the information filed with the tax returns:

"Dressage at Devon is an event which produces the income disbursed & simultaneously promulgates the exempt purpose of the Association (DVCTA) to provide and interesting and educational device to allow MEMBERS to reach their equestrian goals and to strategically improve and promote dressage with the maximization of benefits for the Thorncroft Therapeautic Horseback Riding, Inc."

So....how/why did Thorncroft get in bed with DVCTA and why did DVCTA give away most of its DaD earnings......to the detriment of its members....thus the lable of "debacle".

And further, based on the 2004 returns total DVCTA assets are about $170,000....what organization gets that? the "New DAD" or is it retained by DVCTA????

Additionally, how will the split be structured? Will DVCTA members retain any income from the show they spent 32 years growing...though based on the 3 pages of comments perhaps it was really DAD Committee that did the work anyways...so, will the funds go to "New DAD"?

Disclaimer:.....I'm not a member of DVCTA. I have no skin in this game. This is just another interesting chapter in corporate governance.


Thorncroft was never "in bed" with DVCTA. As the beneficiary, their contact was through DAD only. They at one point Thorncroft had a seat on the BOD of DAD but that was taken away from them years ago. Also, DVCTA had no say in how much $ DAD would pass on to Thorncroft at the end of the year, nor did they voice how much DAD should contribute back to them, the parent organization. The figures differed greatly, with DVCTA being the smaller entry in the checkbook.

rosinante
Oct. 8, 2006, 07:03 PM
Thorncroft was never "in bed" with DVCTA. As the beneficiary, their contact was through DAD only.

Well....if my ancient memory serves me right, the original "beneficiary" of DaD was CHoPs....at some point in the dim, dark past, it changed to Thorncroft. I know I've talked to people present during those days, but I can't recall why the change. The original reason to give money to CHoPs was that when there weren't enough DVCTA volunteers to man the early DaD shows, CHoPs volunteers gave their time to make the show go, so DVCTA generously gave them a chunk of the show's proceeds.

As far as "their contact was through DAD only"....that, my dear is illegal. DaD, is a committe of DVCTA...or was...and as the parent organization, DVCTA, its officers and board members are responsible to exercising the fiduciary responsibility of oversight. By acting independently, it is called "ultra vires"....take a look at google it yourself....Although the tail might be wagging the dog, it still belongs to the dog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_vires
In corporate law, ultra vires describes acts attempted by a corporation that are beyond the scope of powers granted by the corporation's charter, the laws authorizing its formation, or similar founding documents. Acts attempted by a corporation that are beyond the scope of its charter are void or voidable. Except in the case of non-profit corporations (including municipal corporations), this legal doctrine is obsolescent; within recent years, almost all business corporations are chartered to allow them to transact any lawful business. The doctrine still has have some life among non-profit corporations or state-created corporate bodies established for a specific public purpose, like universities or charities.


They at one point Thorncroft had a seat on the BOD of DAD but that was taken away from them years ago..

There is no BOD of DAD.....there is only ONE legal entity, and that is DVCTA...again, there is only one legal entity....that is DVCTA....that is the reason why DaD could not get their own insurance.


Also, DVCTA had no say in how much $ DAD would pass on to Thorncroft at the end of the year, nor did they voice how much DAD should contribute back to them, the parent organization. The figures differed greatly, with DVCTA being the smaller entry in the checkbook.

Au contraire....DVCTA is the only legal entity and as such has the ultimate responsibility in how the members funds are used....Unfortunately DVCTA appears to be led by some people who seem clueless to corporate law, specifically, non-profit corporate law. DVCTA officers and board, had all the legal recourses to exercise ALL control...as a matter of fact, the BOD of DVCTA had the legal RESPONSIBILITY to provide this oversight.

DaD...the commitee, was just that....a comittee of the parent organization, DVCTA.

Let me say it again.....THE ONLY LEGAL ENTITY IS/WAS DVCTA. The fact that the DVCTA officers and board members chose to ignore their legal responsibilities is what has led to the current state.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 8, 2006, 11:23 PM
I stand corrected...TEC (Thorncroft Eques.), the beneficiary for about 17yrs, had a seat on the executive committee of DAD, not the BOD. The BOD of DAD came into play this yr after the separation. Insurance was an issue. Bridges were burned with carriers & getting insurance became difficult. DVCTA wasn't the problem but DAD was.

DAD was the wealthy child allowed to run rampant because it was the tail that wagged the dog. Because of it's wealth, they behaved autonomously & answered to no one. The president 2-1/2 yrs ago tried to regain communication & proper "Roberts Rule's" based control but her attempts were rebuffed & conflicts arose. She began her association with DVCTA/DAD in the mid to late 70's & still has relationships today with some of the founding members. It was out of respect for them & the general membership that she resigned. To protect DVCTA from further public humiliation NOT because she simply gave up.

I can only hope that both organizations have learned well by this experience & the division will eventually be a prosperous one for both. I can only wonder if the founding members of DVCTA/DAD would agree?

Warmblooded707
Oct. 8, 2006, 11:52 PM
In conversations I've had w/the DVCTA officers of '04 it is clear to me that they indeed understood the full ramifications of their duties as heads of DVCTA. They may very well have been the first elected officers that not only understood their duty but had the guts to attempt to carry them out.
Further, if you can find anyone that saved a copy of the letters that were sent to the membership before the '05 elections, the resignation letter of the '04 president stated something along the lines of while it's nice to focus on horsey fun endeavors, it (DVCTA) is still a corporation and as such, she the president, hadn't the luxury of "fun"....mores the pity.

Allegedly, DAD, while a standing committee of DVCTA, raised their own funds, voted within their exec. committee on how to spend/channel those funds, and autonomously decided on how much of those funds went to Thorncroft and DVCTA. Fact - the '04 budget of DVCTA was operating at a loss for much of that year. Why? Because the number budgeted for that year's "gift" to DVCTA was higher than the actual number decided upon by DAD comm. Note: I was told the amount of this gift was routinely well under 5 figures.

A question I have, not being the legal-eagle that rosinante obviously is, is when an organization advertises that it's proceeds go to a certain charity, and the form 990 states that net proceeds benefit a certain charity, how much leeway is there regarding the disbursement (actual dollar amount) of net proceeds? Is the fundraising event/organization obligated to give all net proceeds after taking out $$'s for operating expenses, etc. to the stated beneficiary? It seems a gray area to me.

DVCTA I doubt ever looked at the reality that they "owned" the show and as such should benefit from it. The lost potential here is staggering all around.

I for one am always somehow insulted when I hear someone refer to the DVCTA/DAD relationship as the "tail wagging the dog". No matter, DVCTA owned Fido!! :eek: The statement always comes off to me as patronizing and condescending in nature.

Oh, one last thing that when I heard it seemed strange to me - the by-laws evidently state that no meeting held by DVCTA can be "closed" - so the DVCTA board or its officers could never hold a meeting just between its bod to discuss corporate business in a private setting without violation of the bylaws. But I was told that it was routine for the DAD e-comm. to hold private monthly meetings. These, evidently, were NOT the monthly DAD general committee meetings. Whaaaaaaa???? Yes, the officers of DVCTA are committee members of the DAD e-comm. per their by-laws and had the right to attend. Evidently though, prior notification of these meetings was also an issue. As in, oops, sorry, forgot to tell you.....

Oh, one more last thing LOL - allegedly, when the '04 officers found out that a hefty $ amount had been pledged for the USDF building fund an officer phoned the DAD powers that be. When asked directly why DVCTA had no prior knowledge of this monetary commitment, the response was "they didn't think it was important." Okie dokie then!


On that note have a great evening.

ASB Stars
Oct. 9, 2006, 04:17 PM
In the pictures of the ribbon cutting ceremony at the new USDF headquarters, in Lexnigton, published in the USDF magazine, the mastermind of the coup is seen smiling grandly for the camera.

Just makes you wonder about that nest feathering, doesn't it?

rosinante
Oct. 9, 2006, 07:35 PM
DVCTA I doubt ever looked at the reality that they "owned" the show and as such should benefit from it. The lost potential here is staggering all around.

I for one am always somehow insulted when I hear someone refer to the DVCTA/DAD relationship as the "tail wagging the dog". No matter, DVCTA owned Fido!! :eek: The statement always comes off to me as patronizing and condescending in nature.



Here is a bit of the "magnitude" of benefit that was lost to the membership:

DVCTA --Revenue --Expens -- Income -- Assets
IRS990 -- Line12 --Line17 -- Rev-Exp. -- Line21
1997 -- 413,685 -- 411,473 -- 2,212 -- 56,256
1998 -- 494,586 --468,277 -- 26,309 -- 82,565
1999 -- 556,431 -- 516,080 -- 40,351 -- 122,916
2000 -- 573,286 -- 550,738 -- 22,548 -- 145,460
2001 -- 599,261 -- 584,983 -- 14,278 -- 159,742
2002 -- 595,957 -- 605,721 -- (9,764) -- 149,978
2003 -- 667,755 -- 637,423 -- 30,332 -- 179,112
2004 -- 770,341 -- 779,479 -- (9,138) -- 169,317

Well, formatting is a problem, but you can get the drift....
the raw data is in http://www.guidestar.org

rosinante
Oct. 9, 2006, 07:43 PM
I'm spending way too much time on this, but it becomes fascinating to read these Thorncroft and DVCTA tax returns.....

Tales of corporate (non)-governance are like the Greek tragedies of our time. In the Enron case, Ken Lay (CEO) gets convicted and then dies of a heart attack before going to prison. Andrew Fastow cooks the finances to hide Enron's deteriorating financial position and thus sets up the circumstances to send his wife, Leah Fastow, to jail for tax fraud.

Most recently Carly Fiorina (former CEO of Hewlett Packard) tussles with a powerful director and gets fired. The board deliberations are leaked to the press and an investigation is started to see who is leaking info. The investigation includes getting access to directors phone records by "pretexting".....eg., pretending to be someone you're not. This leads to the criminal indictment of HP's chairman of the board, Patricia Dunn, who has had melanoma, breast cancer and is now fighting Stage 4 ovarian cancer which as metastacized. As a result of the pretexting investigation and her role in it, she is now facing charges of 4 felony counts of fraud and conspiracy....all because she angered a very rich and powerful board member. Will she live to see herself exonerated? Will she go to prison? Will Tom Perkins, the pesky Silicon Valley Zillionaire director in the middle of this get his way in the end? Tragic.

In GM, Kirk Kekorian who owns a 9.9% of GM, places his representative, Jerome York, on the Board. York initiates discussion for an association with Nissan indipendent of GM's CEO. Nissan-GM talks start then fall appart. York resigns from the board publicly stating he doubts GM's ability to compete against Asian car companies with their current business model. Kirkorian states he doen't know what he will do with his shares of GM. GM stock takes a tumble in the stock market.

So.....I don't have any opinion on whether DVCTA or DaD are right or wrong....I just see tragedy in how these events turn. DVCTA ledership ignored years (at least the last 8 illustrated in the tax returns) of substantial income. DVCTA could have used the DaD income to fund member activities. Because of cluelessnes or lack of time, or lack of interest or whatever, an opportunity to do interesting things has evaporated.

Since there are never enough bodies to do all the work at horse shows, no one can blame DVCTA for "partnering" with Thorncroft to provide bodies to pull off the DaD show. What is tragic is how the events took a turn that is yet to be defined.

ASB Stars
Oct. 9, 2006, 11:55 PM
Well, it was hinted to me awhile ago that Thorncroft became extremely touchy about the notion of DAD monies going to ANY other beneficiaries, of which, several were apparently discussed.

The USDF contribution was a slam dunk, in that the co-chair in charge just...did...it...in true Nike fashion. No muss, no fuss.

If you are DVCTA, what do you do? Tell the mother ship- USDF- that a boo boo has been made, and you didn't really wanna give 'em the big bucks? Nope. You let the retiree with the PHD take off with the pledge, and go from there. Then, he just takes off altogether. Poof.

I understand that the BOD of DVCTA DID attempt to hold their ground, however, they were human, in the face of a major force headed up by a major (fill in the blank) with an agenda. What could they really do- especially when he whips out the big guns, and goes for their throats- and the BOD?

But, it does take gall to have been part of this farce, and keep the party line, as was done earlier on, in this thread. I guess they are there, they have what they thought they wanted, and that seems to be just OK!

tannaman
Oct. 10, 2006, 03:47 PM
why exactly is all this dirty laundry being aired here?

rosinante
Oct. 10, 2006, 03:56 PM
this description of the dvcta/dad split as a "debacle" has me wondering if i don't understand the meaning of the word. dvcta continues on it's merry way, once again sponsoring combined training activities, still has schooling shows, had a successful spring dressage show, no longer has the insurance liability of dad hanging over its head. meanwhile, dad under its separate leadership had a successful show. seems to me both organizations are continuing to exist and do what the are set up to do. hardly a debacle. that two groups or different individuals battled for control, is not that unusual. not everyone agrees on how things should be done. i think everyone has way too much time to worry about the supposed horrible things that have been done. i say again, that time and energy could be better spent.

and yet, here i am contributing to it.

Well...you tell us how you read this. If you were running a company whose earnings had decreased year over year, for ~4-5 years what do you think?

DVCTA Form 990 Lines 12 & 17
--- Revenue --- Expenses -- Net Income
1997 --- 413,685 --- 411,473 --- 2,212
1998 --- 494,586 --- 468,277 --- 26,309
1999 --- 556,431 --- 516,080 --- 40,351
2000 --- 573,286 --- 550,738 --- 22,548
2001 --- 599,261 --- 584,983 --- 14,278
2002 --- 595,957 --- 605,721 --- (9,764)
2003 --- 667,755 --- 637,423 --- 30,332
2004 --- 770,341 --- 779,479 --- (9,138)

So between 1997-2000, DVCTA is in the black, but there is a disturbing trend. From a high of $40,351 in 1999, earnings decline. First in 2000, earnings are $22,548, still in the black but 44% less than the year before.

In 2001, the picture gets grimmer. Earnings are only $14,278. Still in the black but the downward trend continues. The change in earnings from 2000-2001 is another negative 37% change in earnings from prior period. Things bottom out in 2002, with a net loss of ($9,764), an additional negative 168% change in earnings.

The year 2003, sees a brief return to profitability, with $30,332 in earnings, only to go back in the red in 2004 with a loss of ($9,138)….Shades of GM!!!! Looks like we’re bleeding money here. Where’s Jerry York?

So what’s a "reasonable person" to conclude????.....I don't know.....people on this board know more than me....I just read footnotes to financials.

rosinante
Oct. 10, 2006, 04:04 PM
Interesting….Throncroft is about a 15x to 30x larger organization than DVCTA based on its assets….Talk about the mother ship…
Raw data at http://www.guidestar.org

Thorncroft Asset vs DVCTA Assets
From IRS 990 Line 21
- --- Thorncroft --- DVCTA
1998 --- 1,860,355 --- 56,256 --- 3307%
1999 --- 2,040,016 --- 82,565 --- 2471%
2000 --- 2,170,995 --- 122,2916 --- 1766%
2001 --- 2,397,365 --- 145,460 --- 1648%
2002 --- 2,440,647 --- 159,742 --- 1528%
2003 --- 2,634,356 --- 149,978 --- 1756%
2004 --- 2,746,216 --- 179,112 --- 1533%
2005 --- 2,847,767

Thorncroft Revenues & Expenses from IRS990 Line 12 & Line 17
- -----Revenue ---- Expenses ----Net Income
1998 ---- 884,530 --- 699,696 ----- 184,834
1999 ---- 872,134 --- 678,559 ------ 193,575
2000 ----- 919,331 --- 725,529 ----- 193,802
2001 --- 1,003,126 --- 717,493 ----- 285,633
2002 ----- 765,738 --- 772,774 --- (7,036)
2003 ----- 993,480 --- 857,582 --- 135,898
2004 --- 1,000,645 --- 905,489 ----- 95,156
2005 --- 1,045,524 --- 934,153 ----- 111,371

ASB Stars
Oct. 10, 2006, 06:48 PM
Screwed up the post!! Too early perhaps....


It was the opinion of many that DAD should take care of those in our own backyard before spreading the wealth, however, those who wore the bigger hats, felt it was more appropriate to give a huge chunk of hard earned cash to USDF.
Guess they never hear the song..."Can't Buy Me Love".

Oh, no...that went on, too. A prior Chair of DAD allegedly charged "porn" on the DAD Visa- so buh-bye! Of course, DVCTA was apparently driving the bus then, and made the big decisions that stuck...before the big and bad BOD came into power....

And you know, working together, day and night, can get you really close, too. Really close

You CAN'T make this stuff up!

saddlesurfer
Oct. 10, 2006, 09:38 PM
.

The USDF contribution was a slam dunk, in that the co-chair in charge just...did...it...in true Nike fashion. No muss, no fuss.


It was the opinion of many that DAD should take care of those in our own backyard before spreading the wealth, however, those who wore the bigger hats, felt it was more appropriate to give a huge chunk of hard earned cash to USDF.

If you are DVCTA, what do you do? Tell the mother ship- USDF- that a boo boo has been made, and you didn't really wanna give 'em the big bucks? Nope. You let the retiree with the PHD take off with the pledge, and go from there. Then, he just takes off altogether. Poof.

He moved to a warmer climate but "kept in contact via conference phone during the BOD mtgs." Funny, a long standing, well respected e-comm member was tossed off the committee because she WINTERED in Fla.



But, it does take gall to have been part of this farce, and keep the party line, as was done earlier on, in this thread. I guess they are there, they have what they thought they wanted, and that seems to be just OK!


I guess this was all ok for some. No doubt they sleep like babies at night, never having the weight of a heavy conscience, knowing how they horribly treated others for sake of their own gain. There was no respect for the opinion of others. It was, my or no way. Those that did not agree, were tossed out. It was like high school. If you didn't hang out with the right people, you were shown the door. The body count of those lost is the real casualty. Good people from both sides left in an attempt to avoid the cross-fire, or they were tossed out or departed in disgust. No one in a paid position left. All that departed for one reason or another, were volunteers...good ones at that. Many had decades of time with both. Perhaps this starts a new thread of how to respectfully treat volunteers.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 10, 2006, 09:42 PM
Screwed up the post!! Too early perhaps....


It was the opinion of many that DAD should take care of those in our own backyard before spreading the wealth, however, those who wore the bigger hats, felt it was more appropriate to give a huge chunk of hard earned cash to USDF.
Guess they never hear the song..."Can't Buy Me Love".

rosinante
Oct. 10, 2006, 10:04 PM
These tax returns are like a John Grisham novel....can't put them down.

Raw data at http://www.guidestar.org

Form IRS 990 Line 93a and 43a and Part III(d)-Contrib. to Thorncroft
- DaD Revenue - DaD Expense Income/(Loss)- - To Thorncroft----Difference
1997 --- 346,706 --- 240,106 --- 106,600 --- 37,567 --- 69,033
1998 --- 386,770 --- 240,831 --- 145,939 --- 70,000 --- 75,939
1999 --- 433,245 --- 270,755 --- 162,490 --- 75,000 --- 87,490
2000 --- 418,133 --- 286,805 --- 131,328 --- 80,000 --- 51,328
2001 --- 426,896 --- 395,953 --- 30,943 --- 90,000 --- (59,057)
2002 --- 436,765 --- 447,230 --- (10,465) --- 70,000 --- (80,465)
2003 --- 508,172 --- 489,601 --- 18,571 --- 40,000 --- (21,429)
2004 --- 547,086 --- 517,231 --- 29,855 --- 55,000 --- (25,145)

According to the Auditor’s report, DVCTA uses accrual based accounting. This means matching revnues and expenses to determine net income.

So, from 1997 to 2000, DaD generates about $100,000 excess income from which it could appropriately share in the spoils with Thorncroft. What is interesting is what happens between 2001 to 2004…..

Between 1997-2000, the DaD show is kicking out over $100,000 in income with pretty stable set of revenues and expenses. All of a sudden, in 2001, expenses jump about $109,000 from the prior year. What happened?

One of those years, DaD records a net loss, yet Thorncroft gets $70,000!!!! In the other years between 2001 to 2004, the net income from DaD does not cover the “donation” to Thorncroft…..

Again, I’m spending way too much time on this, and I’m not a forensic accountant. So what gives????……why the big change, net loss in income yet LARGE donations to Thorncroft.

Will DVCTA be better or worse off because DaD is no longer part of its structure? The numbers raise interesting questions......

Since I’m a fan of reading footnotes in SEC filings….From Page 1 of the auditor’s report attached to the FY2000 Form990, this caught my eye:
“It was impractical for me to extend my examination of income from Dressage at Devon and from committee activities and the various shows beyond accounting for receipts and disbursements”…..Emory A Todd, CPA

Funny thing, this just happened at the time the numbers changed. Any conspiracy theorists out there?

I tell ya....corporate intrigue....better than Harlequin Romances.....

Warmblooded707
Oct. 10, 2006, 10:21 PM
why exactly is all this dirty laundry being aired here?

Ahh, another one who evidently subscribes to the "in the booth, in the back, in the dark" theory. Tsk, tsk...:(

Warmblooded707
Oct. 10, 2006, 10:45 PM
Well...you tell us how you read this. If you were running a company whose earnings had decreased year over year, for ~4-5 years what do you think?

DVCTA Form 990 Lines 12 & 17
--- Revenue --- Expenses -- Net Income
1997 --- 413,685 --- 411,473 --- 2,212
1998 --- 494,586 --- 468,277 --- 26,309
1999 --- 556,431 --- 516,080 --- 40,351
2000 --- 573,286 --- 550,738 --- 22,548
2001 --- 599,261 --- 584,983 --- 14,278
2002 --- 595,957 --- 605,721 --- (9,764)
2003 --- 667,755 --- 637,423 --- 30,332
2004 --- 770,341 --- 779,479 --- (9,138)

So between 1997-2000, DVCTA is in the black, but there is a disturbing trend. From a high of $40,351 in 1999, earnings decline. First in 2000, earnings are $22,548, still in the black but 44% less than the year before.

In 2001, the picture gets grimmer. Earnings are only $14,278. Still in the black but the downward trend continues. The change in earnings from 2000-2001 is another negative 37% change in earnings from prior period. Things bottom out in 2002, with a net loss of ($9,764), an additional negative 168% change in earnings.

The year 2003, sees a brief return to profitability, with $30,332 in earnings, only to go back in the red in 2004 with a loss of ($9,138)….Shades of GM!!!! Looks like we’re bleeding money here. Where’s Jerry York?

So what’s a "reasonable person" to conclude????.....I don't know.....people on this board know more than me....I just read footnotes to financials.

If memory serves, the DAD "helm" changed hands late in the year of '99. Any "reasonable" dot connectors out there?:confused:

Just askin'.....

centsohuma
Oct. 10, 2006, 11:14 PM
Well...you tell us how you read this. If you were running a company whose earnings had decreased year over year, for ~4-5 years what do you think?

DVCTA Form 990 Lines 12 & 17
--- Revenue --- Expenses -- Net Income
1997 --- 413,685 --- 411,473 --- 2,212
1998 --- 494,586 --- 468,277 --- 26,309
1999 --- 556,431 --- 516,080 --- 40,351
2000 --- 573,286 --- 550,738 --- 22,548
2001 --- 599,261 --- 584,983 --- 14,278
2002 --- 595,957 --- 605,721 --- (9,764)
2003 --- 667,755 --- 637,423 --- 30,332
2004 --- 770,341 --- 779,479 --- (9,138)

So between 1997-2000, DVCTA is in the black, but there is a disturbing trend. From a high of $40,351 in 1999, earnings decline. First in 2000, earnings are $22,548, still in the black but 44% less than the year before.

In 2001, the picture gets grimmer. Earnings are only $14,278. Still in the black but the downward trend continues. The change in earnings from 2000-2001 is another negative 37% change in earnings from prior period. Things bottom out in 2002, with a net loss of ($9,764), an additional negative 168% change in earnings.

The year 2003, sees a brief return to profitability, with $30,332 in earnings, only to go back in the red in 2004 with a loss of ($9,138)….Shades of GM!!!! Looks like we’re bleeding money here. Where’s Jerry York?

