Welcome One and All
The simple story follows. Everything is included in the additional pages and club members, new member applicants and the general public are invited to read and share at will.
What happened to the Defendant's cannot be misconstrued....the grievance was improperly filed, improperly upheld, improperly heard, and improperly adjudicated, a personal vendetta, upheld by an insulated group of Board Members. The Board ignored Club Constitution and Bylaws in order to ramrod through a personal agenda to silence critics and send an unmistakable message to the membership.
If you would have been a defendant, would any of this be acceptable to you?
GrievanceLetter.pdfGrievance letter sent to Wendy Schneider, Jann Selleck, Margaret Lehmberg and Angela Sparks (3 pages)
THE FINAL RESPONSE TO THE DPCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS.pdfResponse to the grievance as presented, provided to the board before noon the day of the hearing (9/14/21) per Board instructions and was offered as the Defendant's complete defense to the Grievance. (19 Pages)
Grievance Decision.pdfThe four Defendants were found "guilty of all charges" in time to prepare a next-day formal notification without a signature. Specific charges against each Defendant was not discussed or adjudicated. All defendants MUST be found guilty on ALL charges in order for the plaintiff to recover their $500.00 filing fee. Evidence of our "guilt" offered by Denise Mormon-Rohweder was 100% "hearsay". She testified that when she called people to remind them their dues had not yet been paid, they told her "We're not re-joining because of what we read on The Focus". There was zero evidence offered supporting the ridiculous charge of "harassment in the workplace".
Elaine Hopper's Facebook Page AFTER the Grievance Decision
Shortly after the hearing concluded, DPCA's 2nd VP (Elaine Hopper) and Treasurer (Linda Zaeske) engaged in a "grievance worthy" public conversation about members and non-members of the club. How do these two posts reflect on the Board of the DPCA? That is for you to decide.
When power corrupts, it corrupts absolutely.
Conclusion
Because no previous Grievance in past history has EVER been presented or handled as this one was.... a new precedent HAS been set.
The actions of this Board have made it possible for future Board's to ignore DPCA established rules and required practices (i.e. Dispute Resolution Process) as well as mandates clearly outlined in the DPCA Constitution and By-Laws and the Administrative Procedures Manual.
Never in the history of DPCA's Grievance Procedure has an entire Board served a Defendant with a Grievance Notification that did not include the name and signature of the Plaintiff.
Never in the history of DPCA's Grievance Procedure has a Board agreed to entertain a combined complaint against four separate Defendants which neglected to assign and/or reveal charges and specifications applicable to each Defendant. Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution only says "Any member may prefer charges against **a** member for alleged misconduct...".
Never in the history of the DPCA's Grievance Procedure has a Board accepted a complaint against an individual minus a portion of the $500 filing fee. Four Defendants at $500 per complaint = $2,000.00. The Board refused to answer repeated questions in relation to the filing fee. Why? Why not confirm it was $2,000.00? It is hard to understand why that information wasn't disseminated when requested.
Never in the history of the DPCA's Grievance Procedure has a Board accepted and agreed to entertain a complaint filed by an OFFICER of the Board using an "alias" name; a name completely unknown to the Defendants, the DPCA Membership and not listed in the MRD or used in conjunction with any DPCA business. This Board became aware of Denise Mormon's name change at the August 10th Board meeting but did not reveal that information to the Defendants until just before the Hearing (on September 14th) and did not publish the name change on the official DPCA website until weeks after the notification was sent to each defendant.
Never in the history of the DPCA's Grievance Procedure has a Board intentionally withheld information significant to the Defendant's ability to defend themselves at the Hearing.
Never in the history of the DPCA's Grievance Procedure has a Board changed the protocol and original information sent or transmitted to the Defendants - just hours before the hearing began....which finally included which Charges applied to which defendant.
Never in the history of the DPCA's Grievance Procedure has a Board appointed itself, in its entirety, to adjudicate a Grievance brought by a member of their group under an alias name known only to them; or allowed the entire Board to be present such a hearing AND to Adjudicate the proceedings.
Never in the history of the DPCA's Grievance Procedure has a Board issued and sent a "verdict" less than 12 hours after the hearing was adjourned.
Never in the history of the DPCA's Grievance Procedure has a Board returned a Plaintiff's $500.00 filing fee without proof and specifications for ALL charges levied against the Defendants.
Never in the history of the DPCA's Grievance Procedure has a Board accepted "hearsay" testimony in place of documented specifications supporting the charges against each defendant.
And NEVER in the history of the DPCA's Grievance Procedure have four members of the club been disciplined to the maximum allowed - 6 months suspension and $1,000.00 fine (EACH) - for expressing their thoughts and opinions about the management of the DPCA in a private FACEBOOK group not associated with the DPCA.
It is a sad and embarrassing day for the Doberman Pinscher Club of America because this Grievance brings with it an undeniable reality:
This Board - and now in fact - ANY future Board has a clear and protected path to impose its will on the membership it was elected to 'serve' - without regard for the rules, common decency, fairness or personal ethics.
If it happened to you, would it be acceptable?