Re: [PyrNet-L] GPCA membership protest

["Timothy M. Parks" <timparks@pacbell.net>]

>Mr. Parks,
>You may know how to do websites and register domain names but, other than
>that, Mr. Parks, you know nothing of what you speak!
>Bill Coffman

>Jen: 
>None of what you have written is true and it shows how little you know 
>about this issue. 
>Victoria Coffman

>That is a very interesting story but obviously you only have one side of 
>the issue, and I don't believe you have ever spoken to the other party, 
>have you???? 
>Carrie Coffman

I for one, would vote for enlightenment.....

Bill,  I can understand your anger and your defense for your family.  
I don't have anything against your family of Donna, Carrie, Victoria,
or her friend Karen Justin.  But I can't let this go by without 
speaking up for the real Victim here.  That would be the original 
owner of this kennel.  May I remind you that it was Donna Coffman 
and Karen Justin who authored the letter defaming the GPCA board 
members, and sending it to everyone in the club, making this a very 
public issue.  Again, it was Karen Justin who posted the letter on 
this list.  This brings it to the forefront, but nothing is being said 
except accusations that the board reacted incompetently.  There 
seems to be a repeat of statements by your family that no one knows 
what is going on, but doesn't bring anymore facts to the issue, yet your 
family has made this very public and solicits for GPCA member's 
sympathies.   Why not along with your accusations, make your views 
known, instead of trying to discredit anyone who differs with your 
viewpoint, which includes the decision of the board members of GPCA.
This was the same tactic another "Bill C." took.  The owner of the 
kennel is not on this list and can not defend herself in this very 
public manner. 

Please add or subtract any of these facts as you see fit before you ask 
members for their sympathy:

1)  The original owner started this kennel 33 years ago

2)  Donna Coffman became a partner at some point later

3)  During this time, Donna's daughter, Victoria, writes a webpage
      for representation of the kennel, but registers it in her own name.

4)  Because of differences that don't really matter, they
      decide to go their separate ways

5)  After the agreed separation, the original owner signs over her
      rights to co-owned dogs and fully expected the website to be
      handed over in return.  This is where the owner probably
      failed to protect herself by signing away her rights too quickly.

6)  After considerable time,  Victoria finally announces that she is 
      not going to turn over the website.

7)  There is now a suggestion made to the owner that more money
      needs to be paid before the website can be turned over.

8)  The original owner, in an attempt to handle this without court
      action, asked the GPCA not to allow the application unless the
      the domain name and website are turned over.  Feeling that
      she has compensated enough.  
 
9)  Victoria has decided that the website and domain name are more 
      important.  After failure to obtain a 2/3 vote,  Donna Coffman 
      and Karen Justin write a protest letter defaming the GPCA and 
      claiming an injustice was done.  Also claiming that the GPCA 
      did not know the facts either.  They send this letter to members
      of GPCA.  Karen goes on to post the letter on this list.
     
10) The original owner now has full control of her kennel but
       does not have access to the old website to make changes as she
       sees fit or to see over her email or to remove the ex-partners 
       name. 

11) In fact, the website is now in control of someone who can be 
       considered at odds with the owner.
      
The website was made to represent the kennel, not Victoria.
For what reason does Victoria wish to keep it from the owner?  
I would not want to list all the advantages that this would give her. 
I believe the owner has the right to have her business represented
the way she chooses.  If Victoria felt that she was unfairly
compensated, she should have taken this up during completion
of the website, not after the separation of the partnership.
I do confess that Victoria is the registered owner of that website,
however, this does not make her the rightful owner.  This is where
the moral and ethical issue come in hand.  I commend the GPCA 
board members that stood up to ethical issues when it is all too easy to 
say "I don't want to get involved".

In my personal dealings with the owner to create a new domain name
and web page I found that she did not know anything about how she
could be taken advantage of, or how to protect herself.  And she now
finds herself with a very successful kennel and locked out of a 
webpage that purports to represent her.  Since she can not have 
control over this website and wishes it be taken off the net, does this 
not now become false representation of her business?

Since it is clear that Victoria refuses to give up the site and the owner
refuses to pay any more for the site, an amiable solution would be to at 
least remove it from the net, and the issue would go away, yet even this 
seems to be too much to ask...   

At this juncture I do not understand....
In the least, people considering having websites done should learn
something here.
  
Sincerely

Tim Parks