So what’s a "reasonable person" to conclude????.....I don't know.....people on this board know more than me....I just read footnotes to financials.

Ok, I'm not an accountant, forensic or otherwise but I DO balance my own checkbook and my unprofessional OPINION/OBSERVATION is this:

Why oh why if in '04 an entity showing a loss of nearly 10k would anyone think it prudent to pledge 50k (the figure that's been batted around) to anyone???? Especially if it's not YOUR money you're being so generous with? After all, there are people possessed of a generous nature who will give "sacrificially" but c'mon folks.....deficit spending is only done if you're in congress!!!! LOL

ASB Stars
Oct. 11, 2006, 10:30 AM
Well, you know that is just the DVCTA's revenue, and DAD, well, they can do whatever they want with THEIR money? Right?

Sure!

tannaman
Oct. 11, 2006, 01:23 PM
Ahh, another one who evidently subscribes to the "in the booth, in the back, in the dark" theory. Tsk, tsk...:(
the only thing i see coming from this discussion is that the split between DAD and DVCTA is the right decision. so if DAD doesn't float on it's own, it doesn't take DVCTA down as well. so much speculation based on a P/L report and no context to put it in. these decisions aren't made behind closed doors, as a GMO the meetings are public. as a former board member of a GMO, and the spouse of another GMO board member, attending all the meetings puts all the decisions into context.

BTW..all GMOs pledged something to the USDF it seems, that doesn't mean the money left their hands at that moment. some GMOs pledged money, but the money is coming from the ENTRY money from shows TO BE HELD. one GMO pledged the entry money from all first level-test 3 entries at their recognized shows which they estimate will have a value equal to their pledge.

GMOs being non-for-profit, they make decisions about where the money goes and doesn't require a membership vote on every decision. you elected them to run the organization, if you want it run differently then run for office or at least attend the meetings.

Warmblooded707
Oct. 11, 2006, 04:37 PM
the only thing i see coming from this discussion is that the split between DAD and DVCTA is the right decision. so if DAD doesn't float on it's own, it doesn't take DVCTA down as well. so much speculation based on a P/L report and no context to put it in. these decisions aren't made behind closed doors, as a GMO the meetings are public. as a former board member of a GMO, and the spouse of another GMO board member, attending all the meetings puts all the decisions into context.

BTW..all GMOs pledged something to the USDF it seems, that doesn't mean the money left their hands at that moment. some GMOs pledged money, but the money is coming from the ENTRY money from shows TO BE HELD. one GMO pledged the entry money from all first level-test 3 entries at their recognized shows which they estimate will have a value equal to their pledge.

GMOs being non-for-profit, they make decisions about where the money goes and doesn't require a membership vote on every decision. you elected them to run the organization, if you want it run differently then run for office or at least attend the meetings.

You are missing the point.

The fact that all GMO's pledged something to USDF is irrelevant. The discussion going on here is allegedly, that monies were pledged WITHOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of the gmo (read: legal entity here) ultimately on the hook for the pledge - regardless of WHERE or HOW the money ultimately comes from or WHEN it is due and payable.

And we do agree that the BOD of GMO's "make decisions about where money goes and doesn't require a membership vote on every decision" - that was the point you also missed - I am under the impression that DVCTA's BOD was not given the opportunity to make the initial decision about where the money went or how much of it went; at least not initially and not without the "war of the worlds" taking place.

Meeting attendance is also pointless unless there is full disclosure of potential business transactions and/or practices taking place (i.e. published agendas) so that bod's as well as members in attendance know what's on the table for discussion and have something to DECIDE. (read: decision-making authority and capacity lies within the BOD's - nowhere else).

Yes, in an ideal world bod's member attendance does or should put everything in context thus rendering them capable of making informed, intelligent decisions for the good of the WHOLE membership for which they were elected to represent; unless of course, the bod's of which one speaks are indistinguishable to the aforementioned "potted plants". Then, it has been my experience, that all bets are off.

One last point to make - why does one automatically assume that the split is a positive because it releases the gmo from any possible negative? How about coming at it from the perspective of WHAT IF the gmo took proper control, continued to grow the show to it's fullest advantage, and BOTH ENTITIES took off and flew financially and in every other aspect that matters? Huh? What about that angle. Can't believe I'm the only one that sees the lost potential here.

This isn't really that hard people - geeesh!:eek:

saddlesurfer
Oct. 11, 2006, 04:41 PM
the only thing i see coming from this discussion is that the split between DAD and DVCTA is the right decision. so if DAD doesn't float on it's own, it doesn't take DVCTA down as well. so much speculation based on a P/L report and no context to put it in. these decisions aren't made behind closed doors, as a GMO the meetings are public. as a former board member of a GMO, and the spouse of another GMO board member, attending all the meetings puts all the decisions into context.

BTW..all GMOs pledged something to the USDF it seems, that doesn't mean the money left their hands at that moment. some GMOs pledged money, but the money is coming from the ENTRY money from shows TO BE HELD. one GMO pledged the entry money from all first level-test 3 entries at their recognized shows which they estimate will have a value equal to their pledge.

GMOs being non-for-profit, they make decisions about where the money goes and doesn't require a membership vote on every decision. you elected them to run the organization, if you want it run differently then run for office or at least attend the meetings.

I think the problem discussed is, DAD exec committee approved a high, 5 digit figure to be dispersed over 4 yrs to the USDF building fund and was done without the approval of the then, DVCTA president. Not donating to the fund was not the issue. With the DAD finances the way they were at that time, it was the opinion of many that the figure was too high.

ASB Stars
Oct. 11, 2006, 05:14 PM
And does anyone other than me find it interesting that the person who led the charge to give the money, to take over the BOD from the then sitting BOD of DVCTA, and the person in the photo op at the ribbon cutting- all the same person- up and done moved out of the area, not long after the whole deed was done?

It seems apparent to me, anyhow, that they wanted some standing on the National scene- at least in their mind- and had DAD foot the bill for their ego.

tannaman
Oct. 11, 2006, 05:19 PM
DAD may have been well within its power to pledge an amount out of its budget. DVCTA would only be approving the overall budget of DAD and its up to the DAD staff to then be financially responsible. most GMOs can't pledge this amount on their own. I think the PVDA only pledged $10K for instance and is one of the larger GMOs. $50K can only come from a single large event like DAD under a GMO. but why does every assume and speculate on the internet?

saddlesurfer
Oct. 11, 2006, 05:37 PM
DAD may have been well within its power to pledge an amount out of its budget. DVCTA would only be approving the overall budget of DAD and its up to the DAD staff to then be financially responsible. most GMOs can't pledge this amount on their own. I think the PVDA only pledged $10K for instance and is one of the larger GMOs. $50K can only come from a single large event like DAD under a GMO. but why does every assume and speculate on the internet?


I don't see speculations or assumptions...all I see are facts.

ASB Stars
Oct. 11, 2006, 06:01 PM
I believe DVCTA was informed AFTER USDF had been made aware of the very generous gift they were going to receive...so, as stated before, their position must have been quite difficult- do we tell the mother ship we made a boo-boo?

Warmblooded707
Oct. 11, 2006, 06:18 PM
DAD may have been well within its power to pledge an amount out of its budget. DVCTA would only be approving the overall budget of DAD and its up to the DAD staff to then be financially responsible. most GMOs can't pledge this amount on their own. I think the PVDA only pledged $10K for instance and is one of the larger GMOs. $50K can only come from a single large event like DAD under a GMO. but why does every assume and speculate on the internet?

Ok, I'll type slowly so maybe this time you get it -

1. DAD had no power to "pledge" anything w/o prior notification of its governing body, i.e. DVCTA, INCORPORATED - Hereinafter refered to as the "mother ship".

2. Regardless of which COMMITTEE has it's own budget the MONEY IN THE BUDGET BELONGS TO THE MOTHER SHIP.

3. The DAD "staff", volunteer or paid, isn't ultimately responsible for ANYTHING! They are not ELECTED OFFICERS OF A CORPORATION.

4. Yes, the pledge was large, hence the concern. No one knows the future and as the 990 forms bear witness the '04 year wasn't the year to predict that "oh what the heck, we can be generous because we're consistently rolling in the big bucks..."

5. Does anyone recall there is a charitible beneficiary on board here. Did no one owe them first spoils???????

6. If some disaster, act of God, or the like harmed the show (remember, we live in a post 911 world where people want to see us killed for their enjoyment) and the show didn't open its doors how does the gmo honor their commitment? A pledge is serious business and a financial liability to the MOTHER SHIP.

Good lord people, my mother always said "to keep doing things the same way and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity."

Get a dollar and buy a clue. I lose patience with this nonsensicle thinking.

dirtyhouse
Oct. 11, 2006, 07:40 PM
dad's pledge to usdf actually totals $30K - 5k per year for 5 years and 5k that that given two or three years ago when the building fund was in it's infancy - prior to being called the usdf capital campaign. this was approved by the dad committee AND the DVCTA BOD. the agreement with the beneficiary allows dad the ability to give up to 10K every year to any person or entity the dad committee feels advances the show and/or the sport of dressage. this amount comes AFTER a specified amount is paid to DVCTA and BEFORE any monies go to the beneficiary. this agreement is signed on an annual basis by the DVCTA president, the dad chair(s) and the beneficiary. BTW -DVCTA's pledge to usdf was $8K. Pledges are non-binding and unenforcable. DVCTA would not be "on the hook" if dad was unable to make their commitment. No harm - no foul folks.

dirtyhouse
Oct. 11, 2006, 07:47 PM
dad's funds had been separate from dvcta's for many years, separate budget (and submitted annually to the dvcta bod as required in the by-laws) separate bank accounts, separate treasurer, etc, etc. The numbers were combined only for the purposes of auditing and filing tax returns.

tannaman
Oct. 11, 2006, 10:50 PM
sounds like i don't need that dollar after all :neener:neener:

ASB Stars
Oct. 11, 2006, 10:59 PM
Well, first, the humiliation of not making the pledge might not be actionable, but it shure as shootin' is embarassing and awful- and not to be contemplated...

And then, a BOD, with a treasurer, no less, of a NON-ENTITY, which is essentially what DAD becomes, in the face of DVCTA being the parent, and only corporate entity, means....precisely WHAT?

The BOD which was in place at the time of this horrendous uprising didn't jump ship because they were, oh, I don't know, weak of spirit? Nope. They left the building in the face of the ethically bankrupt group that was formenting rebellion. Not revolution. Not something better. Just a power grab.

Don't confuse yourself with the idea that what was done had any basis in morally or ethically correct behaviour- or the greater good. You had one individual, in particular, who was in a position to motivate their partner in crime, as well as others. The partner in crime- in particular- would have done ANYTHING that was asked. Really.

If you believe the party line you are spewing- you really do not know what was up before you came along. And yes, the roots of this situation DO matter.

Warmblooded707
Oct. 11, 2006, 11:27 PM
sounds like i don't need that dollar after all :neener:neener:

Your intellect is surpassed only by your maturity.

Warmblooded707
Oct. 11, 2006, 11:35 PM
dad's funds had been separate from dvcta's for many years, separate budget (and submitted annually to the dvcta bod as required in the by-laws) separate bank accounts, separate treasurer, etc, etc. The numbers were combined only for the purposes of auditing and filing tax returns.


Well DH, I applaud you for your ability to avoid and evade a point you hope others of similar dimness will miss.

You can talk separate from now until forever - the fact will not alter. Separate budgets, separate treasurers, separate accounts. When they were combined and audited and filed they were under one heading only

DELAWARE VALLEY COMBINED TRAINING ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED

Give it up - not everyone out there is a 20 watter.

Warmblooded707
Oct. 11, 2006, 11:35 PM
dad's funds had been separate from dvcta's for many years, separate budget (and submitted annually to the dvcta bod as required in the by-laws) separate bank accounts, separate treasurer, etc, etc. The numbers were combined only for the purposes of auditing and filing tax returns.


Well DH, I applaud you for your ability to avoid and evade a point you hope others of similar dimness will miss.

You can talk separate from now until forever - the fact will not alter. Separate budgets, separate treasurers, separate accounts. When they were combined and audited and filed they were under one heading only

DELAWARE VALLEY COMBINED TRAINING ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED

Give it up - not everyone out there is a 20 watter.

tannaman
Oct. 12, 2006, 12:13 AM
Give it up - not everyone out there is a 20 watter.
you're right. your intellect & maturity surpasses mine.

centsohuma
Oct. 12, 2006, 12:16 AM
dad's pledge to usdf actually totals $30K - 5k per year for 5 years and 5k that that given two or three years ago when the building fund was in it's infancy - prior to being called the usdf capital campaign. this was approved by the dad committee AND the DVCTA BOD. the agreement with the beneficiary allows dad the ability to give up to 10K every year to any person or entity the dad committee feels advances the show and/or the sport of dressage. this amount comes AFTER a specified amount is paid to DVCTA and BEFORE any monies go to the beneficiary. this agreement is signed on an annual basis by the DVCTA president, the dad chair(s) and the beneficiary. BTW -DVCTA's pledge to usdf was $8K. Pledges are non-binding and unenforcable. DVCTA would not be "on the hook" if dad was unable to make their commitment. No harm - no foul folks.

Hmmm....let me see if I have this right. Actual pledge was 25k plus 5k from a prior pledge then an additional 8k pledge from DVCTA. Does that about sum it up? Just trying to keep things sorted out.

Decent of the DAD crew to anty up w/DVCTA before TEC (Thorncroft). But TEC is the workhorse AND the beneficiary touted when raising funds and passing the hat yet they get theirs AFTER everyone else is paid...so, even in say a lean year ('04 for example according to filings form 990) the powers that be felt it prudent and justified to give away 10k to a "person or entity that advances the sport of dressage" AND further obligate the funds to a building fund? Also, let's not confuse bod votes here - yes, the 5k was voted on and passed with a shout and a hearty HI HO SILVER no doubt, of course before '04; why does that not surprise me??

As far as the agreement being signed by all parties I'll try not to make typos while I am laughing hysterically. What choice does a DVCTA president have in this matter really? We've all witnessed what happens when the system is bucked. Of course the DAD chairs have no problem with something of their creation; and last but not least the beneficiary who signs by way of what - take it or leave it? Stop me if I have any of this askew.

Regarding pledges being non-binding - I suppose you have that in writing? As would all other folks who pledged funds?? So - if say hypothetically 70 percent of the pledges fall by the wayside what exactly happens to USDF's financial picture as they're counting on that money pledged....but it's ok, everyone will forgive and forget?? Is that what you want all to believe??

Bottom line is how many slices can you squeeze out of one pie? There is a limit and that is a fact. It's becoming increasingly clear who gets crumbs.

I don't know what you do for a living but try writing comedy. You've got quite the flair.

rosinante
Oct. 12, 2006, 08:30 AM
dad's funds had been separate from dvcta's for many years, separate budget (and submitted annually to the dvcta bod as required in the by-laws) separate bank accounts, separate treasurer, etc, etc. The numbers were combined only for the purposes of auditing and filing tax returns.

Well, actually, that is the point that WB707 was trying to make. The fact that "The numbers were combined only for the purposes of auditing and filing tax returns" is EXACTLY the point....what is so difficult here....the IRS says there is ONLY ONE LEGAL ENTITY.

THUS, THERE ARE ONLY ONE SET OF NUMBERS....regardless of what anyone thinks about "separate checkbooks".....THE FUNDS LEGALLY BELONG TO DVCTA TO DO WITH AS IT PLEASES. And that it is the legal responsibility to properly administer and provide oversight over those funds for the BENEFIT OF THE DVCTA MEMBERSHIP.

This is known as the 'fiduciary responsibility' of BOD's....DVCTA's or any other board.

The fact that this concept is so difficult to grasp seems to be at the root of the inability to communicate. Some people feel that separate budgets and separate bank accounts or check books create some sort of legal partition. That is NOT the case. It does not matter where the funds are held. According to the laws of incorporation and the IRS, the moneys (and legal responsibilities) all belong to DVCTA....

Which raises the question of what will be done with the assets, once "New DAD" splits off from the mother ship AKA DVCTA...

Below is the history of the asset growth.....not insubstantial....

DVCTA Assets,
IRS 990 Line 21

1997 --- 56,256
1998--- 82,565
1999--- 122,916
2000--- 145,460
2001--- 159,742
2002--- 149,978
2003 --- 179,112
2004--- 169,317

Questions arise....What will the DVCTA BOD do when the question comes up about splitting assets?

Tales of corporate governance......almost, but not quite as good as John Grisham.

So...Is anyone stepping up to admit they are heading up "New DaD"????

saddlesurfer
Oct. 12, 2006, 09:30 AM
So...Is anyone stepping up to admit they are heading up "New DaD"????

Don't think anyone has emerged from behind the woodpile. They'll probably play "duck-duck-goose" at the Jan or Feb mtg.

workinprogress
Oct. 12, 2006, 11:47 AM
What happens to the membership numbers next year, with DAD a separate entity. They grew exponentially just weeks and days before the '05 election - even at the meeting for the election. Will all these new DVCTA members remain loyal DVCTA members?

lorik
Oct. 12, 2006, 11:51 AM
You guys are too much! You can’t even stick to the same issue. First you’re worried about the fact that DAD pledged money to USDF WITH the permission of the DVCTA board (and had the $ value and date of pledge wrong too boot!). But, you don’t even blink, when you find out that DVCTA also voted to pitch in money of their own. You get your knickers in a twist over the fact that DAD benefits Thorncroft (and not DVCTA completely) when the fact is that DVCTA can’t even come up with enough member volunteers to man their spring show, much less something as large as DAD! CHoP and then Thorncroft had a volunteer base that would allow for the show to continue, and to grow. They deserve to be compensated for all of their hard work. Then you complain that they don't get enough money

Yes, DAD had it’s own books and it’s own accounts. So does Dressage at Fair Hill (the spring show), so does the Horse Trials. I know it because I keep the books for Dressage at Fair Hill and I have managed that show for the past two years. To expect the treasurer of DVCTA to be able to keep up with everything and be everywhere to pay all of the bills (like when the dumpster guy drops off the dumpster at 6 AM and expects to be paid) is insane. The name on the Fair Hill account is DVCTA dba Dressage at Fair Hill and it is registered with the DVCTA tax id. At year end, I hand all of my records over to the accountants for auditing, but the money has stayed in that account so that there is money to start the next year's show.

The separation of DAD from DVCTA is a done deal. The agreement has been signed, and the assets have been divided. DAD will continue to give money to DVCTA for the next 32 years (a period equal to the time that DVCTA and DAD were one). All of this was voted on by the DVCTA board of directors after months of debate and a committee made up of DVCTA and DAD members investigating if it was the right thing to do.

I have already stated in an earlier thread, that I sit on the boards of BOTH organizations. I was not then, nor am I now ‘coming out of the woodpile’. I’m actually PROUD of both boards. It’s tough work and the few who step up to the plate do not deserve the kind of bashing that’s being served up here by people who have nothing better to do.

Old War Horse
Oct. 12, 2006, 12:19 PM
Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees!

saddlesurfer
Oct. 12, 2006, 12:54 PM
You guys are too much! ........

I have already stated in an earlier thread, that I sit on the boards of BOTH organizations. I was not then, nor am I now ‘coming out of the woodpile’. I’m actually PROUD of both boards. It’s tough work and the few who step up to the plate do not deserve the kind of bashing that’s being served up here by people who have nothing better to do.

To clarify the comment about the woodpile, the new head of DAD is hiding behind the woodpile meaning, no one really wants that job....who would!

You should be proud of the organizations you have chosen to give of your time however, there were some dark moments in their history. Maybe this was before your involvement. In any case, voices, even the critical ones, must be heard & the air cleared so all can move on.

lorik
Oct. 12, 2006, 01:03 PM
Thanks for the clarification. The new CEO of Dressage at Devon is not new, and to my knowledge, not hiding.

As to the dark things in the past of the organizations, every organization has a few. The question is, can you rise above them and make things better? My motto: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." I still don't see where name calling and character bashing are a productive way to affect a solution.

Old War Horse
Oct. 12, 2006, 05:27 PM
So if you know who the lucky CEO is, why don't you just say it?
Is it another "secret"?

rosinante
Oct. 12, 2006, 05:42 PM
Thanks for the clarification. The new CEO of Dressage at Devon is not new, and to my knowledge, not hiding.
...
I still don't see where name calling and character bashing are a productive way to affect a solution.

Perhaps the president of "New DaD" can step up and clear the air for all to understand. Seems that would put a lot of this discussion to rest. Clear the air, so to speak.

DVCTA is a public corporation. This has been a public discussion, about a public corporation, with publicly available information.
http://www.guidestar.org

Simply put, the numbers presented in the financial statements give rise to a lot of questions...Believe me, I still have plenty I haven't asked. The numbers are the numbers...the questions arise not from any personalities, but purely from a financial point of view.

If you were investing for your retirement and found expenses exceeding revenues, or a downward trend in income in that company, would you put your money there? Context or not, the financial numbers speak very loudly about how an organization is managed. I actually did this analysis prior to joining the GMO to which I belong....and it is not DVCTA.

Though not a General Motors or Hewlett-Packard, DVCTA and DaD are not trivial organizations in the small world of dressage. Perhaps there is public interest in how these organizations have been, are being, AND WILL BE MANAGED in the future.

ASB Stars
Oct. 12, 2006, 06:13 PM
Lorik...

I would be SHOCKED if you were NOT pleased with the "new" guard. Why heck, you were on the coup committee! At least, as you are so impressive at holding the public party line, you sure as shootin' wouldn't tell us any different- right? Or, were you on the prior BOD, and we just missed it?

You fall into a different category than the vast majority of other folks on either of the BODs, I believe, in that you are paid for the actual work you do for the group- as a secretary. Paid well, I dunno, but as soon as you cross the line from strictly volunteer to remunerated at all, you are not a volunteer, at least not in that capacity.

No one, least of all me, would question that you are fabulous at what you do. I am merely pointing out the differences between you, and most of the folks.

lorik
Oct. 12, 2006, 06:14 PM
While I agree that this is a public discussion about a public organization (or organizations), much of this discussion has been personal in nature. Discuss the issues, not the people.

lorik
Oct. 12, 2006, 06:24 PM
ASB,
Yes, I am compensated for my work as the Breed Show Secretary. I will not discuss the actual amount, but with the time it takes (485 entries this year), suffice it to say I make less than $.25/hour for that job (yeah, I'm getting rich!) and out of that, I cover the costs of office supplies and postage. My salary does not include (nor should it) the countless hours I spend on the organizing commitee, the general committee, and the BOD.

For those in the need to know, the entire BOD was announced in the 2006 program of Dressage at Devon.

rosinante
Oct. 12, 2006, 08:03 PM
ASB,
Yes, I am compensated for my work as the Breed Show Secretary. I will not discuss the actual amount, but with the time it takes (485 entries this year), suffice it to say I make less than $.25/hour for that job (yeah, I'm getting rich!) and out of that, I cover the costs of office supplies and postage. My salary does not include (nor should it) the countless hours I spend on the organizing commitee, the general committee, and the BOD.

For those in the need to know, the entire BOD was announced in the 2006 program of Dressage at Devon.

Interesting.....the tax returns do not show this.

From IRS Form 990 Line 93a & 43a
Revenue ----- Expense
1997 ----- 346,706 ----- 240,106
1998 ----- 386,770 ----- 240,831
1999 ----- 433,245 ----- 270,755
2000 ----- 418,133 ----- 286,805
2001 ----- 426,896 ----- 395,953
2002 ----- 436,765 ----- 447,230
2003 ----- 508,172 ----- 489,601
2004 ----- 547,086 ----- 517,231

Makes one wonder why DaD expenses jumped by over $100,000 between 2000-2001.

There is a concept known as "materiality".....ie., if something is important, it should be publicly reported.

According to the Auditor’s report, DVCTA uses accrual based accounting. This means matching revnues and expenses to determine net income.

Between 1997-2000, the DaD show is kicking out over $100,000 in income with pretty stable set of revenues and expenses. All of a sudden, in 2001, expenses jump about $109,000 from the prior year. What happened?

