Re: [PyrNet-L] GPCA membership protest

[Impyrial@aol.com]

To the PyrNet-L
I am sorry for how out of control this has gotten.  Everyone is entitled to
their opinion and has the right to view their "side" of the issues. All of
these wonderful, juicy and gossipy posts are great reading but have nothing to
do with the purpose of the letter to the GPCA membership or the real issues at
hand.  I would also like to publicly apologize to the membership and the board
of directors as I never imagined that by voicing an opinion things could be
taken so out of context. I refuse to respond point by point to the repeated
and continued allegations of Tim Parks.  I don't want to waste any more of
your time or my energy. 
To reiterate the purpose of the letter and the facts of the "case":
1.  A protest was made against a member arguing an issue of ownership.
(Remember - this was not a Code of Ethics protest - but a membership protest)
2.  The Board of Directors appointed a committee which included one board
member and 2 other GPCA members.
3.  The Committee had all the facts and the relevant information regarding the
protest and submitted a very lengthy report to the board of directors stating
that this was not an issue for the GPCA to deal with, the GPCA has no right to
determine issues of ownership and that the protest should not be upheld.
4.  Despite the committees strong and factual letter a "secret" ballot of the
board was taken and the majority of the board voted to dismiss the protest.
5.  In cases of membership protests a 2/3 vote is needed and the applicant was
denied membership to the GPCA even though they received a majority vote of the
board of directors.

In the meantime, people are being publicly defamed and slandered by
individuals who are only privy to select parts of the information.  The
information that was presented to the committee and the board consisted of
legal documents and transcripts that have set precedence in issues as these
along with written proof that clearly proved the case.
It is sad that so many are so willing to confuse the issues (as we have been
accused of when in reality we were only presenting facts without the gossipy
details) with all this gossip when we only wanted the membership to be aware
of what we felt was an injustice to an individual.  The person denied
membership has grown up with Pyrenees and has always loved, protected and
acted in the best interests of the breed.  It is sad that a personal
disagreement between two individuals should prevent someone from being an
active member of the club that represents the breed that she loves so much.
Karen Justin