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?