Since I’m a fan of reading footnotes in SEC filings….From Page 1 of the auditor’s report attached to the FY200 Form990, this caught my eye:
“It was impractical for me to extend my examination of income from Dressage at Devon and from committee activities and the various shows beyond accounting for receipts and disbursements”…..Emory A Todd, CPA

Going from all volunteer to paid show staff might be considered material disclosures.....but I forget.....Sarbanes Oxley does not strictly apply to 501(c)3's.....though there is a movement afoot that it will....I believe that the 2005 IRS Form 990's will require more disclosure.

For those interested...here is the SEC on materiality....
http://sec.gov/interps/account/sab99.htm

Among the considerations that may well render material a quantitatively small misstatement of a financial statement item are –
>>> Whether the misstatement arises from an item capable of precise measurement or
>>> Whether it arises from an estimate and, if so, the degree of imprecision inherent in the estimate
>>> Whether the misstatement masks a change in earnings or other trends
>>> Whether the misstatement changes a loss into income or vice versa
>>> Whether the misstatement concerns a segment or other portion of the registrant's business that has been identified as playing a significant role in the registrant's operations or profitability
>>> Whether the misstatement affects the registrant's compliance with regulatory requirements
>>> Whether the misstatement affects the registrant's compliance with loan covenants or other contractual requirements
>>> Whether the misstatement has the effect of increasing management's compensation – for example, by satisfying requirements for the award of bonuses or other forms of incentive compensation
>>> Whether the misstatement involves concealment of an unlawful transaction.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 12, 2006, 08:10 PM
While I agree that this is a public discussion about a public organization (or organizations), much of this discussion has been personal in nature. Discuss the issues, not the people.

Pretty hard to do given the humans run these orgs., & humans are the ones who made the errors in judgement. No name calling or names of specific indivduals should be used. On the other hand, if a person has an opinion then respectfully, their opinion should be aired. It is easier to sit on the fence in order to save butt but fence-sitters never assist in progress or change.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 12, 2006, 08:19 PM
Interesting.....the tax returns do not show this.

From IRS Form 990 Line 93a & 43a
Revenue ----- Expense
1997 ----- 346,706 ----- 240,106
1998 ----- 386,770 ----- 240,831
1999 ----- 433,245 ----- 270,755
2000 ----- 418,133 ----- 286,805
2001 ----- 426,896 ----- 395,953
2002 ----- 436,765 ----- 447,230
2003 ----- 508,172 ----- 489,601
2004 ----- 547,086 ----- 517,231

Makes one wonder why DaD expenses jumped by over $100,000 between 2000-2001.

There is a concept known as "materiality".....ie., if something is important, it should be publicly reported.

According to the Auditor’s report, DVCTA uses accrual based accounting. This means matching revnues and expenses to determine net income.

Between 1997-2000, the DaD show is kicking out over $100,000 in income with pretty stable set of revenues and expenses. All of a sudden, in 2001, expenses jump about $109,000 from the prior year. What happened?

Since I’m a fan of reading footnotes in SEC filings….From Page 1 of the auditor’s report attached to the FY200 Form990, this caught my eye:
“It was impractical for me to extend my examination of income from Dressage at Devon and from committee activities and the various shows beyond accounting for receipts and disbursements”…..Emory A Todd, CPA

Going from all volunteer to paid show staff might be considered material disclosures.....but I forget.....Sarbanes Oxley does not strictly apply to 501(c)3's.....though there is a movement afoot that it will....I believe that the 2005 IRS Form 990's will require more disclosure.

For those interested...here is the SEC on materiality....
http://sec.gov/interps/account/sab99.htm

Among the considerations that may well render material a quantitatively small misstatement of a financial statement item are –
>>> Whether the misstatement arises from an item capable of precise measurement or
>>> Whether it arises from an estimate and, if so, the degree of imprecision inherent in the estimate
>>> Whether the misstatement masks a change in earnings or other trends
>>> Whether the misstatement changes a loss into income or vice versa
>>> Whether the misstatement concerns a segment or other portion of the registrant's business that has been identified as playing a significant role in the registrant's operations or profitability
>>> Whether the misstatement affects the registrant's compliance with regulatory requirements
>>> Whether the misstatement affects the registrant's compliance with loan covenants or other contractual requirements
>>> Whether the misstatement has the effect of increasing management's compensation – for example, by satisfying requirements for the award of bonuses or other forms of incentive compensation
>>> Whether the misstatement involves concealment of an unlawful transaction.


Rosinante!
I for one, who can barely reconcile my checkbook, am in complete awe of what you were able to dig up & understand! My brain blurs checking an ACME receipt!

centsohuma
Oct. 12, 2006, 11:23 PM
Yes, DAD had it’s own books and it’s own accounts. So does Dressage at Fair Hill (the spring show), so does the Horse Trials. I know it because I keep the books for Dressage at Fair Hill and I have managed that show for the past two years. To expect the treasurer of DVCTA to be able to keep up with everything and be everywhere to pay all of the bills (like when the dumpster guy drops off the dumpster at 6 AM and expects to be paid) is insane. The name on the Fair Hill account is DVCTA dba Dressage at Fair Hill and it is registered with the DVCTA tax id. At year end, I hand all of my records over to the accountants for auditing, but the money has stayed in that account so that there is money to start the next year's show.

The separation of DAD from DVCTA is a done deal. The agreement has been signed, and the assets have been divided. DAD will continue to give money to DVCTA for the next 32 years (a period equal to the time that DVCTA and DAD were one). All of this was voted on by the DVCTA board of directors after months of debate and a committee made up of DVCTA and DAD members investigating if it was the right thing to do.

I have already stated in an earlier thread, that I sit on the boards of BOTH organizations. I was not then, nor am I now ‘coming out of the woodpile’. I’m actually PROUD of both boards. It’s tough work and the few who step up to the plate do not deserve the kind of bashing that’s being served up here by people who have nothing better to do.[/QUOTE]


Miss Lorik,
I could take issue with so many of your defenses in your post but won't at this juncture. Rather, I'll focus in on your last paragraph.

"It’s tough work and the few who step up to the plate do not deserve the kind of bashing that’s being served up here by people who have nothing better to do."

People who make statements like the one above risk falling into the category of "people in glass houses". That being said bet you go through cases of Windex.
My recollection isn't so dim as to have forgotten a few FACTS since you're so into them. Try this one on for size - The current DVCTA president BEGGED on numerous occasions the past president of "04 to take the helm of DVCTA. She, the past '04 pres. VOLUNTEER, was the only person within miles evidently that could do the job, according to the "begger". Finally, this volunteer of many many years of devoted service to DVCTA (she started the DFH show you inherited and ran it quite well with six people!) as well as much tenure w/DAD org. gave in and agreed to serve.
So - since you are so obviously opposed to "a few who step up to the plate" not "deserving the kind of bashing" that was served up by the very people you now defend on this bb, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, I expect you'll not waste any time dialing the past '04 pres. phone number and extend apologies all around for the unconsionable "bashing" she and her officers endured from around June '04 through December '04.
Do not attempt to shove your disgusting propaganda down my throat. It didn't wash a few years ago and it doesn't wash now.

angeloflite
Oct. 13, 2006, 08:24 AM
Well, y'all don't like each other much now do ya? LOL :winkgrin:

Even made me throw away my romance novel in favor of reading this thread.

Words of advice for Lorik,

I don't know ya darlin', but y'all need to subscribe to the Law of Holes

When you're in one quit diggin'! :yes:

Take care now, y'hear?

lorik
Oct. 13, 2006, 08:29 AM
But, you will notice that I have never said one negative thing on this forum about the past '04 president of DVCTA. I believe she did what she thought was the right thing to do.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 13, 2006, 11:00 AM
But, you will notice that I have never said one negative thing on this forum about the past '04 president of DVCTA. I believe she did what she thought was the right thing to do.

You have no reason to say any thing negative about the past president of 04! Don’t get me wrong, no one is without error but, the goals this person was trying to achieve, would have preserved the show’s high standards, set a precedence of (DAD) financial responsibility by ending the frivolous spending, demand all involved would stick to the budget, re-establish a good working relationship with the insurance carrier & examine the possibilities of a split between DAD & DVCTA. Those that could not adhere to their committee’s budget, would be asked to step-down. These demands were not understood nor welcomed as they disrupted personal agendas & intimidated others. The individual(s) who were running with scissors in one hand & the DAD check book in the other, would have been controlled in 04 yet it took 2 more years for this to occur.

It has been said, all too late, by those who initially took to the street with torches, “she was right.”

RP
Oct. 13, 2006, 11:12 AM
Funny. This kind of thing always pops up right after DAD - every year, never changes. And no matter how the original comment starts, it finally ends up with a handful of people attacking the people involved at DAD, particularly Lori. I only wish you had that kind of time and energy to expose the financials of the corrupt oil companies. If you complainers have a problem with it all, why don't you just volunteer and become involved in the actual workings of DAD, instead of complaining and attacking on this forum? I'm ready to take some heat off Lori, so have at it. And, I'll be going back to Devon next year, and the year after and after and after.

Old War Horse
Oct. 13, 2006, 11:15 AM
That is true; she did what had to be done. Nevertheless, she is still persona non-grata (excuse spelling) with the current leadership. The current BOD of DAD are made up of the working committee. WAAAAYYY too self-serving, if you ask me. Most Boards have some "outside" members, to lend balance and fairness to the mix. And at least ONE person should have some business knowledge; that's just practical! That type of person is also missing on the Board. Now how can they function? Just like they have always done... rather haphazardly. And as far as minutes go, they must be a true and accurate report of what transpires at BOD meetings. Good luck; the minutes so far are NOT up to standard! Of course, DVCTA's Board Meetings fall into that hole too; their minutes are the worst! If anyone ever tried to go back and figure out what transpired at those meetings, they would be clueless! So much for letting the "public" know what's going on!

Warmblooded707
Oct. 13, 2006, 02:41 PM
Funny. This kind of thing always pops up right after DAD - every year, never changes. And no matter how the original comment starts, it finally ends up with a handful of people attacking the people involved at DAD, particularly Lori. I only wish you had that kind of time and energy to expose the financials of the corrupt oil companies. If you complainers have a problem with it all, why don't you just volunteer and become involved in the actual workings of DAD, instead of complaining and attacking on this forum? I'm ready to take some heat off Lori, so have at it. And, I'll be going back to Devon next year, and the year after and after and after.

As to the nuts and bolts of your commentary, best advice is speak not of what ye know not of.

The "complainers" sound to me as though they WERE volunteers and intimately involved with DAD and therefore have a right to speak, know firsthand of what they speak, and obviously are doing so. If you or anyone doesn't like what is being said then I suggest you follow your own advice - join DAD, work your way up thru the ranks to the management levels of the show, then report back in a few years and let us know how the air was up there. Providing you have all your fingers and toes still intact. :lol:

The "complainers" love and/or loved the show as much as you or anyone which is why they cared enough to TRY to change things. You're not special if you return annually - just naive.

The "heat" as you so colorfully phrase it will be off Lori when and if she sees the light and quits defending the indefensible. Until then she will most likely continue to draw fire like a duck in a shooting gallery. Beats me why anyone can't follow the advice of a previous bb post and just quit digging.

This is becoming tedious.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 13, 2006, 03:04 PM
Funny. This kind of thing always pops up right after DAD - every year, never changes. And no matter how the original comment starts, it finally ends up with a handful of people attacking the people involved at DAD, particularly Lori. I only wish you had that kind of time and energy to expose the financials of the corrupt oil companies. If you complainers have a problem with it all, why don't you just volunteer and become involved in the actual workings of DAD, instead of complaining and attacking on this forum? I'm ready to take some heat off Lori, so have at it. And, I'll be going back to Devon next year, and the year after and after and after.


I never saw "this kind of thing" pop up before this year although I don't nest in front of the computer either.

This is not a personal attack on Lori. She is a well respected woman within the breed show community & a loyal member of DAD/DVCTA. It is an exchange of opinions & personal accountings. No, no one expects Lori, the only one brave enough to stick her neck out, to mea culpa for ALL the wrong doings of 04. Not her job. But if an understanding & respect can be achieved, then this is positive. Anyone not involved directly in 04, would not have a clue as to what the hoo-ha is all about.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 13, 2006, 03:08 PM
Funny. This kind of thing always pops up right after DAD - every year, never changes. And no matter how the original comment starts, it finally ends up with a handful of people attacking the people involved at DAD, particularly Lori. I only wish you had that kind of time and energy to expose the financials of the corrupt oil companies. If you complainers have a problem with it all, why don't you just volunteer and become involved in the actual workings of DAD, instead of complaining and attacking on this forum? I'm ready to take some heat off Lori, so have at it. And, I'll be going back to Devon next year, and the year after and after and after.

Added note....I had 15 yrs in & around these orgs, heading committees & so forth so I can speak with some weight of knowledge.

ASB Stars
Oct. 13, 2006, 03:28 PM
ASB,
Yes, I am compensated for my work as the Breed Show Secretary. I will not discuss the actual amount, but with the time it takes (485 entries this year), suffice it to say I make less than $.25/hour for that job (yeah, I'm getting rich!) and out of that, I cover the costs of office supplies and postage. My salary does not include (nor should it) the countless hours I spend on the organizing commitee, the general committee, and the BOD.

For those in the need to know, the entire BOD was announced in the 2006 program of Dressage at Devon.

Lorik:

There was NEVER a question in my mind that you were not compensated adequately for the job that you do- but that isn't my point. Once you cross the line from unpaid to paid, to gave up the title of volunteer, and became a professional. Underpaid, but a professional. Period.

My observations of the DAD/DVCTA issues came from watching someone who was very involved, and one of major conspirators of the 2004 action at close range, for many years. I listened to their view of how things should be in the kingdom of DAD ad nauseum- and watched them make HUGE mistakes- personally, and with DAD. It isn't something you forget.

The "retiree with the PHD" that I referred to was, by all accounts, just vile to the DVCTA folks- and even to the attorney that was bailing DAD out of the lawsuit that had run on forever. And after pillaging and burning- they flee the scene. Unreal, but probably for the best.

rosinante
Oct. 13, 2006, 05:40 PM
Folks,

I go to Devon, run into some folks and get statements like, "I don't want to make any waves, but did you hear that...." or accusatory statements with unwillingness to name names. Thus I asked the question on this BB for clarification.

I posted tax returns only after the first initial posts which kept making allusions to this or to that. The tax returns are factual and public and I was hoping that the discussion would take a higher moral ground than in the past. Let's stay there.

Rather than re-hashing old wrongs, real or perceived, things would be best cleared up thru "transparency"....

There seems to be a lot of interest in the topic, so why don't the folks in DVCTA and "New DaD" speak publicly and answer a few questions:

1-When is the DVCTA-DaD split technically effective?
2-Who will head "New DaD?"
3-Who will be on the BOD of "New DaD"?
4-How will the assets be split up?
5-What are the financial terms of remuneration to DVCTA?
6-What is the stated purpose of "New DaD"?

Simple questions that can be answered with straight forward facts. Who are the players & what are the legal arrangements of the split?

The officers and BOD of DVCTA are public knowledge. The names are in the tax returns. All it would take for this discussion to go away is for those people to clear the air.

In any case, the tide is changing and public disclosure will probably soon be required from non-profits as well as in publicly traded corporations. If not on this BB, the questions will probably have to be answered at some point in time.

The BoardSource has a document that summarizes the emerging horizon:

http://www.boardsource.org/clientfiles/Sarbanes-Oxley.pdf

While nearly all of the provisions of the Act apply only to publicly traded corporations, the passage of the bill served as a wake-up call to the entire nonprofit community. Indeed, several state legislatures have already passed or are considering legislation containing elements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to be applied to nonprofit organizations. In many instances, nonprofit organizations have adopted policies and altered governance practices in response to the Act. Nonprofit leaders should look carefully at the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley, as well as their state laws, and determine whether their organizations ought to voluntarily adopt governance best practices, even if not mandated by law. This report will review those provisions and assess their relevance to nonprofit organizations. Finally, it is important to note that two provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley apply to all entities, including nonprofit organizations.

DISCLOSURE SUMMARY OF SARBANES-OXLEY PROVISION
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires a number of disclosures, including information on internal control mechanisms, corrections to past financial statements, and material off balance sheet transactions (adjustments). The Act also requires companies to disclose information on material changes in the operations or financial situation of the company on a rapid and current basis.

RELEVANCE TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
While nonprofit organizations do not file most of the reports that publicly traded companies are required to file, they should nevertheless provide their donors, clients, public officials, the media, and others with an accurate picture of their financial condition. Current law already requires tax-exempt organizations to make their Forms 990 or 990-PF freely available to anyone who requests them in writing or in person. These information returns, as mentioned before, need improvements both in accuracy and in timeliness of disclosure. One way to achieve that objective is through electronic filing, something the Internal Revenue Service is currently pursuing and the nonprofit community generally endorses.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Nonprofit organizations should improve the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of the Forms 990 or 990-PF by filing electronically when that option is available to them. Nonprofits should strive for greater disclosure and transparency.

Warmblooded707
Oct. 13, 2006, 06:31 PM
Rosinante,

An earlier post suggests that the "new" DAD bod was published in the '06 show program. If that is the case then there appear to be no new players.

Lots of old and familiar names, perhaps reshuffled, but the same. That says no substantive change to me. We all have experience with new titles in the world of volunteerism. Jobs change; people and their behaviors often do not.

One of the major issues in many non-profits is accountability often attributable to the participants being well-meaning amateurs at what they are doing. There is no intentional wrongdoing - just a lack of knowledge on proper procedures in many areas of importance. While this won't serve any as an excuse it may be a big reason. A large, non-profit must have credible, coherent leadership at the top and at that, the job is a difficult one.

If the corporate accounting world is about to become a more transparent one then all non-profits will have to get their act together as there will be no choice.

Change on all fronts may be a difficult pill to swallow since no one in recent memory has ever been able to hold responsible feet to the fire.

If you feel frustrated in the quest for a straight answer regarding things that fall within the category of the publics right to know you are not alone. Some score an 89% in the Grand Prix of Stonewalling.:yes:

lorik
Oct. 13, 2006, 09:02 PM
Rosinante,
As I stated before, the DAD/DVCTA split was signed (by the DVCTA president and the new CEO of DAD) in early September.

Jim Hall is the CEO of DAD

The board consists of Nan Demchur, Patsy Albers, Connie Scholz, Melanie Sloyer, Lori Kaminski, Eileen Johnston, John Henderson, Ann Calligan and Sharon Klotz.

DVCTA allowed DAD to keep the opperating expenses that they had accumulated to 'self insure' against catastophic events that could keep the show from opening (hurricanes, etc.)

Renumeration includes a percentage of the net income (I remember 1%, but I don't have the agreement in front of me) and a $ value for each member of DVCTA to be calculated at a specific date each year (again, I don't have the agreement in front of me to know the $
value (I'm thinking $10 per member) or the date and I don't want to get it wrong).

The DAD statement of purpose has to do with presenting a "world class dressage competition" (and I'm sure someone out there will take issue to the fact that I don't have it burned into my memory), but without having it in front of me, I hesitate to go further.

If you have more questions, please feel free to contact me at 410-398-1740.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 13, 2006, 09:42 PM
Rosinante,
As I stated before, the DAD/DVCTA split was signed (by the DVCTA president and the new CEO of DAD) in early September.

Jim Hall is the CEO of DAD

The board consists of Nan Demchur, Patsy Albers, Connie Scholz, Melanie Sloyer, Lori Kaminski, Eileen Johnston, John Henderson, Ann Calligan and Sharon Klotz.

DVCTA allowed DAD to keep the opperating expenses that they had accumulated to 'self insure' against catastophic events that could keep the show from opening (hurricanes, etc.)

Renumeration includes a percentage of the net income (I remember 1%, but I don't have the agreement in front of me) and a $ value for each member of DVCTA to be calculated at a specific date each year (again, I don't have the agreement in front of me to know the $
value (I'm thinking $10 per member) or the date and I don't want to get it wrong).

The DAD statement of purpose has to do with presenting a "world class dressage competition" (and I'm sure someone out there will take issue to the fact that I don't have it burned into my memory), but without having it in front of me, I hesitate to go further.

If you have more questions, please feel free to contact me at 410-398-1740.


Ok all.....(((((((((((((((group hug)))))))))))))

Thanks Lori for being the only one to step out from behind the wizard's curtain. It may not be the answers for everyone but it's a start. :)

Warmblooded707
Oct. 13, 2006, 10:03 PM
Translation for those of you who may not actually own a dictionary or for those who find words above three syllables a challenge:

o P e r a t i n g

reNumeration (?) - are they renumbering or cyphering something? :eek: Oh, I know, she must have meant reMuneration, i.e. to pay, compensate, etc....

New BOD including CEO numbers ten - whew, that's quite a relief. At least no one will have to remove their socks when taking roll call. :winkgrin:

ROFL LMAO :lol:

Buh,bye.

Cartier
Oct. 14, 2006, 07:26 AM
Along with over 2,800 other viewers, we’ve been reading this thread. I wanted to take a moment to thank those who generated and participated in this intelligent, factual discussion. Especially wanted to thank those bold enough to ask the obvious questions, who then took the time to offer facts. This is one of the most informative threads ever to appear on COTH. It should be a wake up call for some folks.
We are indebted to you DQ.

ASB Stars
Oct. 14, 2006, 08:27 AM
Rosinante,
As I stated before, the DAD/DVCTA split was signed (by the DVCTA president and the new CEO of DAD) in early September.

Jim Hall is the CEO of DAD

The board consists of Nan Demchur, Patsy Albers, Connie Scholz, Melanie Sloyer, Lori Kaminski, Eileen Johnston, John Henderson, Ann Calligan and Sharon Klotz.

DVCTA allowed DAD to keep the opperating expenses that they had accumulated to 'self insure' against catastophic events that could keep the show from opening (hurricanes, etc.)

Renumeration includes a percentage of the net income (I remember 1%, but I don't have the agreement in front of me) and a $ value for each member of DVCTA to be calculated at a specific date each year (again, I don't have the agreement in front of me to know the $
value (I'm thinking $10 per member) or the date and I don't want to get it wrong).

The DAD statement of purpose has to do with presenting a "world class dressage competition" (and I'm sure someone out there will take issue to the fact that I don't have it burned into my memory), but without having it in front of me, I hesitate to go further.

If you have more questions, please feel free to contact me at 410-398-1740.


Well, Dr. Hall is the "retiree with the PHD" to whom I referred, who fomented the original rebellion, appears in the photo op, and now lives in Florida. Several of the other folks on there are paid by DAD for their work- which DOES make me wonder about the foxes and the hen house, but perhaps that is just me.

rosinante
Oct. 14, 2006, 03:10 PM
Rosinante,
As I stated before, the DAD/DVCTA split was signed (by the DVCTA president and the new CEO of DAD) in early September.

Jim Hall is the CEO of DAD

The board consists of Nan Demchur, Patsy Albers, Connie Scholz, Melanie Sloyer, Lori Kaminski, Eileen Johnston, John Henderson, Ann Calligan and Sharon Klotz.


Lorik....I appreciate your replies and candor, but it would have been better if Dr. Hall had replied...I think they have the internet in Florida.

I point this out because in the post-Enron world, corporations have been held to a much higher standard of transparency and disclosure, especially the officers. Though this applies mainly to publicly traded corporations, several high-profile scandals with non-profits have led to a movement that the same reporting requirements held for publicly traded corporations apply to non-profits. Given all the stories, rumors, misconceptions, etc. around this split, having the President of "New DaD step up to clear the air would set the proper tone that this organization was going to be a well-run organization.

Officers and BOD's need to understand this clearly. They will have "someone" watching over their shoulders in the future....not me....the government will be requiring disclosure.

Since the concept of having one legal entity seems to have escaped a few people in the past, I post here the legal requirements in the state of Pennsylvania for DISCLOSURE...Pa is where DVCTA is incorporated.

According to 15PaC.S.A.§5508b: "Every member shall, upon written demand…have a right to examine, in person or by agent or attorney…for any proper purpose, the membership register, books and records of account and records of the proceedings of the members, directors and such other body."

According to 15PaC.S.A.§5508c: "If the corporation, or an officer or agent thereof, refuses to permit an inspection sought by a member…or does not reply to the demand within five busness days after the demand has been made, the member may apply to the court for an order to compel such an inspection."

Please note the section about "inspection of records of account".....

Any question regarding finances should be approached openly and with a willingness to disclose, or there exits a risk that someone may get really curious an go to court for an order to compel.


Rosinante,
If you have more questions, please feel free to contact me at 410-398-1740.

I don't have any personal questions....this is business....

The same way I take interest in public corporations and their stories in the Wall Street Journal, I take an interest in DVCTA & DaD because they are important horsey organizations, and I'm interested in horses.

I'm sure the information I would be interested in, a lot of other people would be interested in also....so it is preferable to post publicly so that there are no misconceptions about anything....transparency.....and full disclosure. It helps bring out the facts and clears any misconceptions. As was said..."the truth will set you free....."

Let me point you to the BoardSource, an entity providing governance advice to non-profits. This is what they say about the law that was enacted as a result of Enron, et al...the law is called "Sarbanes-Oxley" act...SOX for short.

http://www.boardsource.org/clientfiles/Sarbanes-Oxley.pdf

Some quotes from this paper on the applicability of SOX to non-profits:
"Indeed, several state legislatures have already passed or are considering legislation containing elements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to be applied to nonprofit organizations."

"Nonprofit leaders should look carefully at the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley, as well as their state laws, and determine whether their organizations ought to voluntarily adopt governance best practices, even if not mandated by law. "

Sarbanes-Oxley law requires disclosure from corporation. Here is what the BoardSource recommends for non-profits:

RELEVANCE TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS While nonprofit organizations do not file most of the reports that publicly traded companies are required to file, they should nevertheless provide their donors, clients, public officials, the media, and others with an accurate picture of their financial condition.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 14, 2006, 03:19 PM
[QUOTE=lorik;1930329]Rosinante,


Jim Hall is the CEO of DAD

QUOTE]

Lorik....I am to understand, a few years ago, a key person who had decades of service with DAD, a matriarchal force for many years, was forced off the e-committee because she wintered in Fla. She was unceremoniously tossed off without so much as a thank you. Will the current CEO abide by the same rules that were so bitterly forced upon another?

rosinante
Oct. 14, 2006, 03:42 PM
[QUOTE=lorik;1930329]Rosinante,
Jim Hall is the CEO of DAD

QUOTE]
Lorik....I am to understand, a few years ago, a key person who had decades of service with DAD, a matriarchal force for many years, was forced off the e-committee because she wintered in Fla. She was unceremoniously tossed off without so much as a thank you. Will the current CEO abide by the same rules that were so bitterly forced upon another?

SS...That can get too much into the touchy-feely world of hurt feelings......I'm actually much more interested in the financial arrangements....transparency and disclosure.

As Deep Throat said in the Watergate scandal...."follow the money...."

The officers' pay will have to be disclosed in the IRS-990's....but then there are these "fuzzy" lines that sometime appear in expenses called, "Consulting fees"....with no names attached.....that is why transparency and disclosure are needed.

So, assuming that everyone takes the high moral ground wants DVCTA to continue be a successful GMO and for Dressage at Devon to continue to be a premier dressage show, how will that happen????

Given past history of deficit spending and curious accounting, what are the financial arrangements to give DVCTA members faith that the GMO viable economic entity going forward?.....and that DaD is not just a vehicle to put money if a few people's pockets?

saddlesurfer
Oct. 14, 2006, 04:30 PM
[QUOTE=rosinante;1931419][QUOTE=saddlesurfer;1931383]

SS...That can get too much into the touchy-feely world of hurt feelings......I'm actually much more interested in the financial arrangements....transparency and disclosure.

QUOTE]

Sorry I differ. It's more than an argument in the sandbox. This questions who would be at the helm, running a show that is nearing a million dollar budget. If the current CEO follows the same precident he set in 04 on another member, then he should not return as the CEO. Furthermore, how can you efficiently run a show of this size by way of attending mtgs via conference call?

lorik
Oct. 14, 2006, 08:27 PM
We are all aware of the disclosure laws. With that in mind, I suggest you put your requests in writing and send them to Dr. Hall.

Warmblooded707
Oct. 14, 2006, 08:30 PM
[QUOTE=rosinante;1931419][QUOTE=saddlesurfer;1931383]

SS...That can get too much into the touchy-feely world of hurt feelings......I'm actually much more interested in the financial arrangements....transparency and disclosure.

QUOTE]

Sorry I differ. It's more than an argument in the sandbox. This questions who would be at the helm, running a show that is nearing a million dollar budget. If the current CEO follows the same precident he set in 04 on another member, then he should not return as the CEO. Furthermore, how can you efficiently run a show of this size by way of attending mtgs via conference call?


There is an old saying that holds true much of the time - "be careful what you wish for..."

For years DAD chafed against the restraints, limited as they were, from the parent organization. It was my personal experience that they never took direction or suggestion from outsiders with good grace.
Now they have what they wished for - they are a separate legal entity,

Existing government controls and it appears, increasingly stricter laws will be imposed on all non-profits.

No matter who is at the helm they've got their work cut out for them.

As the saying goes - "works for me!" :yes:

ASB Stars
Oct. 14, 2006, 08:55 PM
We are all aware of the disclosure laws. With that in mind, I suggest you put your requests in writing and send them to Dr. Hall.

LoriK:

Is that castledad@yahoo.com ??

centsohuma
Oct. 14, 2006, 09:51 PM
Here is a bit of the "magnitude" of benefit that was lost to the membership:

DVCTA --Revenue --Expens -- Income -- Assets
IRS990 -- Line12 --Line17 -- Rev-Exp. -- Line21
1997 -- 413,685 -- 411,473 -- 2,212 -- 56,256
1998 -- 494,586 --468,277 -- 26,309 -- 82,565
1999 -- 556,431 -- 516,080 -- 40,351 -- 122,916
2000 -- 573,286 -- 550,738 -- 22,548 -- 145,460
2001 -- 599,261 -- 584,983 -- 14,278 -- 159,742
2002 -- 595,957 -- 605,721 -- (9,764) -- 149,978
2003 -- 667,755 -- 637,423 -- 30,332 -- 179,112
2004 -- 770,341 -- 779,479 -- (9,138) -- 169,317

Well, formatting is a problem, but you can get the drift....
the raw data is in http://www.guidestar.org

Rosanante,

Looking at the above postings I believe that the numbers in the "income" column reflect the net after expenses, i.e. net income, correct? And the large number is the total assets held cumulatively. Is that correct?


If so, then Lorik quoting (albeit from memory so we won't cast any number she graciously supplied in stone) DVCTA's "new deal" as receiving 1 percent of the annual net proceeds plus $10 per member head (approx.) as the total financials agreed to when the split of the org's was done.

The DVCTA "gift" from DAD in past years ranged between $4k for a low to $7k for a high (budgeted in '04 at 7k - didn't materialize and if memory serves 5k was the actual - the club ran at a deficit most of that year) This "gift" helped the gmo budget cover the per capita member charge to USDF.

While rumors are not to be relied upon I'd heard that DAD had paid DVCTA "big bucks" for the separation.

Help me here because this is one time when I pray my math is in error.

IF, hypothetically, this new deal had existed in '01, then their annuity would be $1,427.80, plus 10xmembership - (let's use 400 as the high as current membership for this year, according to USDF roster stands at 335) so $4k - for a total of $5,478.00 (rounded up to nearest dollar).

Hypothetically, this new deal in '04 would net them $0.00 as the net proceeds show a loss, so $4K estm. membership donation.

In '02 the same would hypothetically apply, and in a good year '03, they'd be looking at $3,033 plus another 4K if membership was 400.

So, in a good year if this trend is correct, the so-called "big bucks" new deal is the same old deal and possibly worse if the net is $0.00??

If my figures are correct how on earth could any bod think this was acceptable for a show whose income before expenses is hovering close to the 1 mil. mark?

Questions I have presuming my above calculations are correct is did the DVCTA bod have access to the above numbers and did they all understand and know clearly what those numbers represented and what they were actually agreeing to.

It bogels the mind.

If I am incorrect please tell me!! This appears to be NOT a good deal for DVCTA. Say it ain't so!!!!

centsohuma
Oct. 14, 2006, 10:08 PM
Over a five year period, from 2000 thru '04 if this deal had been in effect then, DVCTA would have AVERAGED $4825.00 annually from an annuity.

If the revenue/expense/net income trend continues along the lines of the past five years the outlook is not so rosy??

Aaaaargh.....

dirtyhouse
Oct. 14, 2006, 10:49 PM
[QUOTE=lorik;1930329]Rosinante,


Jim Hall is the CEO of DAD

QUOTE]

Lorik....I am to understand, a few years ago, a key person who had decades of service with DAD, a matriarchal force for many years, was forced off the e-committee because she wintered in Fla. She was unceremoniously tossed off without so much as a thank you. Will the current CEO abide by the same rules that were so bitterly forced upon another?

Absolutely not true. She wasn't "tossed". She resigned.

dirtyhouse
Oct. 14, 2006, 10:56 PM
Rosanante,

Looking at the above postings I believe that the numbers in the "income" column reflect the net after expenses, i.e. net income, correct? And the large number is the total assets held cumulatively. Is that correct?


If so, then Lorik quoting (albeit from memory so we won't cast any number she graciously supplied in stone) DVCTA's "new deal" as receiving 1 percent of the annual net proceeds plus $10 per member head (approx.) as the total financials agreed to when the split of the org's was done.

The DVCTA "gift" from DAD in past years ranged between $4k for a low to $7k for a high (budgeted in '04 at 7k - didn't materialize and if memory serves 5k was the actual - the club ran at a deficit most of that year) This "gift" helped the gmo budget cover the per capita member charge to USDF.

While rumors are not to be relied upon I'd heard that DAD had paid DVCTA "big bucks" for the separation.

Help me here because this is one time when I pray my math is in error.

IF, hypothetically, this new deal had existed in '01, then their annuity would be $1,427.80, plus 10xmembership - (let's use 400 as the high as current membership for this year, according to USDF roster stands at 335) so $4k - for a total of $5,478.00 (rounded up to nearest dollar).

Hypothetically, this new deal in '04 would net them $0.00 as the net proceeds show a loss, so $4K estm. membership donation.

In '02 the same would hypothetically apply, and in a good year '03, they'd be looking at $3,033 plus another 4K if membership was 400.

So, in a good year if this trend is correct, the so-called "big bucks" new deal is the same old deal and possibly worse if the net is $0.00??

If my figures are correct how on earth could any bod think this was acceptable for a show whose income before expenses is hovering close to the 1 mil. mark?

Questions I have presuming my above calculations are correct is did the DVCTA bod have access to the above numbers and did they all understand and know clearly what those numbers represented and what they were actually agreeing to.

It bogels the mind.

If I am incorrect please tell me!! This appears to be NOT a good deal for DVCTA. Say it ain't so!!!!
The numbers you are looking at are the include profit and loss from DAD and DVCTA combined. The BOD made an informed decision in the best interest of DVCTA. Believe it or not DVCTA and DAD does not consist of a bunch of morans as some of you would like to think.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 14, 2006, 10:57 PM
Sorry DH, believe what you want if it gets you through the night but I was there & I was privy to the "email".

Warmblooded707
Oct. 14, 2006, 11:27 PM
The numbers you are looking at are the include profit and loss from DAD and DVCTA combined. The BOD made an informed decision in the best interest of DVCTA. Believe it or not DVCTA and DAD does not consist of a bunch of morans as some of you would like to think.

From IRS Form 990 Line 93a & 43a
Revenue ----- Expense
1997 ----- 346,706 ----- 240,106
1998 ----- 386,770 ----- 240,831
1999 ----- 433,245 ----- 270,755
2000 ----- 418,133 ----- 286,805
2001 ----- 426,896 ----- 395,953
2002 ----- 436,765 ----- 447,230
2003 ----- 508,172 ----- 489,601
2004 ----- 547,086 ----- 517,231


DVCTA --Revenue --Expens -- Income -- Assets
IRS990 -- Line12 --Line17 -- Rev-Exp. -- Line21
1997 -- 413,685 -- 411,473 -- 2,212 -- 56,256
1998 -- 494,586 --468,277 -- 26,309 -- 82,565
1999 -- 556,431 -- 516,080 -- 40,351 -- 122,916
2000 -- 573,286 -- 550,738 -- 22,548 -- 145,460
2001 -- 599,261 -- 584,983 -- 14,278 -- 159,742
2002 -- 595,957 -- 605,721 -- (9,764) -- 149,978
2003 -- 667,755 -- 637,423 -- 30,332 -- 179,112
2004 -- 770,341 -- 779,479 -- (9,138) -- 169,317

Above are two sets of numbers - I will leave the sorting out to the student of non-profits, Rosanante.

What it seems to say to me in reference to your statement that the above (higher) figures are combined revenues then therefore, the DAD numbers are the ones referenced that are the lower figures.

Lower numbers from which to hypothetically draw a 1 percent annuity doesn't improve DVCTA's case.

Knowing what I know of the parent org., DVCTA never in its life showed a revenue in excess of 200K (the difference between the two sets of figures for '04 as the example).

I am willing to readily admit I am no reader of IRS financials but something doesn't quite seem to make sense to me.

All Centsohuma posed were questions as well.

The presumption that DVCTA bod are "morons" are your words not mine or anyone elses.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 14, 2006, 11:45 PM
Hmmm. That $9,000 deficit from “04” certainly explains why the “04” BOD of DVCTA were swinging from the ceiling when they found out DAD promised $50k to USDF.

centsohuma
Oct. 15, 2006, 09:48 AM
LoriK:

Is that castledad@yahoo.com ??

Everyone drop the "doc" a letter with your requests and wait for the reply.

Now that's akin to waiting for Santa's reply when you post to the North Pole...ain't gonna happen. Santa won't reply because he can't - he's mythical. Doc probably won't reply because he doesn't have to.

Castledad - hmmm, now that he's vacated his castle and moved to the land of the palms maybe his email address has changed too.

Some likely addresses to try would be: Bigbadcrocdad; Bigcoconut; Evergladeguru; and my personal favorite, Crocabullhunter.

Happy surfing!

saddlesurfer
Oct. 15, 2006, 10:29 AM
[QUOTe].

Castledad - hmmm, now that he's vacated his castle and moved to the land of the palms maybe his email address has changed too.

Some likely addresses to try would be: Bigbadcrocdad; Bigcoconut; Evergladeguru; and my personal favorite, Crocabullhunter.

I love it! :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

ASB Stars
Oct. 15, 2006, 11:12 AM
First off- I am NOT positive of that email addy- Lorik will have to confirm....

Second, let me see if I have this right so far....

In 2004, tired of "taxation without representation", the DAD foments rebellion, throws a big tea party, and calls for a jihad-- ooopps-- COUP on DVCTA...

They gain seats on the BOD of DVCTA.Then, due largely to the exposure to DVCTA of law suits, one of which was the function of issues regarding a contract executed by DAD-- but not necessarily- allegedly- the DVCTA BOD--it is determined, by the BOD of DVCTA (which is now comprised in no small part of the DAD coup conspirators) that the entities should part ways-- amicably, no doubt!

Somewhere along the way- one of the former co-chairs of DAD- the "retiree with the PhD" is made Czar--oooppss-- CEO of DAD. He also departs for the south.

Now, the many of the conspirators of the uprising 0f 2004 are the "new" BOD of DAD, a stand alone entity with a nice income, a huge amount of work, an obligation to DVCTA, and some folks on the BOD who are paid for their work at DAD...

Is this right? I mean, is it RIGHT?

Ah, well, heck, let them eat cake, I say! ;)

rosinante
Oct. 15, 2006, 11:36 PM
From IRS Form 990 Line 93a & 43a
- --DAD Revenue ----- Expense
1997 ----- 346,706 ----- 240,106
1998 ----- 386,770 ----- 240,831
1999 ----- 433,245 ----- 270,755
2000 ----- 418,133 ----- 286,805
2001 ----- 426,896 ----- 395,953
2002 ----- 436,765 ----- 447,230
2003 ----- 508,172 ----- 489,601
2004 ----- 547,086 ----- 517,231

DVCTA --Revenue --Expens -- Income -- Assets
IRS990 -- Line12 --Line17 -- Rev-Exp. -- Line21
1997 -- 413,685 -- 411,473 -- 2,212 -- 56,256
1998 -- 494,586 --468,277 -- 26,309 -- 82,565
1999 -- 556,431 -- 516,080 -- 40,351 -- 122,916
2000 -- 573,286 -- 550,738 -- 22,548 -- 145,460
2001 -- 599,261 -- 584,983 -- 14,278 -- 159,742
2002 -- 595,957 -- 605,721 -- (9,764) -- 149,978
2003 -- 667,755 -- 637,423 -- 30,332 -- 179,112
2004 -- 770,341 -- 779,479 -- (9,138) -- 169,317

Above are two sets of numbers - I will leave the sorting out to the student of non-profits, Rosanante.

What it seems to say to me in reference to your statement that the above (higher) figures are combined revenues then therefore, the DAD numbers are the ones referenced that are the lower figures.

Lower numbers from which to hypothetically draw a 1 percent annuity doesn't improve DVCTA's case.

Knowing what I know of the parent org., DVCTA never in its life showed a revenue in excess of 200K (the difference between the two sets of figures for '04 as the example).

I am willing to readily admit I am no reader of IRS financials but something doesn't quite seem to make sense to me.

All Centsohuma posed were questions as well.

The presumption that DVCTA bod are "morons" are your words not mine or anyone elses.

The first set of number are the DaD Revenue as separated out from the IRS forms 990 listing specific activities. There is another line which spells out the revenues and expenses for Shows & Horse Trials. This is just detail from the tax return. Here is the income from show and horse trials:

DVCTA Revenue & Expense from shows & horse trials
- Revenue -Expenses- Income
1997 --- 42,748 --- 41,040 --- 1,708
1998 --- 66,103 --- 51,662 --- 14,441
1999 --- 57,696 --- 59,825 --- (2,129)
2000 --- 75,652 --- 84,838 --- (9,186)
2001 --- 58,598 --- 44,105 --- 14,493
2002 --- 49,507 --- 49,430 --- 77
2003 --- 59,964 --- 61,090 --- (1,126)
2004 --- 67,239 --- 65,312 --- 1,927

THE IMPORTANT CONCEPT IS THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE LEGAL ENTITY.....DVCTA. The revenues, expenses and assets listed from IRS990 Lines 12, 17 and 21 are for DVCTA....THE ONLY LEGAL ENTITY AT THE TIME OF THESE RETURNS.

rosinante
Oct. 16, 2006, 12:18 AM
We are all aware of the disclosure laws. With that in mind, I suggest you put your requests in writing and send them to Dr. Hall.

The numbers speak volumes. I have arrived at my own conclusions and await to see what happens to DaD and DVCTA over time. Time will tell if the organizations were well run.

My only interest in this specific discourse of DaD-DVCTA is academic because of my interest in corporate governance and my knowledge of some interesting history regarding non-profits, specifically certain horsey non-profits.

I found this DaD-DVCTA discussion remeniscent of the AHSA/USET war, so I decided to look into the finances when no one would give me a straight answer to what I thought were simple questions...little did I know.....

I do not belong to DVCTA. I have no interest in showing in DVCTA shows. I only go to Dressage at Devon midweek to patronize the vendors that exhibit there.

However, I AM INTERESTED IN the corporate governance of organizations that are not acting in the best interest of their members or where indviduals and officers of those organizations have conflicts of interest with the intersts of the organizations they represent. That is why Sarbanes-Oxley was written into law.

For those people who have the energy or personal friendship with an attorney, then perhaps those people should follow lorik's advice and seek clarification to their questions. I have arrived at my own conclusions and await to see what happens to DaD and DVCTA over time.

For those who wish to pursue their questions further, then contacting the appropriate organizations with a request to examine their books may be the appropriate next steps. The pertinent sections of law are:

According to 15PaC.S.A.§5508b: "Every member shall, upon written demand…have a right to examine, in person or by agent or attorney…for any proper purpose, the membership register, books and records of account and records of the proceedings of the members, directors and such other body."

According to 15PaC.S.A.§5508c: "If the corporation, or an officer or agent thereof, refuses to permit an inspection sought by a member…or does not reply to the demand within five business days after the demand has been made, the member may apply to the court for an order to compel such an inspection."

rosinante
Oct. 16, 2006, 01:15 AM
Rosanante,

Looking at the above postings I believe that the numbers in the "income" column reflect the net after expenses, i.e. net income, correct? And the large number is the total assets held cumulatively. Is that correct?

If so, then Lorik quoting (albeit from memory so we won't cast any number she graciously supplied in stone) DVCTA's "new deal" as receiving 1 percent of the annual net proceeds plus $10 per member head (approx.) as the total financials agreed to when the split of the org's was done.

The DVCTA "gift" from DAD in past years ranged between $4k for a low to $7k for a high (budgeted in '04 at 7k - didn't materialize and if memory serves 5k was the actual - the club ran at a deficit most of that year) This "gift" helped the gmo budget cover the per capita member charge to USDF.

While rumors are not to be relied upon I'd heard that DAD had paid DVCTA "big bucks" for the separation.

Help me here because this is one time when I pray my math is in error.

IF, hypothetically, this new deal had existed in '01, then their annuity would be $1,427.80, plus 10xmembership - (let's use 400 as the high as current membership for this year, according to USDF roster stands at 335) so $4k - for a total of $5,478.00 (rounded up to nearest dollar).

Hypothetically, this new deal in '04 would net them $0.00 as the net proceeds show a loss, so $4K estm. membership donation.

In '02 the same would hypothetically apply, and in a good year '03, they'd be looking at $3,033 plus another 4K if membership was 400.

So, in a good year if this trend is correct, the so-called "big bucks" new deal is the same old deal and possibly worse if the net is $0.00??

If my figures are correct how on earth could any bod think this was acceptable for a show whose income before expenses is hovering close to the 1 mil. mark?

Questions I have presuming my above calculations are correct is did the DVCTA bod have access to the above numbers and did they all understand and know clearly what those numbers represented and what they were actually agreeing to.

It bogels the mind.

If I am incorrect please tell me!! This appears to be NOT a good deal for DVCTA. Say it ain't so!!!!

I can't answer these questions from a series of tax returns. There are a lot of details left unstated.

Disclosure....transparency.....wouldn't it be nice if the details of the separation including the financial arrangements were posted on DVCTA's & DaD's web site....might answer a lot of speculation.

Also, remember Thorncroft, a huge chunk of change goes to Thorncroft.....a fact which, to date, everyone seems to have forgotten in the discussion......

ASB Stars
Oct. 16, 2006, 08:39 AM
Apparently, I was correct about the email addy...a friend confirmed it!

Unless he changed it when he moved south...nah.....

castledad@yahoo.com

saddlesurfer
Oct. 16, 2006, 10:00 AM
[QUOTE=rosinante;.

Also, remember Thorncroft, a huge chunk of change goes to Thorncroft.....a fact which, to date, everyone seems to have forgotten in the discussion......


I don't think anyone here has forgotten about TEC. The subject of posts were about the financial disclosures of DAD/DVCTA. TEC is a bystander. They put in many, many hours in preparation for DAD, accumulating countless volunteers, ordering food, organizing & prepping their food booths...etc. All this & they have the minimal say in DAD show operations. What will be interesting is, will TEC be asked & agree to another year?

Warmblooded707
Oct. 17, 2006, 12:08 AM
My FINAL take on this entire, sad saga is this.

TEC (Thorncroft, DAD beneficiary at last record) brings in significant income just with the booths they man, much of which is stocked by goods donated to TEC to sell in those booths. I believe that they do not receive 100% of the income from those booths. It goes into the general coffers of the horse show, by mutual agreement, and at the end of it all the amount they receive as their benefit is a figure decided upon by horse show management.

Now, I ask you - while there are some, perhaps many of us, who may not think this an equitable arrangement, if TEC is happy with it, or at the very least accepts this year after year, then who are we to find fault? It is, at the end of it all, their business.

That same line of reasoning applies to DVCTA. We have been told in these bb's that DVCTA bod made an informed choice and the agreement to separate along with the financials was amicable. Great! While there are some who would look at this as, perhaps, a fools bargain, who are we to judge or evaluate this? We are not their advocates, merely observers.

As Rosinante says - we all have our own ideas and thoughts on the real deal but they are just that.

I for one have been a critical voice on these bb's. I haven't changed my opinions. But I do realize that you can not help people who do not want or feel they need it. What is it they say - silence is golden? It appears that the bb's are conspicuously absent posts from DVCTA or TEC members, disgruntled or otherwise. Their silence speaks volumes. Therefore, we must assume that rational people came together and arrived at a rational solution to a long-standing problem.

The reality is that the deal is done. The bell can't be unrung by anyone if it proves to be, over time, not the best thing for one or both of the organizations. Decisions have been made that will impact both parties for years to come. Hopefully, they will prove to have been good ones.


Will it stand the test of time? Well, time will indeed tell.

centsohuma
Oct. 20, 2006, 09:24 PM
WB,

Yes, I agree; I think that some people need to be saved from themselves but if no one is yellin' help now, don't yell for it later. I for one won't be throwing anyone a floatation device.
Pass the popcorn.....??

angeloflite
Oct. 22, 2006, 08:18 PM
Funny thing happened just the other day - I was driving down the road and on the sidewalk, linked arm in arm, were at least a dozen DAD'ers and they were all skipping and singing......

"DING - DONG - THE THREAD IS DEAD....WHICH OLD THREAD, THE WICKED THREAD. - DING DONG THE WICKED THREAD IS DEAD!"

ROFL! :lol:

Sorry, but I just had to lend a bit of humor and put the "dot" at the end of the loooooong sentence :yes:

Hang in there and happy riding y'all.

saddlesurfer
Oct. 22, 2006, 08:40 PM
Funny thing happened just the other day - I was driving down the road and on the sidewalk, linked arm in arm, were at least a dozen DAD'ers and they were all skipping and singing......

"DING - DONG - THE THREAD IS DEAD....WHICH OLD THREAD, THE WICKED THREAD. - DING DONG THE WICKED THREAD IS DEAD!"

ROFL! :lol:

Sorry, but I just had to lend a bit of humor and put the "dot" at the end of the loooooong sentence :yes:

Hang in there and happy riding y'all.



LMAO!!
Great. Now my imagination takes me off to who would play the characters??

centsohuma
Oct. 25, 2006, 10:53 PM
Now SS, you got me thinking too. But, sadly I must admit that this hot air balloon would be too easy to shoot down, thusly, where's the challenge?

I mean REALLY - the scarecrow?? "if I only had a BRAIN....." LMAO

The "cowardly lion" - pa-leeeeeeeeeese! "ca,ca,ca,caour-rage...."

And let us not forget sweet, innocent, Dorothy; all those mean monkeys after her and all because she had shiny red shoes. Poor put-upon child.....tsk, tsk.... now I ask you, where was the Good Witch Glinda when she was needed the most?

As you can tell from my quote below, I do love the Wizard. We'll leave it at that.

retreadeventer
Nov. 16, 2006, 09:37 PM
Continuing the theme...."I'll get you, my pretty!....I want those ruby slippers!" Well, having been a DVCTA member in the past, and joining again this year -- I've read this thread with deep interest. I've had the wonderful opportunity to show in Lorik's shows, and appreciate her work and helpers. I know she's on the board because she cares.
But I've also appreciated all the facts that Rosinante has presented, and the details of the split -- and the sad arrangement that has provided very little income it appears for DVCTA from DAD, despite the many years of happy horse show in the past. Depressingly, I see no Good Witch From the North in sight, and DVCTA Dorothy has only Toto with her now -- she is going to have to make the best of it in Oz, looks like DAD has Kansas pretty well locked up.
DVCTA needs to be introspective, survey its members, find out what they are doing and what they would like to have their cta do for them -- and develop a conservative plan to go about rebuilding trust and faith in the membership once again. The Fair Hill dressage show needs to not gorilla out like DAD but stay connected to the membership and allow the lower levels ALWAYS to ride and show. The new horse trials developed at Carousel Park in Wilmington need to continue to be held next summer and need volunteers to assist in the running. The Adult Dressage Team needs to be inclusive and not exclusive and not require training from a specific coach and share all sponsorship acquisition with the cta at large, as should all committees. Dressage needs to support eventing and eventing, dressage. Communications are absolutely critical and an immediate revamp of the website, posting of minutes online, regular mailing of newsletters and complete reports of all meetings must be available freely to all members. The schooling shows are wonderful but must be run by DVCTA members and should offer facilities payment for use of the arenas. In short, operate like any other CTA without funds and with honest hardworking horse lovers, as ignorant and hillbilly as that seems.
Well, that's my 2 cents.

bwills2
Nov. 19, 2006, 02:04 PM
Retread, you are right on. The DAD/DVCTA issue isn't even a concern for me. I volunteered at both of those in 2005 and learned a lot. I joined in 2006 and went to their schooling shows. I will not join in 2007. The big events were great, but I am not a "serious" competitor and the basics of this club are really not suited for what I like to do. All of your suggestions should be taken seriously. I guess it goes back to having enough volunteers. I'll try another club for the next year and see what happens. I don't think I'll be missing out!

angeloflite
Dec. 12, 2006, 09:26 AM
Continuing the theme...."I'll get you, my pretty!....I want those ruby slippers!" Well, having been a DVCTA member in the past, and joining again this year -- I've read this thread with deep interest. I've had the wonderful opportunity to show in Lorik's shows, and appreciate her work and helpers. I know she's on the board because she cares.
But I've also appreciated all the facts that Rosinante has presented, and the details of the split -- and the sad arrangement that has provided very little income it appears for DVCTA from DAD, despite the many years of happy horse show in the past. Depressingly, I see no Good Witch From the North in sight, and DVCTA Dorothy has only Toto with her now -- she is going to have to make the best of it in Oz, looks like DAD has Kansas pretty well locked up.
DVCTA needs to be introspective, survey its members, find out what they are doing and what they would like to have their cta do for them -- and develop a conservative plan to go about rebuilding trust and faith in the membership once again. The Fair Hill dressage show needs to not gorilla out like DAD but stay connected to the membership and allow the lower levels ALWAYS to ride and show. The new horse trials developed at Carousel Park in Wilmington need to continue to be held next summer and need volunteers to assist in the running. The Adult Dressage Team needs to be inclusive and not exclusive and not require training from a specific coach and share all sponsorship acquisition with the cta at large, as should all committees. Dressage needs to support eventing and eventing, dressage. Communications are absolutely critical and an immediate revamp of the website, posting of minutes online, regular mailing of newsletters and complete reports of all meetings must be available freely to all members. The schooling shows are wonderful but must be run by DVCTA members and should offer facilities payment for use of the arenas. In short, operate like any other CTA without funds and with honest hardworking horse lovers, as ignorant and hillbilly as that seems.
Well, that's my 2 cents.

The Oz theme is well suited - kudos to you who applied it to the DAD/DVCTA situation. It's almost '07 and this is fast becoming old news but I had to give my two cents also. :)

The DVCTA's website now posts minutes - at least the September ones; perhaps Rosinante's admonishment of disclose, disclose, disclose hit a nerve? Well, the minutes are sad; :no: they are operating at almost a 5k loss according to their minutes with what appears to be no real way to close the gap. The treasurer mentions transferring funds to their cap. acct. to get some interest income; with a 5k loss maybe a high risk mutual fund would be more in order! LOL - real estate??? Quick, Call "the Donald" for advice. NOOOO, not the duck, the rich guy with the bad hair.

Begs the question - why would you give away a prime source of income when club expenses are exceeding income? I say give away because if the terms of the split are at all accurate, as stated by one of its own, then its right up there with the bean stalk beans being thought of as a good deal. Sad. :(

I haven't seen or heard anything on this thread from many who appear to be concerned that DVCTA, now operating with under 400 members (actually they're closer to under 300 members for '06 according to their minutes) appears to be sinking in the sunset of glorious gmo's past their prime and relevence. That would be a sad ending for all those hard working people of ages past. :no:

Listen up before it's too late - that flushing sound just may be a once grand gmo going down the pipes.

Also have noted that the DVCTA's grand plumber in charge of all things flushable has been overseer almost continuously for nine years. It doesn't take a genius to follow the pvc folks, follow the pvc. :yes:

I'll be off in my balloon now - things are prettier from up here. :D

ASB Stars
Dec. 12, 2006, 10:10 AM
Does anyone else see anything untoward in the "head plumber" and his crew taking places on the DVCTA BOD, and then, in no small part, finalizing the split between the two? Doesn't it seem, oh, just a bit self-serving to be the cause of the problem, and then to take off with the prize?

Maybe it is just me ;)

saddlesurfer
Dec. 12, 2006, 04:33 PM
Does anyone else see anything untoward in the "head plumber" and his crew taking places on the DVCTA BOD, and then, in no small part, finalizing the split between the two? Doesn't it seem, oh, just a bit self-serving to be the cause of the problem, and then to take off with the prize?

Maybe it is just me ;)

Nope. You have plenty of company. As for the drop in membership. Years ago during the Cold War, the adminsitration that was structuring the big take-over, decided it would be a great idea to boost the membership by adding "new" members to the base thus giving them greater voting power at the elections. The phone lines & emails were smoking! Anyone & everyone was dragged into this mess & told to get new members. So, folks sent in memberships (& checks) in their kids name who were in college in another time zone ( & who didn't know what end of a horse did what), their dog's name & anyone else they could drum up that had a pulse. So at the next year's renewal period, there was a big drop in the membership base. Smart eh? Only problem was, it don't looka so good on paper, they had to kiss off that membership money for next year as those fake memberships weren't renewed & their # of representatives to USDF were reduced.
I feel for the matriarchal members who, I know, are greatly disappointed in the direction of the club & it's actions against others. The actions of 2 years ago set the beginnings of the downward spiral & the overall tone of the club, whether it's admitted or not. Members know they can be chewed up & spit out. So who needs it when the goal is supposed to be educational & fun! Years of positive work was simply tossed away. And why? Their purpose is/was not to better the club but to simply feed their lives (and lack of) with thinly veiled importance. There were some folks on both DAD & DVCTA with good intentions but as the saying goes, if you lay down with the dogs, you're bound to get fleas.

ASB Stars
Dec. 12, 2006, 04:43 PM
You obviously know of what you speak! During that period of time, some friends who were members- and were horrified abou what was going on, forwarded me emails that originated with the plumber's crew. It was unbelieveable, except that it was actually happening.

You hear about this kind of thing- but you seldom get to SEE it, happening right in your own back yard.

And, you are dead on point about this being a huge event in oh-so-small lives. They were bound and determined to control the thing, and therefore, keep the spotlight they wanted so desperately, right on them.

I tend to believe that the sycophants that surrounded them, who actually get the work done, probably didn't even realize exactly what was going on- after all, it was so the thing coud be done the RIGHT way- OUR way!!

saddlesurfer
Dec. 13, 2006, 09:44 AM
I tend to believe that the sycophants that surrounded them, who actually get the work done, probably didn't even realize exactly what was going on- after all, it was so the thing coud be done the RIGHT way- OUR way!!

Naaa. They knew what was going on. They also knew by keeping quiet & agreeing with the all head plumbers, this would mean their butts would be saved & their little spotlight would continue to shine & people in the horse community (I single out horse community because no one else in the real world would really give a damn) would still ohhh & ahhh over their outstanding contribution to the horse world! Picture the 3 monkeys, "see no evil. hear no evil, speak no evil" & you get the idea.

Keep in mind, many of these people have some semblance of status only due to the job(s) they perform within each organization thus why the venomous actions against others. They had to protect their positions. They see themselves as part of something big...prestigious, world known. Legends in their own mind, if you will.

When it comes down to it, it's horse show & basically, a pony club for adults. Sorry, but that's the bottom line. Outside the horse world, they are ordinary people with ordinary lives. The turf war that raged wasn't to find a cure for AIDS, diseases of the heart, kid cancers, etc., but an effort to preserve their behinds for next years show & their ranking.

Obviously, that's all that matters.

centsohuma
Dec. 13, 2006, 03:37 PM
The THREAD THAT WON'T DIE - I'm sure much to the dismay of a few local horsey types that prefer their dasterdly deeds go largely unnoticed.

No such luck - this thread has taken on a life of its own. I've watched the posts come over the MONTHS and find it's better than any soap for whiling away a few spare minutes. Actually, could any writer make up this stuff? LMAO!!

Yes, SS, you repeatedly hit the nail squarely on the head. People leading lives of quiet desperation, perspiration, aggrevation, yada, yada, yada.

What gets me through the day is the sure certainty that while I am lunching with friends, driving my new BMW (an early christmas gift from my significant other), going to the spa for my monthly pedicure/manicure/massage, the "important" LITOM's (legends in their own mind) at the top of the horse manure pile are busy shoveling it, literally as well as figuratively.

So as the holiday season approaches I'll try not to envy their double-wides, pickup trucks, weathered skin, cheap chardonney and arthritis meds.

Ho-Ho-Ho

saddlesurfer
Dec. 13, 2006, 10:49 PM
The THREAD THAT WON'T DIE - I'm sure much to the dismay of a few local horsey types that prefer their dasterdly deeds go largely unnoticed.

No such luck - this thread has taken on a life of its own. I've watched the posts come over the MONTHS and find it's better than any soap for whiling away a few spare minutes. Actually, could any writer make up this stuff? LMAO!!

Yes, SS, you repeatedly hit the nail squarely on the head. People leading lives of quiet desperation, perspiration, aggrevation, yada, yada, yada.

What gets me through the day is the sure certainty that while I am lunching with friends, driving my new BMW (an early christmas gift from my significant other), going to the spa for my monthly pedicure/manicure/massage, the "important" LITOM's (legends in their own mind) at the top of the horse manure pile are busy shoveling it, literally as well as figuratively.

So as the holiday season approaches I'll try not to envy their double-wides, pickup trucks, weathered skin, cheap chardonney and arthritis meds.

Ho-Ho-Ho

Now Cents, don't get cheeky on us now that you're a Beemer owner...;)

Seriously though, I could give a crap what a person drives, where they live or what they drink (funny, most of them did drink cheap chardonnay!). Trash comes in all colors, shapes & sizes. The behavior of those who orchestrated the past debauchery will see the karma returned. What goes around, comes around. It was seen this year. The rats, after eating others alive in the past, turned on each other. I'd be running around the countryside with a "list" like Earl, trying to make things right. After all, who would want to give up their valuable time volunteering for such an organization run by those with the standards they have displayed in the past? Not I!

I live with a clear conscience, my bills are paid, the house is mine, the spouse hasn't left me for the ugly secretary (yet), kids are drug-free (they're too goofy naturally. Actually, drugs would help) & the cats haven't hair-balled on my white comforter in a few weeks. Life, without the drama is good!

centsohuma
Dec. 28, 2006, 09:27 AM
Well, this back and forth banter is certainly intriuging. So much so that the "detective" in me did a little sleuthing LOL. Turns out the horse community is a small one. My trails led me to seek out a few prior DVCTA board members to ask a few pertinent Q's. Wow - what you find out if you ask the right peeps.

First let's discuss the "gift" to USDF by DAD; I was told that the DVCTA Board learned about the money to be gifted after the fact - it had already been pledged when the then president learned about it. Understanding the liability posed to DVCTA (after all, if DAD would default, however unlikely) DVCTA would be on the hook to honor the gift. Wow - my thought was how would I like my relative to go out, secure a loan/liability in my name, and not tell me??? Whew! So the board voted that Dec. to "table" the pledge pending further information and financial info. until the new year. I was told that no one questioned the purpose of the gift, just the amount. Funnily enough, that was when all of the election fiasco (their words not mine) took place; the then president and vp were challenged in the election and resignations took place all around. If you look on the DVCTA's website you'll notice that there are several board members from the DAD comm. that gained seats on the board that year. USDF got their pledge. Hmmmm.....coincidence or just helpful volunteers caring about their association???? You decide.

Also couldn't resist asking about lawsuits real or imagined. Yes, Lori is correct there was only one that was long standing - I believe they said five years or so w/DAD being unable to settle it. The then president (the "ousted" one, poor girl) settled it in a week with what I was told were careful negotiations and guidance from a very qualified law firm. So happy news for the gmo you'd think. Well, the DVCTA board was happy about it of course. But I was told that there were several DAD comm. members that attended a meeting to question the legality of the DVCTA president to settle the lawsuit without THEIR permission!!!! At this point the conversation got very funny because it was described to me that they came in with everything but "flaming torches". Heavens, don't you just love clubs??? Well, again I was told that the DVCTA leadership was certainly well within their rights to settle this to the benefit of the club - actually, I'd think it was their responsibility! So, I guess there was some disgruntled folks.

I guess what all of this says to me, providing it is true, is that a "divorce", separation, or whatever you wanna call it, between the gmo and the show was a necessary thing or finding anyone to take the DVCTA leadership would become, I would think, increasingly difficult. I mean who wants to be responsible and put up with that kind of stuff? Yikes! Very sad indeed.

Last but not least I have to address the notification to the gmo's membership about a decision of this magnitude. Lori, notifying the membership in the newsletter after the fact is like shutting the barn door after the horse is galloping down the driveway. I also take issue with your assertion that the meetings are open to all members. Well, if no agenda is published to notify the membership at large that something BIG is being discussed that seems to be a bit back door does it not? Minutes do not appear in any of the newsletters I've ever seen so how is the membership to be kept informed of any of this? Is it not unreasonable to expect the membership to attend all meetings on the off chance that something of import is being discussed? Maybe even a mass mailing outlining what's in the works would have been a prudent and respectful way to proceed? Maybe the membership will be delighted with the separation and decisions made on their behalf. After all, that is why they elect their board. I do think though, that the DVCTA membership was done a disservice to be left out of this club-altering decision regardless of the ultimate outcome.

Finally, best wishes to DVCTA and DAD as separate entities - long may they wave.

I guess what all of this says to me, providing it is true, is that a "divorce", separation, or whatever you wanna call it, between the gmo and the show was a necessary thing or finding anyone to take the DVCTA leadership would become, I would think, increasingly difficult. I mean who wants to be responsible and put up with that kind of stuff? Yikes! Very sad indeed.

Just had to add a P.S. to my above comment of long ago - the current rumor mill is generating an interesting tale. Also I just love it when my remarks begin to look "prophetic" - well gals, here's the rumor - perhaps there is talk of DVCTA'ers looking into changing, amending, and or bending (??) the by-laws to allow the current president to serve past the current three year (sequential) minimum. Several thoughts come to mind if that is the case. As this president currently is closing in on her 8th year of service to this org. and beginning her ninth in '07, is it necessary or wise to keep the status quo? Regular change at the top keeps things fresh does it not? After all, even the president of the good 'ol USA limits terms to 8 years! LOL! Is there NO ONE else willing to serve or has the past history of the club made it so unattractive to take the helm of this gmo? C'mon all you volunteers out there - step up and serve. It can't be that hard now that DAD is a memory. Should be a day at the beach compared to past years. I also recall being in receipt of an email from a few elections ago warning recipients not to allow any bylaws changes, tho what the fear was escaped me - hmmm, the times they are a-changin' so the song says. What was taboo then is kosher now? What was taboo then is convenient now? Makes for smiles and raised eyebrows does it not?

I will give up some kudos to whoever was instrumental in FINALLY getting the minutes and newsletters published to their website. Although now that the "split" is a distant memory and cash negotiations are finished it may fall into the "nickel short day late" category but at least someone got the message that disclosure is a good thing. LOL - now all can read the monthly going's on and see just how mundane things can be - or not, depending on your point of view. Oh, umm, wait - do I recall seeing any mention of changing by-laws and extended presidential terms in the newsletter?....er....nope, not yet, I didn't. Oh yeah, I remember now - IT'S JUST A RUMOR! LMAO

buh-bye :)

saddlesurfer
Dec. 28, 2006, 10:54 PM
Well Cents, categorized as rumor or not, I've heard the same rumor.
Who would want to toss their name in that political ring? We all witnessed the beating of the last person who tried! Let the current president have it.....& when it sinks, only that person will be held responsible. Wouldn't want to carry that burden!

angeloflite
Dec. 30, 2006, 07:03 PM
:lol: let's not get too quick to praise their website for publishing the minutes;

the calendar I use makes it the end of December with the "ball" due to drop tomorrow night. The current minutes published on the website are September. According to their calendar of events they don't have an October meeting but what happened to November and December minutes? :confused:
If anything happened noteworthy in either of those months and ANY MEMBER IS INVITED TO ATTEND THEIR MEETINGS, it could be long past the point if members discover it in Mar. '07 (no meeting in Jan. '07 according to their website and annual mtg. in Feb.). Don't they have new officers and bod's nominated by now? Might not the membership want to know who is nominated to run the show? Maybe member's want to nominate other people in addition to the slate put up by the bod?? Late minutes may mean they've missed the opportunity to do so??

does this org. ever learn anything? :confused:

slippery slope to biz as usual. Keep 'em guessin'.....My guess is they like it that way. :( Very, very sad :no:

saddlesurfer
Dec. 30, 2006, 08:53 PM
:lol: let's not get too quick to praise their website for publishing the minutes;

the calendar I use makes it the end of December with the "ball" due to drop tomorrow night. The current minutes published on the website are September. According to their calendar of events they don't have an October meeting but what happened to November and December minutes? :confused:
If anything happened noteworthy in either of those months and ANY MEMBER IS INVITED TO ATTEND THEIR MEETINGS, it could be long past the point if members discover it in Mar. '07 (no meeting in Jan. '07 according to their website and annual mtg. in Feb.). Don't they have new officers and bod's nominated by now? Might not the membership want to know who is nominated to run the show? Maybe member's want to nominate other people in addition to the slate put up by the bod?? Late minutes may mean they've missed the opportunity to do so??

does this org. ever learn anything? :confused:

slippery slope to biz as usual. Keep 'em guessin'.....My guess is they like it that way. :( Very, very sad :no:

Brings life to the old saying, "there's a method to the madness.."
They look good now that they are printing the minutes! They're banking on the fact that the average member is to stupid to realize the minutes are months old. Try showing up at a March meeting with hopes of discussing an item found in the Nov. issue. Duhhhh.

Maryde
Jan. 1, 2007, 01:52 PM
I recently learned of this thread and after reading the comments, I feel I must be on another totally different board or I am just so totally naive or I am in a different time dimension. I am the treasurer, the webmaster, and I prepare and email out the newsletters. I am a volunteer. I spend a lot of hours on this stuff. I also volunteer for a non-profit animal adoption group in San Diego, doing software programming. (computer science degree) I work and am renovating my house and I have a horse and there's only 24 hours in a day. I'm working as fast as I can. I did put up the minutes for September and I will put the minutes up for Oct and Nov as soon as I can, probably next week. (Sorry, there's nothing exciting in the minutes this time.) I just run out of time, nothing sinister or evil or malice aforethought. I just haven't done it. Actually, it didn't even occur to me to do it. I will try to be better next year. I'm also the treasurer. I have an Accounting degree. A Profit & Loss statement is done for a period of time so depending on when cash comes in, and expenses are paid, the "profit" or "loss" is just a snapshot for a period ending, say 10.8.2006, based on the beginning date of the fiscal year, in DVCTA's case 5.1.2006. So for 10.8.2006, it could be a loss, then you get a bunch of money from memberships or whatever, in the next week, and a week later, you have a profit, a surplus. So it depends on the cutoff. Overall, the club is doing pretty good financially. Last year there was a surplus. I moved the money over because we were accumulating extra cash and I thought it would be better to earn a higher interest rate than in the checking account, that's all. I wasn't really planning on spending my "extra" time being a financial planner. If you guys want to come and volunteer and help us, please please do. There's always room for more volunteers. You have a bunch of good suggestions so put them to good use, tell the board directly to our faces what you want us to do, and how evil/good you think we are. Or run for office. Or help run the schooling shows. Any kind of help would be appreciated. Emails are on the web site. You can email any suggestions or ideas if you would like!! Thanks!!

centsohuma
Jan. 1, 2007, 10:25 PM
No disrespect Maryde. It is obvious from your resume that you are working quite hard for DVCTA. You are to be admired. That being said, I have a few comments to your reply.

Below is your treasurer report from the minutes listed on the club's website for Sept. 06.

"Officers’ Reports:
Treasurer: Mary deLesdernier reported that there is $12,703.77 in the checking account and $19,088.78 in the Capital Account for a total of $31,792.55.
Mary is thinking of moving some funds to the Capital Account, as the club is currently operating at a loss of $4702.99 and this would help to generate some interest income.
The Schooling Shows have not made much money this year, and may end up being a loss for 2006. A big check was written for the Dressage Teams but the club will eventually be reimbursed for those funds.
Membership: Elsie Kellerman reported 335 members to the USDF for 2006.
Nine have renewed or rejoined. The official date for current members to re-join for 2007 is November 1st."....

The club currently is either operating at a loss or it isn't. 5k is a lot of money to recoup from "memberships or whatever" to help balance a budget. At $45 a head for membership you'll need roughly 104 members to renew or join. Also let's not forget that a hefty portion of that money goes to USDF for the per capita fee on membership from gmo's. One can only hope that the agreed upon contribution from the DAD/DVCTA split, whatever that may be, can help cover the gap.
Which reminds me, membership outside of the bod's is still largely in the dark concerning the specifics of the final financial arrangement between the two entities since to my knowledge there has never been published anything concerning it either in the minutes or newsletter. Perhaps you could shed some light and publish the minutes when the split and its details were being discussed, voted upon, and finalized with information on whether the vote for the split was unanimous or not and if not, who were the dissenters. That would help dispell questions still circulating in the community.
Please understand, no one is trying to imply anything "sinister", to use your term, regarding this when questions arise. It is just that the decision-making process on something this important that will certainly impact the organization dramatically has never seen the light of day in print other than in minutes not published. As this was being finalized by September '06 there had to be considerable substantive discussion in meetings prior to then.
Would it not be helpful to the current membership at large or others considering membership in the future to know precisely how the split came about and the specifics of the agreed upon financials? Also of concern to members is how the club plans on balancing future budgets with one of its chief income-producing events gone? With the schooling shows perhaps operating at a loss, at least for the moment, what other sources of revenue can the club look to for solvency and growth? While I admire your rosy outlook and everything is fine viewpoint, a person considering joining is interested in what the club can offer them for their membership fee - other than imploring them to volunteer that is.
Lastly, I am well aware of how "volunteer" hours can quickly become an avocation. You have my sympathy. It is my understanding that the last webmaster was also the club's president, while simultaneously running one of its horse shows with a committee of six - yes, six, not sixty. Additionally, I understand she acted as the show's secretary, committee chair, hospitality chair, and produced and published the show's program. All while holding down a job, running a household, and one year, having a new house built during the show. Another on the bod during the same time frame ran the schooling shows, admirably and in the black, while working a fulltime job from dawn til dusk. The treasurer, at that time, estimated she spent roughly 300 hours a month on club business while working a 40 hour week, running a family with three children, and riding, training, and competing her horse.
I'll let that penetrate and maybe you'll get around to wondering where all of these capable volunteers disappeared to. The answer to that is why you and others like you are so overwhelmed with the wearing of many hats.

God speed.

saddlesurfer
Jan. 1, 2007, 10:36 PM
. If you guys want to come and volunteer and help us, please please do. There's always room for more volunteers. You have a bunch of good suggestions so put them to good use, tell the board directly to our faces what you want us to do, and how evil/good you think we are. Or run for office. Or help run the schooling shows. Any kind of help would be appreciated. Emails are on the web site. You can email any suggestions or ideas if you would like!! Thanks!!

It's the different time dimension problem. Most of the posters here, from what I suspect, are a part of the old guard. Those of us juggled 10, 20 & 30 years of volunteer service with families, jobs, aging parents, ill spouses, other volunteer commitments etc. Their compensation was to be maligned for having an opinion. I for one, with 15 years of continuous board & committee head time, was not one who took a direct shot however, people around me fell like shot pigeons. No one, then, was out to dismantle the ideals that were set forth over 35 years ago by the founding members but to improve upon their foundation. So the idea of showing up at a board meeting & expressing ideas, sharing opinions, speaking in confidence to a board member is somewhere up there with having root canal. Been there, done that...no thank you.

Maryde
Jan. 2, 2007, 12:15 AM
no matter what I say on this board, there is no winning. But anyway, as I mentioned previously regarding the accounting, if I look at the profit and loss statement right now, we have a surplus. It is all timing. At the time of the meeting you were referring to the minutes, I had just paid some expenses. Please read it again, it says "currently" operating at a loss which at the date of the meeting , it was. I run the P&L and the Balance Sheet at the date of the meeting, so if I get show receipts in the next day or week, they wouldn't appear on the statements until I received them. And as I mentioned I moved some money from a low interest checking account to a higher interest capital account. A simple common step to get a little more money. This is a non-profit so money coming in is not as even (as a profit company)on a monthly basis due to memberships, show schedules, clinics, etc. DAD and DVCTA have kept separate audited books since I started volunteering, so DVCTA really hasn't relied that much on money from DAD to keep operating. It is NOT a chief income producing item for DVCTA. I don't know about the "old days". I am from California, and still belong to California Dressage Society so I don't know anything about the old DVCTA/DAD group and founding people, etc. So when I first joined, I didn't get why DAD and DVCTA were together, it seemed to me to make more sense that they should be separate. So I never thought it was a big deal to separate, just logical. But I'm not from around here, so what do I know. Also, as it turned out with the last schooling show, there was actually a little surplus. Our clinics are operating at a surplus. The Dressage Team reimbursed DVCTA. I don't have a rosy outlook, it is just the way it is. I can't predict exactly the number of people that will sign up for a clinic or show or the membership. The membership fee for California Dressage Society (they only do dressage, dang) is $65. $45 is not too bad. There's a lot of fun things to do in this club. You don't need to give me sympathy. I am not overwhelmed at all. I enjoy doing all this stuff, otherwise I wouldn't do it. I have been in the horse world for over 25 years and I love hanging around with the people and horses. The board meetings I have attended have been fine, everyone throws out their opinion, no one gets shot down???? If you think you're getting shot down, "shoot back!!" If people get bitter and burned out about volunteering for organizations, then the fortunate thing is they don't have to, they can move on to other areas in their lives that they are interested in. I personally am just not going to spend my life looking for the negative in everything. That type of person is not going to enjoy belonging to volunteer organizations so they should probably pursue areas that will make them happy. Ok, throw your next zinger.

saddlesurfer
Jan. 2, 2007, 09:54 AM
QUOTE=Maryde;2107716]no matter what I say on this board, there is no winning.
No zingers here Mary....not my style unless I'm pushed into a corner. Actually, I appreciate your earnest replies.

I don't know about the "old days". I am from California, and still belong to California Dressage Society so I don't know anything about the old DVCTA/DAD group and founding people, etc. So when I first joined, I didn't get why DAD and DVCTA were together, it seemed to me to make more sense that they should be separate. So I never thought it was a big deal to separate, just logical.

This is a concern as you have voting rights. You apparently voted on an issue in which you had no history? Yikes!

The membership fee for California Dressage Society (they only do dressage, dang) is $65. $45 is not too bad.

You can't compare a CA club with PA club. For one, their club heartily operates 365 days a year. No winter-shut-down in CA!


You don't need to give me sympathy.

I for one am not offering sympathy. We all did it & for many, many years while raising young families, working full time jobs, etc. For 6 months out of the year, I ate dinner with my family with a fork in one hand & a phone in the other.

The board meetings I have attended have been fine, everyone throws out their opinion, no one gets shot down???? If you think you're getting shot down, "shoot back!!"

Wonderful! I'm glad to hear the opinions of others are appreciated & not cause to show them the door! Maybe with seeing the masses of old seasoned volunteers flee, the current administration adopted an open arms policy.



If people get bitter and burned out about volunteering for organizations, then the fortunate thing is they don't have to, they can move on to other areas...

Talk to me in 10-15-20 years & see if that statement still holds water & you are b/f's with your board mates. Don't mean to sound snarky but its truth.



I personally am just not going to spend my life looking for the negative in everything. That type of person is not going to enjoy belonging to volunteer organizations so they should probably pursue areas that will make them happy. QUOTE]

You are most correct but it's an easy statement to make when you are relatively new & was not a part of the long history of boths orgs.

Canterznomore
Jan. 2, 2007, 09:56 AM
Hello :)

Having stumbled on this thread I've enjoyed the read - War and Peace is shorter with less drama:yes:

I'm a long time resident of Chester County and familiar with the horse world around here. Maybe Maryde will count this as the next "zinger" but I can never resist lobbing a few at unsuspecting ducks in galleries; feel free to lob one back :D

ummm.....where does one begin when faced with this much naivete? No disrespect to a newcomer but there are a few flaws in your argument, if indeed it is an argument at all.

I find it unsettling that an issue as large as the one laid out over 8 pages of this bb could be voted on by someone who says "so what do I know?". Good Grief! Isn't it the responsibility of the organization to bring new bod's and members new to the area up to speed? Presumably, you voted on an extremely serious decision and your attitude, at least on this bb, seems cavalier. My apologies in advance if I am incorrect.

It seems as though you cleverly evade Centsohuma's suggestion to post relevant minutes regarding that which you didn't know much about. Maybe that's ok by you but some of the world enjoys disclosure. Will you or won't you comply with a polite request to do so? Shouldn't take too long while you're posting Nov/Dec. minutes to add a few from the summer relevant to the DAD/DVCTA split issue.

Years ago the DAD chair (prior to the current one) stated at a DVCTA meeting that DAD represented roughly 80 percent of DVCTA's budget which is why he was opposed to any discussion of splitting. (yes, the notion of separation goes back THAT long) so I take exception to your assessment that DAD is not a chief income producing event for the club. 80 percent of anything is a majority.

While we're at it, comparing California Dressage to DVCTA isn't quite a fair comparison due to size differential.

Nice to know you guys have fun in your club. BOD's just wanna have fun, after all. :cool:

Shooting back as you so colorfully phrased it isn't always productive when the shooters have slingshots and the shootees have M16's. :eek:

My advice is hang in there, keep your feathers dry and your head down. Volunteering is great sport.

Maryde
Jan. 2, 2007, 10:36 AM
Good luck and enjoy living in Oz.

saddlesurfer
Jan. 2, 2007, 11:35 AM
I do not live in Oz. Actually I wish I did because I'd like to talk to the Wizard. Maybe he could do something about those damn winged monkeys that keep circling overhead. Sigh.

You speak from 3 yrs to present. Many here speak from the present to many years past. Must we correct the burned bridges of the past in order to have a better future? Who knows. Only time will tell. I can add, some of the issues that the past admin was trying to resolve & was maligned for doing so, have been carried through since, by the present admin. For one, the fly in the ointment, the one who stirred the pot 3 years ago, now has clipped wings. So I guess the past pres wasn't so crazy after all.
The right people were ousted. By saying the "right people" I mean everyone involved on the whole. Those of many years service, those with no agendas, those who really cared about both orgs & not because they needed the organizations to further their riding career, their personal status, etc. left on their own in disgust or were forced to leave. This thread allows everyone to air, share & vent all in anonymity, with hopes of finding common ground.

centsohuma
Jan. 2, 2007, 12:37 PM
Thank you to Canterz for zeroing in on omissions -

When might we expect to see present and past minutes posted? I respect everyone's time but replying to these boards can be time consuming.

Prioratize! First we work then we play - at least that's how it's done in Oz...hahahaha!!!!

Restrain yourself from a reply to me or another on these bb's (I'm a very patient person - I'll wait) and get to the job at hand - pleeeese update the web...

"I enjoy doing all this stuff..." quote the webmaster.

Enjoy your lil' self all to heck.

Happy New Year Hun

ASB Stars
Jan. 2, 2007, 04:10 PM
OZ?

Yessir! Pay NO attention to the man behind the curtain.

I think that it is wonderful that someone who is not tainted by the past has the optimism to step up and do all of the work for the organization that she is doing. Really.

However, please do not let those who are now telling you that this was just a little bump in the road to confuse you. They'd like to remember it that way, but those who had put their heart and souls into the organization for many years, and were either run off, or chose to get out of Dodge are owed a great debt of gratitude for getting the thing going, and keeping it going, so that you have something to be a member of.

The French have a lovely expression that I cannot remember how to spell, that essentially means you are changing history to reflect what you'd like it to have been. I bet there is alot of that going on.

Old War Horse
Jan. 2, 2007, 05:42 PM
As a former member for more than 25 years, I quit in disgust over the actions of the DAD committee, who chose to "nominate" themselves onto the Board of DVCTA in order to control what the club did. Obviously, they controlled it well enough to make the separation take place, and to engineer it to their advantage. It will be interesting to see if any of the Board members who are also on the DAD committe continue to serve on the Board. Job done; we're outta here!
If those on the current Board cannot find ANYONE to become President, rather than just changing the by-laws to allow the current leader to be President For Life (is this like some banana republic some where?), then they are welcome to what ever happens to the club.
IF and it's a BIG IF, I were ever to rejoin, it would not be until the prior administration is GONE. It cannot be healthy for one person to be in charge for so long. The club is stagnating. And of course, since the "shining star" of the club, DAD, is gone, the doesn't seem to be much else to attract people. Witness the decline of the schooling shows; once the biggest draw.
I'm just sitting back watching for a while...

saddlesurfer
Jan. 2, 2007, 08:21 PM
If those on the current Board cannot find ANYONE to become President, rather than just changing the by-laws to allow the current leader to be President For Life (is this like some banana republic some where?), then they are welcome to what ever happens to the club....


There's Idi Amin's everywhere. Just like the arcade whack-a-gopher game.

Knothead
Jan. 2, 2007, 08:36 PM
IF and it's a BIG IF, I were ever to rejoin, it would not be until the prior administration is GONE. It cannot be healthy for one person to be in charge for so long. The club is stagnating. And of course, since the "shining star" of the club, DAD, is gone, the doesn't seem to be much else to attract people. Witness the decline of the schooling shows; once the biggest draw.
I'm just sitting back watching for a while...

You are right. Otherwise, why would our own US Presidents be kept to a two term limit? It becomes like a communist country otherwise. I am no longer a member myself. For many of the reasons (although the schooling shows, which some forget is an important part of GMOs, is the main reason). Also, is it too much to ask a "big" GMO to have an updated website (as far as the schooling shows go)??? I know there were issues with the person running the schooling shows, but that doesn't fly in my real world. ("Oh boss, I'm sorry I can't do my job, I have such-and-such a problem..." and then nothing happens? Nah. Volunteers or not, this is a club that does have a minimal responsibility to its members...and I'm sure if a "plea" for help would have bene put out, someone, including myself, could have and would have stepped up, even if on a temporary basis).

centsohuma
Jan. 2, 2007, 10:32 PM
This split was just finallized in early September. I'm sure the members will read about this in the next newsletter.

The DVCTA Board of Directors voted on the split. It was a hot topic in the monthly meetings for several months with the 'separation agreement' changing several times. These meetings are open to the entire membership. If any member wants to keep abreast about anything that DVCTA is doing, I suggest that you go to the meetings. There is not now, and never has been an intent to do anything 'behind the members backs'.

DAD had been the tail wagging the dog for many years.

BTW, I was not trying to 'sanitize' anything. I tend to be succinct when I post. Anyone who wants the long version, should stop listening to rumors and get to a meeting to hear first hand what's going on.


One of my more recent posts requested the minutes be posted for Nov/Dec. '06 as well as past minutes relevant to discussion of the "split".

The website says "Minutes are approved in the next meeting
then subsequently posted here"

Effectively what you have is old news, old business, yada, yada, by the time the minutes are bestowed on the public. I understand the reason for their prior approval before posting. But that does render them relatively useless for membership input on anything current. So we're back to the alternative of random visitation of meetings in the hopes we'll stumble upon some "hot topic"?? And AGAIN I shall reiterate - if we are to accept the statement:

"The DVCTA Board of Directors voted on the split. It was a hot topic in the monthly meetings for several months with the 'separation agreement' changing several times. These meetings are open to the entire membership. If any member wants to keep abreast about anything that DVCTA is doing," ...

Would someone, ANYONE, suggest to me how one does that? And by the way - WHO KNEW the "split" was being discussed, much less voted on? The longer this thread lingers the more light it sheds and we travel from ridiculous to sublime and back again. The policy for the minutes etc. were in place when the above statement was made. How absurd!

For a topic of much import AND surely the folks in charge understood that, a mass mailing to ALL MEMBERS advising them of the upcoming agenda should have been done - as an obligation and minimal service to its membership. Further, this is something that should have been voted on at an annual meeting. Perhaps all of this would have brought about controversy that would have been helpful, rather than controversey via a bb when the horse is long on its way to the glue factory. "gee, old Dobbin didn't have to die....if only we'd known".....

Knothead has it right when she/he says this is a club that has a minimal responsibility to its members - well, it seems that way to me, MINIMAL.

It would be laughable were it not so incredibly pathetic.

Canterznomore
Jan. 2, 2007, 10:40 PM
This split was just finallized in early September. I'm sure the members will read about this in the next newsletter.

The DVCTA Board of Directors voted on the split. It was a hot topic in the monthly meetings for several months with the 'separation agreement' changing several times. These meetings are open to the entire membership. If any member wants to keep abreast about anything that DVCTA is doing, I suggest that you go to the meetings. There is not now, and never has been an intent to do anything 'behind the members backs'.

BTW, I was not trying to 'sanitize' anything. I tend to be succinct when I post. Anyone who wants the long version, should stop listening to rumors and get to a meeting to hear first hand what's going on.

There is so much tongue in cheek in the above quote it has me gasping for air....:eek: Can anyone take any of it seriously? :no:

I may have been born but not yesterday. :D Hopefully none of these peeps play poker.

dirtyhouse
Jan. 3, 2007, 02:31 AM
No disrespect Maryde. It is obvious from your resume that you are working quite hard for DVCTA. You are to be admired. That being said, I have a few comments to your reply.

Below is your treasurer report from the minutes listed on the club's website for Sept. 06.

"Officers’ Reports:
Treasurer: Mary deLesdernier reported that there is $12,703.77 in the checking account and $19,088.78 in the Capital Account for a total of $31,792.55.
Mary is thinking of moving some funds to the Capital Account, as the club is currently operating at a loss of $4702.99 and this would help to generate some interest income.
The Schooling Shows have not made much money this year, and may end up being a loss for 2006. A big check was written for the Dressage Teams but the club will eventually be reimbursed for those funds.
Membership: Elsie Kellerman reported 335 members to the USDF for 2006.
Nine have renewed or rejoined. The official date for current members to re-join for 2007 is November 1st."....

The club currently is either operating at a loss or it isn't. 5k is a lot of money to recoup from "memberships or whatever" to help balance a budget. At $45 a head for membership you'll need roughly 104 members to renew or join. Also let's not forget that a hefty portion of that money goes to USDF for the per capita fee on membership from gmo's. One can only hope that the agreed upon contribution from the DAD/DVCTA split, whatever that may be, can help cover the gap.
Which reminds me, membership outside of the bod's is still largely in the dark concerning the specifics of the final financial arrangement between the two entities since to my knowledge there has never been published anything concerning it either in the minutes or newsletter. Perhaps you could shed some light and publish the minutes when the split and its details were being discussed, voted upon, and finalized with information on whether the vote for the split was unanimous or not and if not, who were the dissenters. That would help dispell questions still circulating in the community.
Please understand, no one is trying to imply anything "sinister", to use your term, regarding this when questions arise. It is just that the decision-making process on something this important that will certainly impact the organization dramatically has never seen the light of day in print other than in minutes not published. As this was being finalized by September '06 there had to be considerable substantive discussion in meetings prior to then.
Would it not be helpful to the current membership at large or others considering membership in the future to know precisely how the split came about and the specifics of the agreed upon financials? Also of concern to members is how the club plans on balancing future budgets with one of its chief income-producing events gone? With the schooling shows perhaps operating at a loss, at least for the moment, what other sources of revenue can the club look to for solvency and growth? While I admire your rosy outlook and everything is fine viewpoint, a person considering joining is interested in what the club can offer them for their membership fee - other than imploring them to volunteer that is.
Lastly, I am well aware of how "volunteer" hours can quickly become an avocation. You have my sympathy. It is my understanding that the last webmaster was also the club's president, while simultaneously running one of its horse shows with a committee of six - yes, six, not sixty. Additionally, I understand she acted as the show's secretary, committee chair, hospitality chair, and produced and published the show's program. All while holding down a job, running a household, and one year, having a new house built during the show. Another on the bod during the same time frame ran the schooling shows, admirably and in the black, while working a fulltime job from dawn til dusk. The treasurer, at that time, estimated she spent roughly 300 hours a month on club business while working a 40 hour week, running a family with three children, and riding, training, and competing her horse.
I'll let that penetrate and maybe you'll get around to wondering where all of these capable volunteers disappeared to. The answer to that is why you and others like you are so overwhelmed with the wearing of many hats.

God speed.



could someone please tell me how that former treasurer accomplished that schedule? according to the figures given, club business alone took up 10 hours a day. i'd give a lot to be able to have time to just work my horse, let alone raise a family and hold down a job, after spending that amount of time volunteering.

centsohuma
Jan. 3, 2007, 08:05 AM
DH,

when reading your reply it also dawned on me that this person who did indeed spend those hours on dvcta biz also was the trophy chair for DFH. Yes, my dear it can be done. Ever hear of burning the midnight oil?

There are two types of people in the world - those with a work ethic and those without one - make no mistake, if something had to be set on the back burner to accomplish her work it was her home, her children, and her husband that suffered. Her service to this org. was what I would call sacrificial. Rare in today's world and certainly in the org. of which we speak.

If you either doubt the hours spent or the quantity or quality of her work/contribution I strongly suggest you phone her. Easy enough to figure out of who I speak. I also feel certain she'd just love to give you and those like you an earful while listing, chapter and verse, the nature of the work and the entities which generated it.

P.S. If your moniker is based in fact this may be a concept/reply you won't understand.

workinprogress
Jan. 3, 2007, 09:20 AM
As the former Treasurer in question, I spent 30 hours a month on normal club business - normal meaning not counting the horse shows that I helped organize and lived at for the duration. Normal being Advertising Chair, member of 3 Committees, Treasurer, and trying to put out wildfires. There were some weeks that I attended 3 meetings. Normal business didn't count the time spent on the phone. I would just appreciate my efforts not being maligned. How I got everything done? Getting up at 5am to ride,then working a 10 hour day at my office, squeezing in 2 hours to work with my kids on their homework, then taking care of club business - going to bed around midnight or later. Many people worked very hard during my tenure and the fallout was heartbreaking. None of that can be changed with annonymous messages on a bulletin board.

I'm sure it is hard to get things done now. So many of the work horses with years of experience walked away in disgust and left huge holes that can't be filled. Take it from my limited experience - if you have a small group trying to do everything, you are going to be exhausted. The current board should just be thankful that they don't have people lobbing grenades at them at just about every meeting.

wineberrywillie
Jan. 3, 2007, 10:13 AM
As the former Treasurer in question, I spent 30 hours a month on normal club business - normal meaning not counting the horse shows that I helped organize and lived at for the duration. Normal being Advertising Chair, member of 3 Committees, Treasurer, and trying to put out wildfires. There were some weeks that I attended 3 meetings. Normal business didn't count the time spent on the phone. I would just appreciate my efforts not being maligned. How I got everything done? Getting up at 5am to ride,then working a 10 hour day at my office, squeezing in 2 hours to work with my kids on their homework, then taking care of club business - going to bed around midnight or later. Many people worked very hard during my tenure and the fallout was heartbreaking. None of that can be changed with annonymous messages on a bulletin board.

I'm sure it is hard to get things done now. So many of the work horses with years of experience walked away in disgust and left huge holes that can't be filled. Take it from my limited experience - if you have a small group trying to do everything, you are going to be exhausted. The current board should just be thankful that they don't have people lobbing grenades at them at just about every meeting.




Nothing can change what was, but the postings allow the present, illumination on a very dark past.

I have tried to keep up with the posts on this thread since the beginning as I was a part of DAD at one time. Most of my 11 year involvement was through DAD where at one point, I chaired 2 committees. For 6 months out of the year, I ate dinner with a fork in one hand & the phone in the other. :eek: No lie but I wasn't alone. Many folks put in ridiculous hours of work. I didn't have the pleasure of fitting in horse time because I had 2 kids to raise, sole caretaker for both my ailing parents, 2 houses to run & my husband's in-home business to take care of while he was at his full-time job in the city. We all do what we can. No volunteer should be scrutinized for how much time they dedicate to their position unless the job is not being performed at its best. If a job is not being performed at it's best, then step down.

Kudos to my barn-mate for stepping up.:)

Old War Horse
Jan. 3, 2007, 11:00 AM
There hasn't been a [U]true and accurate[U] set of minutes taken in many, many years. Reports of committees were not attached, full names were not given, standard reports (i.e. the Treasurer's report) were not printed, even though the treasurer was present, motions were not stated, results of votes not given, etc, etc, etc. Sad, when you have to remember that this is a CORPORATION: which is supposed to keep accurate reports of it's Board Meetings. Minutes are supposed to reflect what actually went on; not a "revised history" of what the club WANTS the public to know ( or NOT know).
As someone stated above, MINIMAL is the standard that seems to apply.

workinprogress
Jan. 3, 2007, 12:05 PM
a club where everyone worked TOGETHER and didn't need to juggle 3 or 4 or 5 positions, so that everyone could do their one or two jobs completely without working to the point of exhaustion. With unifying leadership and a complete organization with enough members that believed in the organization and the leadership...Where every action did not need to be analyzed for underlying motives and justified....If everyone worked toward a common goal.....

I must still be suffering from holiday optimism. Seriously, having been one of the people asking why more people don't volunteer and finding out why the hard way, what is needed is leadership that is removed from the stigma of the past several years and has a unifying vision and an ability to motivate. Any President Ford types on the horizon?

Canterznomore
Jan. 3, 2007, 05:23 PM
a club where everyone worked TOGETHER and didn't need to juggle 3 or 4 or 5 positions, so that everyone could do their one or two jobs completely without working to the point of exhaustion. With unifying leadership and a complete organization with enough members that believed in the organization and the leadership...Where every action did not need to be analyzed for underlying motives and justified....If everyone worked toward a common goal.....

I must still be suffering from holiday optimism. Seriously, having been one of the people asking why more people don't volunteer and finding out why the hard way, what is needed is leadership that is removed from the stigma of the past several years and has a unifying vision and an ability to motivate. Any President Ford types on the horizon?

WIP,

I'm definitely not the Ford type; some have said Reagan, some have said Stalin :lol: Honestly, just kidding. My management style works for me and mine. That is sufficient unto the day. I've sat here of late reading the posts, weighing in a bit with a few comments along the way. Your last one, above, got me thinking - blame it on Christmas hangover or too much triptophan in the turkey but here it is as I see it, finally and with a glad heart.

I’ll bet if asked, each and every officer and board of this organization, past and present, would say that those were/are their goals and ideals. I’ll bet if asked each and every volunteer would say they do the absolute best they can do. Ones intentions do not always matter – the road to hell is paved with good ones. Ones deeds don’t always matter either in the grand scheme of things after all, no good deed goes unpunished.

It is more an issue of the heart. No, not the life-giving muscle that resides within our body, but the heart that is our soul – conscience if you will. What makes you, you – individually and completely.

Somewhere along the way people can lose their hearts. They do and say things, behave in ways that are hard to understand, no matter the circumstances or justifications.

I have lived just long enough to know how fragile the heart can be. Through the years my heart has been uplifted by a reassuring word from a friend or loved one and just as quickly bruised by actions of those I counted as “friend”.

The heart in me is tired. I served long and I think I can honestly say I served well with “good intentions.” My road does not lead me to hell – my heart is my compass; my true north. It leads me to my Lord. May He help me find forgiveness in my heart for those whose actions I will never understand.

ChesterCounty
Jan. 3, 2007, 07:35 PM
Sigh,
After many months away from this forum I see my beloved GMO again a topic of a bizarre conversation...If you go back almost exactly a year ago you will find a thread with the same conversation. So enough already.

All organizations have their ups and downs. They all have their unsung, unpaid heros that hold things together in bad times and good times. If you want to have a voice or to find out what is going on in your GMO, PTA, rescue organization, Daughters of the Republic, local government et al... go to a meeting and get involved.

centsohuma
Jan. 3, 2007, 08:40 PM
Sigh,
After many months away from this forum I see my beloved GMO again a topic of a bizarre conversation...If you go back almost exactly a year ago you will find a thread with the same conversation. So enough already.

All organizations have their ups and downs. They all have their unsung, unpaid heros that hold things together in bad times and good times. If you want to have a voice or to find out what is going on in your GMO, PTA, rescue organization, Daughters of the Republic, local government et al... go to a meeting and get involved.

If I knew what "almost exactly a year ago" meant I'd give it a go. In the meantime be sure you're volunteer hours are up to snuff for your "beloved GMO" - you'll be too busy to read "bizarre conversation".

As far as enough already - it will be enough when people stop posting. Free speech is still alive and well even if it obviously goes against your grain.

"go to meetings and get involved" - evidence that you have either not read nine pages of posts or have yet to grasp their content. Assuming the latter we'll allow you ample time for catch up.

Ta Ta For Now

saddlesurfer
Jan. 3, 2007, 09:21 PM
Sigh,
After many months away from this forum I see my beloved GMO again a topic of a bizarre conversation...If you go back almost exactly a year ago you will find a thread with the same conversation. So enough already.

All organizations have their ups and downs. They all have their unsung, unpaid heros that hold things together in bad times and good times. If you want to have a voice or to find out what is going on in your GMO, PTA, rescue organization, Daughters of the Republic, local government et al... go to a meeting and get involved.

I have to ask, why do you consider this thread bizarre? Were you an active member 3-4 yrs ago? By the way, there is no previous thread discussing the same topic. I checked. In any case, you have the ability to force your index finger to not point & click on the thread.

ASB Stars
Jan. 3, 2007, 09:51 PM
Sigh,
After many months away from this forum I see my beloved GMO again a topic of a bizarre conversation...If you go back almost exactly a year ago you will find a thread with the same conversation. So enough already.

All organizations have their ups and downs. They all have their unsung, unpaid heros that hold things together in bad times and good times. If you want to have a voice or to find out what is going on in your GMO, PTA, rescue organization, Daughters of the Republic, local government et al... go to a meeting and get involved.

You name me ONE other GMO that has the HUGE issues that this one has, and we have something to talk about. Pick any one.

And when you do, I'll pull out stories that have NOT been told, as of yet, that are too Peyton Place-esque for words. And, not a word will be a lie- yes, I was there when the mighty developed feet of clay- tho I have never been a member of this amazing entity.

For the folks that have posted here, who were members working so damn hard for so long- my heart goes out to you. What happened to you is unjust, and cruel. And as I stand at a distance, I feel you were illused by the Wizard, who, unveiled for what he was, departed for warmer climes.

Too bad they weren't warmer still.... ;)

centsohuma
Jan. 3, 2007, 10:19 PM
Yes, Stars, you are right on with stories to tell - we could do "can you believe this poker" - like, I'll bet one story and raise you two....LOL

and yes, every word would be the truth - I mean really, could we make this stuff up?? LMAO

Have a good evening

ChesterCounty
Jan. 3, 2007, 10:37 PM
I thought it would be okay to join the thread even though late. I did read the whole thread before I posted. If I am coming in too late on this thread to participate in the discussion, I'll just have to be quicker with my finger next time!

I do not know where that other thread went to. I know I was in it and so was LoriK and on a search on my username nothing came up. So nevermind, it's gone so not relevant.

I am sure some of us know each other as we all live in the same area. I have been a member for a long time and was on one of the first eventing teams at Gladstone for DVCTA, so that should date me. I have had a few short breaks here and there when I was off doing hunters. I have been around through the last 6-7 years, as a volunteer and supporter, now that I am dressaging it.

I was aware of what was happening as discussed here, but none of it ever took away from my enjoying the GMO and what it offered it's membership and just wanted to stick up for it from that point of view.

The word bizarre came to mind because I thought all this was in the past, done and dusted, and yet the thread still has a lot of emotion in it, so I was amazed to find out people were still hurting. The Enough already was because I don't understand what the objectives was for dragging it all out again. But I guess it is a cathartic thing if there is still pain felt about it, so I understand from that point of view.

To me the bottom line is it is a good GMO that I have enjoyed for years and plan to continue enjoying. I am just an optimist I guess and would rather look at the positives and overlook the negatives. I have only had good experiences as a participant in their activities and as a member of several commitees.

wineberrywillie
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:11 AM
[I thought it would be okay to join the thread even though late. I did read the whole thread before I posted. If I am coming in too late on this thread to participate in the discussion, I'll just have to be quicker with my finger next time!

Hey this is a discussion. Anyone can join. The thread serves as a platform for all expression & emotions.

I am sure some of us know each other as we all live in the same area. I have been a member for a long time and was on one of the first eventing teams at Gladstone for DVCTA, so that should date me. I have had a few short breaks here and there when I was off doing hunters. I have been around through the last 6-7 years, as a volunteer and supporter, now that I am dressaging it.

I'm sure we all know each other or ran into one another at some point. I had 11 yrs. chairing 2 committees at DAD & a 2 yrs term of e-comm experience.

I was aware of what was happening as discussed here, but none of it ever took away from my enjoying the GMO and what it offered it's membership and just wanted to stick up for it from that point of view.

It probably never took away from what you were doing because it didn't directly involve you.

The word bizarre came to mind because I thought all this was in the past, done and dusted, and yet the thread still has a lot of emotion in it, so I was amazed to find out people were still hurting. The Enough already was because I don't understand what the objectives was for dragging it all out again. But I guess it is a cathartic thing if there is still pain felt about it, so I understand from that point of view.

Not to belabor the points that have been raised by the posters but......By the context of the posts, people here were directly involved & still have issue with what happened. Yes, to you & perhaps others, it's old news. To others, it's not. The conflict that occurred 3-4 yrs ago was a multi-tentacle beast. There were so many factors involved with both DAD & DVCTA. That's why the discussion jumps around a bit.
The conflict dissolved long standing friendships, folks with decades of long experience with DAD &/or DVCTA fell off the map & those who truly loved what they did & gave their heart & soul, were asked to leave. Not because they pushed someone off the main grandstand upper tier but because of who their friends were (as the old saying goes, you are known by with whom you keep company), their claims that frivolous spending should be halted & their belief that we should all operate with accountability. There were some who chose not to operate with accountability & that was an issue. That issue & others have been correct in the last year or so, but at what human cost? Participants now, with perhaps good intentions, last a year or 2 & then they're gone. 3-4 yrs ago, DAD/DVCTA lost good people with 10-20-30 yrs experience in their positions & the contributions of past DVCTA presidents. Good, long-standing volunteers are too hard to come by & this was a huge loss. Bottom line is, we were all, at least most of us, unpaid volunteers for these 2 orgs. & a good volunteer should never be so quickly dismissed.
Some here are concerned for the post-split financial solvency of DVCTA, not that DAD's contribution sustained them but it helped. Look at the views on this thread...over 5700. This has generated interest, not for sake of opening wounds but for discussion & possible resolution. So yes, people are still hurt.

To me the bottom line is it is a good GMO that I have enjoyed for years and plan to continue enjoying. I am just an optimist I guess and would rather look at the positives and overlook the negatives. I have only had good experiences as a participant in their activities and as a member of several committees.

Good for you...seriously. Some here can't make that statement & that's why this thread is important. I doubt very seriously that anyone from either point of view will rise up & apologize for what incorrect actions they may have had. It would be nice but then again, I tend to be a Pollyanna at times.

Old War Horse
Jan. 4, 2007, 02:48 PM
I'd love to hear if there are any other GMO's with the soap-opera type goings on of this one.. I too know some stories, since I was front row center for a lot of them.... and NO, you cannot make this stuff up!
The fickle finger of fate does not point to the male plumber referred to above; there are also a number of female plumberettes involved... often they were the ones goading him on! Blame can be laid all around.
I see where the new Board of Governors have been announced on the club website; I am truly surprised that there are still some DAD Board members on the club's Board. I thought they'd drop it like a hot potato.... but I guess there is some kind of doubious distinction in being on a 'board' or something..
good luck to the club; it'll NEED IT!
And maybe I'm blind, but I cannot see where the minutes of the Sept. Board meeting are posted.

saddlesurfer
Jan. 4, 2007, 04:31 PM
[QUOTE=Old War Horse;2114766]I'd love to hear if there are any other GMO's with the soap-opera type goings on of this one.. QUOTE]

I think anytime there's the 3 "P"'s.... power, prestige, position involved, there will be flame-throwing & back-biting.

sporthorsefilly
Jan. 4, 2007, 04:48 PM
Darn, I don't have time to read all of this. It sounds like a real soap opera, too bad it involves a show case event like DAD should be.

Yup, Power, Prestige and Position can certainly cause a problem. Can't wait to read the rest when I get time.

So...Does this mean no DAD in 2007?

TotoTimesTwo
Jan. 4, 2007, 05:47 PM
too bad it involves a show case event like DAD should be.
Do you mean it's NOT a showcase event???

So...Does this mean no DAD in 2007?
Plans are well underway for the 2007 show. I doubt a some rumours and a few mean-spirited individuals could stop it:winkgrin:

ASB Stars
Jan. 4, 2007, 05:55 PM
too bad it involves a show case event like DAD should be.
Do you mean it's NOT a showcase event???

So...Does this mean no DAD in 2007?
Plans are well underway for the 2007 show. I doubt a some rumours and a few mean-spirited individuals could stop it:winkgrin:


Spoken like the true, and oh-so-fluffy "Queen of Dressage at Devon". The tiara has been pawned, ethics and morals abit skewed, but, what the heck, Toto, this ain't Kansas!

wineberrywillie
Jan. 4, 2007, 06:44 PM
too bad it involves a show case event like DAD should be.
Do you mean it's NOT a showcase event???

So...Does this mean no DAD in 2007?
Plans are well underway for the 2007 show. I doubt a some rumours and a few mean-spirited individuals could stop it:winkgrin:

DAD is a showcase event as long as you're into dressage. If you asked anyone in the outside world, they'd tweek their head like the RCA dog as to what is a DAD.

And I don't think it is anyone's intention to derail the show.

centsohuma
Jan. 5, 2007, 08:10 AM
too bad it involves a show case event like DAD should be.
Do you mean it's NOT a showcase event???

So...Does this mean no DAD in 2007?
Plans are well underway for the 2007 show. I doubt a some rumours and a few mean-spirited individuals could stop it:winkgrin:

The above quote is precisely why "serving" in any capacity for the event can be insufferable. Unless you possess pomposity, huberous, arrogance, and a flair for petty politics, think twice before entering the enchanted forest...

Yes, it does sound like Queen Fluffy - such a sad queen, mostly in exhile now.

Most of the posts here are not mean-spirited; just unvarnished truth.

"Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most mean-spirited of all?"...

We all know how the rhyme ends.

centsohuma
Jan. 5, 2007, 08:20 AM
DAD is a showcase event as long as you're into dressage. If you asked anyone in the outside world, they'd tweek their head like the RCA dog as to what is a DAD.

And I don't think it is anyone's intention to derail the show.


Yes, WW, you are correct. In fact, the exact opposite is true where "derailment" is involved - concern for the show, its growth, its beneficiaries, et al was what drove people to search for new "conductors" (keeping with the train metaphor).

In a world increasingly troubled with radical extremists ready to derail our country, a horse show, "showcase" or otherwise becomes on one hand a welcome distraction and at the same time a frivilous thing on a global scale. And while we are all out polishing our piaffe's let's hope the unthinkable never happens to our country - or we'll be using those grand dressage mounts to get to the grocery.

Just a dose of realism I felt necessary to lend to the land of Oz.

saddlesurfer
Jan. 5, 2007, 09:11 AM
too bad it involves a show case event like DAD should be.
Do you mean it's NOT a showcase event???

So...Does this mean no DAD in 2007?
Plans are well underway for the 2007 show. I doubt a some rumours and a few mean-spirited individuals could stop it:winkgrin:


Like the horse-show paparazzi follow you? Get over yourself...it's a flippin horse show!

Canterznomore
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:30 AM
Somehow I don't think DAD will ever pop up as a question on Jeopardy..."I'll take horse show trivia for $100 Alex..."

Yeah, right :cool:

TotoTimesTwo
Jan. 5, 2007, 05:04 PM
:lol: And aren't y'all just the nicest bunch of folks? :lol:

Old War Horse
Jan. 5, 2007, 05:45 PM
Flippant or not, what has to be seriously considered here is the depth of feelings of some of the people that were one time supporters of the show and the club. There are some very deep wounds that have to heal. "Talk therapy" is currently being touted as a good way to relieve the feelings of frustration, hurt, etc. If it gets a bit pointed or snippy or even a bit hurtful, you only have to realize what led up to these feelings.
I don't think anyone wants DAD to fold; it is a good show and a good example of what the American horse show community can produce. It will be there after we're all dead and gone.

ASB Stars
Jan. 5, 2007, 09:38 PM
too bad it involves a show case event like DAD should be.
Do you mean it's NOT a showcase event???

So...Does this mean no DAD in 2007?
Plans are well underway for the 2007 show. I doubt a some rumours and a few mean-spirited individuals could stop it:winkgrin:


I was thinking about the fact that you described the behaviour of others as "mean spirited". And I was amazed that you had the unmitigated gall to characterize ANYONE elses actions here.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that the intent of the DAD committee that set in motion the events that have been described here was simply to usurp the power they felt they so richly deserved. Even LoriK's "the tail wagging the dog" makes it clear that the DAD party felt that they were absolutely entitled to do whatever it took to gain control.

What is so mind blowing, as an observer, is that still, after this time to reflect, the cavalier attitude has prevailed in this group.

Mean spirited? Although I doubt the looking glass can accomodate the entire image, try taking a better look. Ah, yes, the Queen of denial. No relation to Cleopatra, rest assured.

angeloflite
Jan. 6, 2007, 05:41 PM
Mean spirited? Although I doubt the looking glass can accomodate the entire image, try taking a better look. Ah, yes, the Queen of denial. No relation to Cleopatra, rest assured.

Ouch! :D Gloves are off in Ozland - Toto just got thumped :lol:

centsohuma
Jan. 6, 2007, 05:53 PM
I was thinking about the fact that you described the behaviour of others as "mean spirited". And I was amazed that you had the unmitigated gall to characterize ANYONE elses actions here.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that the intent of the DAD committee that set in motion the events that have been described here was simply to usurp the power they felt they so richly deserved. Even LoriK's "the tail wagging the dog" makes it clear that the DAD party felt that they were absolutely entitled to do whatever it took to gain control.

What is so mind blowing, as an observer, is that still, after this time to reflect, the cavalier attitude has prevailed in this group.

Mean spirited? Although I doubt the looking glass can accomodate the entire image, try taking a better look. Ah, yes, the Queen of denial. No relation to Cleopatra, rest assured.


ASB,
From your posts sounds like you know the players pretty well.
The sense of entitlement is their mission statement with the Grand Wizard as their standard bearer. But just like the emporer, the Grand Wizard has no clothes.
Don't sweat the cavalier attitude - it's akin to whistling in the dark; it's what you do when you don't have anything else to offer.
Regarding the mean-spiritedness - it's understandable; after all, her flag's been flyin' half-mast since the Wizard's departure...sniff, sniff....

angeloflite
Jan. 6, 2007, 05:56 PM
ASB,
From your posts sounds like you know the players pretty well.
The sense of entitlement is their mission statement with the Grand Wizard as their standard bearer. But just like the emporer, the Grand Wizard has no clothes.
Don't sweat the cavalier attitude - it's akin to whistling in the dark; it's what you do when you don't have anything else to offer.
Regarding the mean-spiritedness - it's understandable; after all, her flag's been flyin' half-mast since the Wizard's departure...sniff, sniff....

Ouch times two Toto :lol: Y'all just got thumped agaaa'in! :yes:

Round 3 anyone? :o

ASB Stars
Jan. 6, 2007, 06:05 PM
ASB,
From your posts sounds like you know the players pretty well.
The sense of entitlement is their mission statement with the Grand Wizard as their standard bearer. But just like the emporer, the Grand Wizard has no clothes.
Don't sweat the cavalier attitude - it's akin to whistling in the dark; it's what you do when you don't have anything else to offer.
Regarding the mean-spiritedness - it's understandable; after all, her flag's been flyin' half-mast since the Wizard's departure...sniff, sniff....


Oh, man Centso- now THAT was funny. Half staff...ROTFLMAO...But just think- after all of the diet pills used to morph into a new form to catch the Wizard, the looking glass actually could take in the image!

Now, not so much....

wineberrywillie
Jan. 6, 2007, 08:31 PM
Ok children, get back in your seats.:lol:

wineberrywillie
Jan. 6, 2007, 08:34 PM
Diet pills??? Really? :eek:
Maybe that was the problem...I know my mother used to do & say some weird stuff when she popped an Ambien.:D

Sorry...the pill thing just registered.

saddlesurfer
Jan. 7, 2007, 08:29 PM
http://www.frenchcreekdressage.org/

It will be interesting to see how many members French Creek pulls away from DVCTA.

ASB Stars
Jan. 7, 2007, 11:00 PM
Diet pills??? Really? :eek:
Maybe that was the problem...I know my mother used to do & say some weird stuff when she popped an Ambien.:D

Sorry...the pill thing just registered.

Well, the evidence seems to indicate that the pills were discontinued some time ago. ;)

And no, I do NOT mean that Dr. Don cannot afford to feed his horses any longer... :winkgrin:

saddlesurfer
Jan. 7, 2007, 11:25 PM
Well, the evidence seems to indicate that the pills were discontinued some time ago. ;)

And no, I do NOT mean that Dr. Don cannot afford to feed his horses any longer... :winkgrin:

As yes, the diet pills...I remember. Herself & I had occasions where we spoke about slipping in the backdoor of Dr. Don's for a month-load of happy pills, long before his hoo-ha.

ASB Stars
Jan. 8, 2007, 09:39 AM
I kind of thought that his associate was doing the distribution by that time- although Dandy Don was not up the river, yet.

Brand new wardrobe for the new mo' better bod, and then- POOF!- back to plus sizes.

I don't think you can let Dana Buchman stuff out that much... ;)

Oh well.

I do wonder what the future holds with another GMO in the area. OVCTA has always played well with others, with considerably less drama, bu they are more North. This one is kind of close...

wineberrywillie
Jan. 8, 2007, 10:12 AM
I think French Creek will be a successful club & will draw from DVCTA. It sounds like a friendly grp too, like OVCTA. Guess we'll find out next yr when the member figures are released.

centsohuma
Jan. 8, 2007, 06:05 PM
I think French Creek will be a successful club & will draw from DVCTA. It sounds like a friendly grp too, like OVCTA. Guess we'll find out next yr when the member figures are released.


All gmo's have their ups and downs (no posting pun intended LOL) but French Creek has a few members who were around for the recent war of the worlds and if they learn anything from it they'll watch out and keep their club focused and on the high road. And might I add, have their bylaws vetted by competent legal types so raiding parties can't drive holes through them.

Don't say you haven't been warned.

I wish French Creek all the luck in the world - may their members be many.

centsohuma
Jan. 8, 2007, 06:07 PM
[QUOTE=ASB Stars;2124104]
I don't think you can let Dana Buchman stuff out that much... ;)

Dana Buchman?! and here I always presumed it was Fashion Bug Plus Size.

ASB Stars
Jan. 8, 2007, 06:51 PM
Well, currently, you are probably right ;)

But back then, she emptied out her bank account to be stylin' for the Wiz.

Being a non-fashion plate myself, I watched with barely disguised amazement!

But then, I figure if I can't buy my wardrobe at Heritage, or online, I probably don't need it....

Edited to add-

Do you remember the musical The Wiz? "You better ease on down, ease on down the road...you better ease on down, ease on down the road...don't you carry nothin' that might be a load, you better ease on down, ease on down the road...."

Just came to mind :uhoh:

saddlesurfer
Jan. 9, 2007, 09:58 AM
Flippant or not, what has to be seriously considered here is the depth of feelings of some of the people that were one time supporters of the show and the club. There are some very deep wounds that have to heal. "Talk therapy" is currently being touted as a good way to relieve the feelings of frustration, hurt, etc. If it gets a bit pointed or snippy or even a bit hurtful, you only have to realize what led up to these feelings.
I don't think anyone wants DAD to fold; it is a good show and a good example of what the American horse show community can produce. It will be there after we're all dead and gone.

OWH, some folks feel better about themselves when they can hide behind a computer, anonymously & continue to toss flames. The so called Fluff Queen was not one to toss a flame if face to face. Call it passive/aggressive or simply being 5'3" & an easy target.
I find it interesting that the aggression tendancies are still there, just as the emotions are still evident for the posters on this thread. I only wonder if she would be so bold if she ran into one of her adversaries at Wawa? I'd pay big bucks to see a good roll at the coffee bar.

Old War Horse
Jan. 9, 2007, 10:42 AM
Yeah, that would be funny, but, if the posters are all annonymous, how would anyone recognize anyone??
I think we went seriously off track with the thread!!

saddlesurfer
Jan. 9, 2007, 11:15 AM
Yeah, that would be funny, but, if the posters are all annonymous, how would anyone recognize anyone??


Oh live dangerously, OWH & just guess.

ASB Stars
Jan. 9, 2007, 11:31 AM
Thankfully, I can't wrestle in her weight class, currently. ;)

I agree about the passive/aggressive issues.

Several years ago, I had my then two year old colt at DAD, and as waiting to go into the ring. Back then, they did not have times for your turn- youhad to putyour name in. Irregardless of everyone elses belief on this, I think you are better off later in the class.

In any event, I watched The Queen and The Wiz walk up to the hapless ring gal, and talk to her. She looked over at me, nodded, and then came over and told me I needed to go "next". I explained that I wanted to wait for a couple of more go's- then I'd take him in. She explained that I needed to go "now". I told her to let me see where that was in the rules, or tell me when we were about three from the end, and I'd take him in.

She walked away, back to the Royal Couple, and I went in a bit later.

What an incredibly crappy thing to do to a volunteer. Talk about throwing your prodigious weight around! Why put that poor thing into a nasty situation?

Ah, because it is GOOD to be Queen! Or it was..... :winkgrin:

saddlesurfer
Jan. 9, 2007, 12:16 PM
Luckily, the gal who head-hunts for volunteers is a good person otherwise, they'd have no one. She is honest in going out of her way to treat the volunteers with respect & appreciation. However, most, not all, in the upper level of mgt. could honestly care less. They suffer from those dreaded 3 "P"'s.

ASB Stars
Jan. 9, 2007, 10:58 PM
No question at all- DAD has some fabulous volunteers. I was chatting with some gals who came in from Detroit last year to help out, and they were the nicest folks- and thrilled to be at DAD. There are MANY people there that are like that-and I heard that the Queen was noticably more mellow on these folks last year.

Perhaps management is just top heavy. :)

That didn't come out right... :winkgrin:

But seriously, I might show something at DAD again. Of course, at this point, I'd probably wear a flack jacket.

And as for anonimity- personally, I have none. :lol:

Old War Horse
Jan. 10, 2007, 10:55 AM
Have you ever seen how much they spend on wine/champagne for the committee stand?? There were a lot of "mellow" people around!!
:lol:

centsohuma
Jan. 10, 2007, 09:16 PM
Have you ever seen how much they spend on wine/champagne for the committee stand?? There were a lot of "mellow" people around!!
:lol:

So NOW you tell me about the spirits???? And to think - For years I suffered through the entire ordeal SOBER! ;)

The things you can learn on a blog....humph!....:)

ASB Stars
Jan. 10, 2007, 10:38 PM
Well, Cents, you were the ONLY one! :winkgrin:

At least in the evening. I can remember some pretty funny stuff over the years.

I bet that wine booth makes a BUNDLE! :yes:

saddlesurfer
Jan. 11, 2007, 09:38 AM
So NOW you tell me about the spirits???? And to think - For years I suffered through the entire ordeal SOBER! ;)

The things you can learn on a blog....humph!....:)

Yes but being sober had it's advantages. We weren't the ones talked about later for our actions. The behavior was scandalous. Affairs, one night stands, nip-slips, dresses slit up to "there", "A" cup women blew-up to "C" cups, just to name a few. It was pretty funny but at the same time, sad.

The wine/champagne served in the committee stand was the better, more expensive stuff. That's why the comm stand was jammed on Saturday night. Folks (mostly upper DAD'ers with empty stomachs) weren't going to pay for the cheaper stuff along with John Q. Public! And the crazy thing, it was supposed to be for the sponsors to enjoy & judges/officials when they had their meals! And the accountablity was a joke. There was always a case or 2 missing, even with the Wine Fuhrer supposedly watching over the liquid loot. No doubt the Royals, et. al., probably enjoyed the missing bottles long after the last ride & the ring lights had shut down for the night.

ASB Stars
Jan. 11, 2007, 10:41 AM
SS, you couldn't be more funny, or right...as I remember, some years ago, The Q of F, after consuming vast quantities of bubbly in the committee stand, was giggling madly over the behaviour of all of the group. She wandered back to sit down, along with a fellow who was best described as a gigolo. He sat down between us, and after chatting with Q for awhile, ended up with his hand on MY thigh. :rolleyes:

I removed it, and explained that he needed to look elsewhere...but it was amusing to watch what bubbly can do! :uhoh:

Old War Horse
Jan. 11, 2007, 11:19 AM
A fairly new committee member wondered if there were any other sport where the judges went to do their judging after they had been drinking.....some of the judges did refrain, but some did NOT.
I mean, the committee stand was AWASH in alcohol! I think it was the drunkest show on the circuit!

wineberrywillie
Jan. 11, 2007, 11:30 AM
Yea, but the stories post-show were damn funny. :lol: The nip-slip wasn't a deliberate slip. The person wanted to show a new body adornment & it just, umm, popped out. :eek:

ASB Stars
Jan. 11, 2007, 02:52 PM
A "wardrobe malfunction"? I thought that those only happened to the actually famous, as opposed to the locally infamous, or wannabe famous-- do tell! :winkgrin:

wineberrywillie
Jan. 12, 2007, 09:47 AM
Just curious...anyone know who the new chair will be of DAD now that the previous is residing in warmer climates:cool: ? Maybe he'll fly back & forth? I wonder if Fla is a temporary move...If I remember correctly, the mrs told me that she's allergic to sun. :(
From the outsiders point of view, the show was always flawless but from the insiders point of of view, the show needed structural work. Hopefully, whoever takes the helm will continue to improve the inner structure & the accountablility of its committees.

ASB Stars
Jan. 12, 2007, 10:32 AM
I get the impression they might not promote from within- and I hope that is the case...whoever it is better show up with a whip and a chair... :lol:

centsohuma
Jan. 12, 2007, 05:06 PM
I get the impression they might not promote from within- and I hope that is the case...whoever it is better show up with a whip and a chair... :lol:

Actually, that's already been tried, the whip and chair thing, by the past gmo admin.

From the way I've heard it, they were almost hung by their own whip and the show's cattier crew peed on the chair legs.

Suggestions anyone????

Canterznomore
Jan. 12, 2007, 10:21 PM
A fairly new committee member wondered if there were any other sport where the judges went to do their judging after they had been drinking.....some of the judges did refrain, but some did NOT.
I mean, the committee stand was AWASH in alcohol! I think it was the drunkest show on the circuit!

Your post recalled to mind a rather feisty european judge years ago that was a "no show" in the box; :eek: the person sent to fetch him found him happily drinking a cold one in the beer garden - his rationale was he needed it if he was expected to judge rider "So And So" with his "open knees." :lol:

Every now and then the show did bring a chuckle and head shake :lol:

Canterznomore
Jan. 17, 2007, 02:39 PM
Actually, that's already been tried, the whip and chair thing, by the past gmo admin.

From the way I've heard it, they were almost hung by their own whip and the show's cattier crew peed on the chair legs.

Suggestions anyone????

Dear Cents,

Most of the time, I've agreed w/your postings :winkgrin: but this one gets under my skin; not sure of your intentions when posting but the "hung by their own whip" is an unfair and untrue characterization of the past gmo governors.

Whip and chair metaphor aside, the offending, (or offended depending on your viewpoint), parties were always treated with respect and consideration from the vantage point on my side of the aisle. Granted, taking suggestions or direction from dvcta ops was not their strong suit and let's say, didn't bring out the best in them. To be fair, their tirades didn't bring out the best in the dvcta officers either! :eek:

Some might have a perception that the officers were on some people's backs right out of the starting block - my only response to that is if you are new to arrive on scene and see a building in full blaze there is no time for ice breakers and tea cakes; and to be frank, Atlanta had been burning for some time. Not the fault of the newly elected officers if the current "state of the union" was misleading prior to their election. In fact, if smoke had been detected in Dec. '03 it's safe to say the election slate for '04 would have been different.:yes:

Can't change the past - we learn from it and go on.

I have and rather happily.:cool:

centsohuma
Jan. 17, 2007, 09:16 PM
I am sorry, truly, if my attempt at humor hit a nerve. After what everyone went through a few years ago I can understand that might be the case.

I meant no offense. Please forgive.

I really think I am on the right side of this issue in its entirety.

I'll weigh my words more carefully in the future.

Canterznomore
Jan. 19, 2007, 08:37 AM
Cents,

Apology received and accepted.

The entire sad story can be summed up thusly - "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king"

Enjoy 2007

saddlesurfer
Jan. 19, 2007, 09:26 AM
Cents,

Apology received and accepted.

The entire sad story can be summed up thusly - "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king"

Enjoy 2007

And the appropriate ending..."and his mistress who wished she was queen"

Canterznomore
Jan. 19, 2007, 05:16 PM
And the appropriate ending..."and his mistress who wished she was queen"

...and if that were the case, blindness would be a kindness.:cool:

ASB Stars
Jan. 19, 2007, 05:45 PM
You guys are seriously funny. :lol: This would make a fabulous TV movie- wouldn't it? Even better than Romeo and Juliet, or having the PTA implode. :yes:

Desperate Commitee Members-- some of which are housewives?

However, no one would believe it, would they ? :winkgrin:

Canterznomore
Jan. 21, 2007, 02:10 PM
Happy to have brought a smile :)

I have been accused of having a highly developed sense of humor. It has gotten me through much in my lifetime. Horseshow follies notwithstanding.

Now that it's long past, when recounting certain occurances with friends we can fall down laughing :lol: - yup, it would make a great movie - perhaps a "dark comedy" - my fear is that it would appear too far-fetched for the average person to believe. Truth is stranger than fiction but some of the going's-on :eek: NOT to be believed!!!!!:o

After all is said and done, it is to be laughed at - who with any sense can take it seriously?:confused:

Stay warm :winkgrin:

Old War Horse
Jan. 22, 2007, 12:14 PM
Yeah, more fun than a soap opera; maybe a Horse Opera???? ha ha
And as the queen always said, "It's only a horse show..."
Tell THAT to those in charge, who were holding on to their positions on the Executive Committee with every claw they had! They're just big fish in a small pond!
Hey! I know you're out there lurking.... come out come out where ever you are!!!
:lol:

centsohuma
Jan. 22, 2007, 05:01 PM
Yeah, more fun than a soap opera; maybe a Horse Opera???? ha ha
And as the queen always said, "It's only a horse show..."
Tell THAT to those in charge, who were holding on to their positions on the Executive Committee with every claw they had! They're just big fish in a small pond!
Hey! I know you're out there lurking.... come out come out where ever you are!!!
:lol:

Nah, not big fish at all - just GUPPIES LOOKING INTO FUN HOUSE MIRRORS :)

ASB Stars
Jan. 22, 2007, 10:07 PM
It would seem to me that the deepest distortions, and those that have been the most costly, are those that worked from the inside out, rather than anything observed from the outside, alone. ;)

Perhaps that is jut TOO philosophical... :sigh:

Back to the PARTY!!!! :winkgrin:

saddlesurfer
Jan. 23, 2007, 10:07 AM
It would seem to me that the deepest distortions, and those that have been the most costly, are those that worked from the inside out, rather than anything observed from the outside, alone. ;)

Perhaps that is jut TOO philosophical... :sigh:

Back to the PARTY!!!! :winkgrin:

No, you are correct ASB & to validate your philosophy, this thread has been called "long & ugly" by the Wizard & all the court munchkins. It's not long & ugly. What happened in 04 was long & ugly & unneccessary behavior by adults over a darn horse show. And if anyone current, thinks they are immune, I have an oasis in Utah to sell you. They even railed against a past DVCTA presidents!
In order to move on, responsibility must be accepted for actions. This org., only showed, you can't trust anyone. My words are just that, words, however the sharp decline in membership is far better a reflection of how the general membership base really feels.
It seems ludicrous to bat the ball back & forth over something that happened 3 yrs ago. People have moved on to other more lucrative ventures & hobbies however, the wounds are still open. All it takes is for an olive branch...from anyone. Here, I'll start it off...."if I had to do it again I wouldn't have...."

centsohuma
Jan. 23, 2007, 12:15 PM
It would seem to me that the deepest distortions, and those that have been the most costly, are those that worked from the inside out, rather than anything observed from the outside, alone. ;)

Perhaps that is jut TOO philosophical... :sigh:

Back to the PARTY!!!! :winkgrin:


Phi lo so phi cal - five syllables; some of these players only understand verbiage of three syllables or less; actually, the chief means of communication is accomplished mostly through mono-syllabic utterances, whereupon the wide-eyed followers let out a collective gasp of appreciation.....; been my observation but just sayin'.....

Olive branch, now that's funny but here goes:

"if I had it to do over again, (and life rarely gives you "do-overs" so do it right the first time) I'd steer clear of the whole group.

Not what you were expecting or hopin' for SS, but it's the best I can do; no olive branch's here; uh, does the olive in my martini count?

"Long and ugly"? Where was that written? Yes, this epistle is long but more the ugly truth. To those sweatin' the gory details I say, if ya can't take the heat stay out of the blog.

ASB Stars
Jan. 23, 2007, 03:39 PM
I'd say that the distance between here, and the Wizards new digs could be described thusly.

I would welcome any of the "court" visiting, and offering new or different testamony. The factual kind. However, in the absence of that, and them, I am figuring we have the right of it, right here.

You know the dictators who come to power through a coup, and are called "despots"? The ones who feel that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't "get it"? The kind that are beyond the moral and ethical standards of the rest of the world, in general, and specifically, consider themselves to have a "higher calling" than the bleating masses, over which they, by right, have dominion?

Yah, I thought you did. :winkgrin:

Now how come most of them have beards? I'm just sayin' ;)

saddlesurfer
Jan. 24, 2007, 10:41 AM
Phi lo so phi cal - five syllables; some of these players only understand verbiage of three syllables or less; actually, the chief means of communication is accomplished mostly through mono-syllabic utterances, whereupon the wide-eyed followers let out a collective gasp of appreciation.....; been my observation but just sayin'.....

Olive branch, now that's funny but here goes:

"if I had it to do over again, (and life rarely gives you "do-overs" so do it right the first time) I'd steer clear of the whole group.

Not what you were expecting or hopin' for SS, but it's the best I can do; no olive branch's here; uh, does the olive in my martini count?

"Long and ugly"? Where was that written? Yes, this epistle is long but more the ugly truth. To those sweatin' the gory details I say, if ya can't take the heat stay out of the blog.

Oh Cents...you lost your "huma". I know this will never have a fairytale ending....no kum-by-ya moments or group hugs. What was done is done & those with the pointy hats are too proud.
The "long & ugly" comes from a friend who attended a BOD mtg & this thread was brought up & termed, "long & ugly." But this is fine. It seems everyone else in the real world has moved on to greener pastures while they still have the same life, shrouded by horse shows. I would certainly reconsider my goals if mid-life years revolved around the next horse show....

centsohuma
Jan. 24, 2007, 07:57 PM
Never fear - my "huma' is firmly intact - it's a survival skill acquired many years ago. :rolleyes:

Something ASB said one "post" ago got me thinking and I'm offering a challenge.

ASB is quite correct - if this thread is "long and ugly" (by the way, that quote is in their november minutes - finally posted on their website) then please, someone with an opposing view, please jump into this forum and tell us where we've got it wrong. We're all ears and eyes :D

Ugly, also defined as offensive or displeasing - I can well understand it being displeasing to some. Offensive? Well, that's another matter. The entire year of 2004 was an offense to many - some deserved, some not. Again, it's all in your point of view.

Depending on recent decisions made things could go well or get real "ugly/displeasing" in a hurry;) , if you catch my drift.

This thread was started by someone legitimately questioning a non-profit's business practices, etc. Underline "questioning" here - not accusing, not threatening, not offensive. It got feathers ruffled and caused many among us to wonder why. Not that long ago I posted and asked how a member was to be aware of club business should they desire to voice an opinion and concern. Now the minutes are on the club's website, and according to the 11/07 minutes they are to be included in their newsletter as well. That is a good thing is it not? And thank you to the person who voiced the concern to the bod. That is positive.

I do encourage readers to log onto the website and read the minutes in their entirety. There are a few things of concern to members from my perspective.
One that stood out was the president's request for the bod to consider amending their by-laws so that review and approval of contracts by the bod not be a requirement. :eek: Are there not numerous references in these very posts regarding a contract dispute(s) that went wrong due to lack of bod input and/or knowledge? Granted, DAD had to generate the majority of contracts and they're gone. But why would it be wise and/or prudent to set the club up for similar circumstances with its other committees and events? Is it so much effort for the bod to act like a bod and review business in the form of contracts or anything else that ranks higher than will there or won't there be a newsletter this month?:sigh:

I also noted the club is still operating at a deficit - apologies in advance to the treasurer who posted here a while back - but a deficit is a deficit is a deficit no matter how your cash flows. And while this may be a "displeasing/ugly" comment to some, painting stripes on a horse and calling it a zebra isn't a worthwhile endeavor. Rather, think of some fund-raising events or ways to raise funds WITHIN your existing events to get into black territory. Closing clinics to "members only" and pilfering the ed. coffer to buy chips and sodas is not the path to solvency. There are many ways to make money within a club.

How you ask? I stop just short of telling them - after all, aren't these people the smartest people in the world or so they'd have us believe? :p

ASB Stars
Jan. 24, 2007, 09:04 PM
I agree completely with your post. :yes:

Could you please post link to the minutes?

I'm am no where near as smart as those folks, so I need better directions! :uhoh:

centsohuma
Jan. 24, 2007, 09:51 PM
ASB -

Web address is www.DVCTA.org

Then you need to click on "About the Club" - then "DVCTA Officials" - "Club Minutes" - and Voila! You've arrived! Welcome to the Merry Ol Land of Oz :p

Happy Reading - while there give my best regards to the Cowardly Lion, Scarecrow, the little Munchkins, and don't forget Toto, chunky little pooch that one! :rolleyes:

workinprogress
Jan. 25, 2007, 09:55 AM
Cents -

Thank you so much for your excellent directions. Being geographically challenged, I would have never found that on my own. All "huma" aside, I do agree with you on your point. The BOD can't seriously be considering approving people signing contracts without BOD approval!! Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!!

The BOD is responsible for every piece of business that goes on. Claiming "I don't know" is not an excuse that will fly anywhere. Is there anyone who would sign a lease on a car without reading it? Would anyone sign an agreement to pay someone money out of their own pocket without reading the agreement to see what they are getting in return for that payment?? Are they planning to cross their fingers and hope for the best???

Canterznomore
Jan. 25, 2007, 10:19 AM
Cents -

Thank you so much for your excellent directions. Being geographically challenged, I would have never found that on my own. All "huma" aside, I do agree with you on your point. The BOD can't seriously be considering approving people signing contracts without BOD approval!! Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!!

The BOD is responsible for every piece of business that goes on. "I don't know" is not an excuse that will fly anywhere. Is there anyone who would sign a lease on a car without reading it? Would anyone sign an agreement to pay someone money out of their own pocket without reading the agreement to see what they are getting in return for that payment?? Are they planning to cross their fingers and hope for the best???

WIP,
Thank you for grasping the point regarding bod abdication - they'll do it once again, apparently, if the reigning pontiff has her way:eek:
Claiming "I don't know" may become their official motto :winkgrin: After all,
it worked when committing the club to $$$ to USDF. If I recall the tale, when the head honcho was asked why the gmo had not been informed of the pledge, PRIOR to it's occurance the response was, and I quote: "I didn't think it was important..."

SOME of the bod at that time didn't seem all too upset about it - evidently they were of the mindset that allowing someone to commit them to a loan without their prior knowledge or consent is just ducky :rolleyes:

Then the steamrollers were fired up and the rest is, as they say, history. :dead:

Now it may just be that the lemmings are lining up to play follow the leader off the cliff of her choosing :eek: Do lemmings fly???? :p


I rest my case:yes:

saddlesurfer
Jan. 25, 2007, 10:29 AM
...seems that a certain bod member "pointed out", minutes should only contain topics worthy of votes or motions. All other topics discussed are, I'm guessing, classified info for only bod ears? Once again, history repeats itself. ...disclose what you want them to know. The minutes should contain all topics discussed & without censorship.

What have they NOT learned from the past, allowing contracts to pass by the bod without full approval? I understand it can be time consuming, contacting each bod member (if the issue is time sensitive & can't wait till the next bod mtg) but is this not how DAD fell into the legal mire with the last lawsuit? The contract was rushed through without all appropriate eyes seriously viewing it?
So how are they to distinguish which contract needs full approval? Judges contracts or food vendors for FH? It makes no difference. For once, size is not important. Either can land you in an attorney's office & right now, DVCTA has only lint in their pockets.

centsohuma
Jan. 25, 2007, 07:50 PM
Kudos to SS, WIP, and Canterz for not needing a dollar to buy the clue. Yup, you guys are right on.

When it's all said and done, maybe, just maybe the truly guilty party here was the parent and not the child if I may quote an analogy used regarding the entities within this thread.

After all, a child grown into adulthood without proper supervision, oversight, guidance, and at times correction grows up to be a spoiled brat. :uhoh:

Sound familiar?

The parents may be well on their way to paving the road for future errant children.

Quoth Homer - D'oh, now how'd that happen??????? BARTTTTT!!!!

angeloflite
Jan. 25, 2007, 08:02 PM
I just had to log on and say you guys are my nightly entertainment.:winkgrin:

Y'all make me laugh till I cry:lol:

Saturday Night Live could use you on their staff. Keep up the postings. I'd read this stuff even if the Chronicle starts charging a fee:eek:

Gonna go nite nite now. :sleepy:

ASB Stars
Jan. 25, 2007, 09:24 PM
First off, I wasn't sure you had serious exposure to the child I used to refer to as "spawn of satan", until now. Obviously, y'all have more than a passing acquaintance with the fellow. :yes:

On a more somber note...

I was watching an interview with Oprah, where the interviewer asked what the most important thing that Maya Angelou had told her, was.

Oprah looked right at the interviewer, and said, "when someone shows you who they are, believe them."

How simple. How eloquent. How true. :yes:

We've seen who they are- do they not look at one another? Does it just not matter when people are morally and ethically bankrupt, anymore? Or isit just that old feeling of, "well, they did it to (your name here), but they would NEVER do it to me." :eek:

Uh huh... :uhoh: