This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Dog1 on 23 February 2014 - 03:02
Bubba,
If what you say is true; why doesn't Dan just send the GSDCA an itemized list of costs? Maybe what the WDA has is legit. Shouldn't the GSDCA have a chance to review it before legal action is necessary?
If what you say is true; why doesn't Dan just send the GSDCA an itemized list of costs? Maybe what the WDA has is legit. Shouldn't the GSDCA have a chance to review it before legal action is necessary?
by Mystere on 23 February 2014 - 05:02
e
Even a second grader understands the concept of reimbursement for expenses, and that the claim for such expenses must be accompanied by receipts. Mr. Yee is an attorney and member of the California bar. I am, therefore, certain that he understands how reimbursement and receipts work.
Even a second grader understands the concept of reimbursement for expenses, and that the claim for such expenses must be accompanied by receipts. Mr. Yee is an attorney and member of the California bar. I am, therefore, certain that he understands how reimbursement and receipts work.
by bubbabooboo on 23 February 2014 - 15:02
I don't know what Dan Yee knows .. any claim for reimbursement can be picked apart and disallowed however .. The GSDCA owes GSDCA-WDA what it cost to get the WUSV 2013 done successfully .. if that includes some beers and some extra rental cars to get the job done then so be it. The GSDCA agreed to host the 2013 WUSV, it's their party and they pay. I once had an expense report refused for taking a client to dinner and paying for both the client and his wife's dinner .. the corporate d*ck heads and bean counters had a new rule that we could pay for dinner for a client but not for his wife or his family members as an expense report business expense. My relationship with this client needed to include his wife as she was a major player in his business decisions so that when I invited him out to dinner she was always included. I was never ever going to ask this client to pay for his wife's meal so he never heard me say " please pay for your wife's meal as my company won't pay for her meal". Eventually the bean counters changed the rule back to something sane which was for the company rep to use good judgement about what needed to get done in those situations and do what served the company's best interest. I assume that Dan Yee and the GSDCA-WDA VOLUNTEERS did what they thought was in the best interest of making the 2013 WUSV a success and they did what was required by the real boss of the event the WUSV to meet their standards and procedures. I also assume that Dan is doing what is in the best interest of the GSDCA-WDA in not letting the GSDCA drop half the tab on the GSDCA-WDA after they paid $100K of the bill and now can't get the money back several months after the money was spent. If the GSDCA isn't happy with the 2013 WUSV costs that is a shame but they knew going in the WUSV 2013 was likely going to lose money .. just not how much. Now they know!!
by gck on 23 February 2014 - 17:02
This is classic Yee. Never miss an opportunity for personal profit, whether financial or raw power. If challenged, threaten to sue.
I have detailed documentation for the following examples, but paint them here only in broad strokes: 1) $1,000+ in personal "profit" from importing Chinese 2008 NASS trophies ("Smoking Gun" email from Yee himself); 2) Yee's 2009 NASS scheme for an URMA-style book. That episode was partially played out on this forum. In short, to ENTER the 2009 NASS (held in California), owners were required to first surrender ALL rights of publicity and privacy for their dogs--FOREVER--to Yee to produce the "book". After a certain number of years, he would make a minimal donation back to the WDA. 3) Yee's "service dog" scam: Take your personal "service dog" to small LA Chinese restaurants. If they refuse the dog's entry, threaten to sue, then "settle" for a $5,000 "donation" to your local Schutzhund Club. When the members of that club refuse to elect you President, demand your $$ back, and do all in your power to destroy that club. 4) In the aftermath of Danny Spreitler's resignation as WDA President (which happened via email within 5 minutes after the Hearing Committee refused to "indict" Yee on example #1 because of sloppy WDA accounting practices), Yee, who was no longer a WDA Officer, sent emails to Munsinger and her personal IT consultant trying to re-activate his old password (2009 NASS) to the WDA on-line banking system. Munsinger left print-outs of these exchanges (and many others) on the table at the close of the Portland, OR meeting. Why would Yee either want or be entitled to access the WDA on-line banking system? 5) In 2011, threaten to sue WDA if a member, previously sanctioned by WDA according to due process was not reinstated, and timing same to specifically threaten WDA insurance renewal. Reward that sanctioned member with promises of a WUSV 2013 position.
Maybe the WDA has improved it's financial rigor since I was privileged to detailed infomation. Only current members can say for sure. But as of 2010, a formal WDA audit was conducted by an accounting firm "not independent" from WDA (in other words, tied to Munsinger). Deficient accounting practices were cited there, too.
The current WDA Colorado Counsel in the WDA dispute with GSDCA also has personal ties to Munsinger. In short, my personal experience with this attorney, via my own Colrado Non-Profit Counsel, is that they "Negotiate in Bad Faith".
So, to my mind, the GSDCA is correct to demand full and responsible accounting from the WDA re: WUSV 2013 and, especially, to call the bluff of Yee's serial "Law Suit Threat" tactics. Sources who know say that WDA current membership is at only 550+. Despite member requests, no detailed financial information is available from WDA.
I have detailed documentation for the following examples, but paint them here only in broad strokes: 1) $1,000+ in personal "profit" from importing Chinese 2008 NASS trophies ("Smoking Gun" email from Yee himself); 2) Yee's 2009 NASS scheme for an URMA-style book. That episode was partially played out on this forum. In short, to ENTER the 2009 NASS (held in California), owners were required to first surrender ALL rights of publicity and privacy for their dogs--FOREVER--to Yee to produce the "book". After a certain number of years, he would make a minimal donation back to the WDA. 3) Yee's "service dog" scam: Take your personal "service dog" to small LA Chinese restaurants. If they refuse the dog's entry, threaten to sue, then "settle" for a $5,000 "donation" to your local Schutzhund Club. When the members of that club refuse to elect you President, demand your $$ back, and do all in your power to destroy that club. 4) In the aftermath of Danny Spreitler's resignation as WDA President (which happened via email within 5 minutes after the Hearing Committee refused to "indict" Yee on example #1 because of sloppy WDA accounting practices), Yee, who was no longer a WDA Officer, sent emails to Munsinger and her personal IT consultant trying to re-activate his old password (2009 NASS) to the WDA on-line banking system. Munsinger left print-outs of these exchanges (and many others) on the table at the close of the Portland, OR meeting. Why would Yee either want or be entitled to access the WDA on-line banking system? 5) In 2011, threaten to sue WDA if a member, previously sanctioned by WDA according to due process was not reinstated, and timing same to specifically threaten WDA insurance renewal. Reward that sanctioned member with promises of a WUSV 2013 position.
Maybe the WDA has improved it's financial rigor since I was privileged to detailed infomation. Only current members can say for sure. But as of 2010, a formal WDA audit was conducted by an accounting firm "not independent" from WDA (in other words, tied to Munsinger). Deficient accounting practices were cited there, too.
The current WDA Colorado Counsel in the WDA dispute with GSDCA also has personal ties to Munsinger. In short, my personal experience with this attorney, via my own Colrado Non-Profit Counsel, is that they "Negotiate in Bad Faith".
So, to my mind, the GSDCA is correct to demand full and responsible accounting from the WDA re: WUSV 2013 and, especially, to call the bluff of Yee's serial "Law Suit Threat" tactics. Sources who know say that WDA current membership is at only 550+. Despite member requests, no detailed financial information is available from WDA.
by susie on 23 February 2014 - 17:02
For Mystere: Gernot Riedel, San Jose
by tanksr on 23 February 2014 - 18:02
Bubbaboo, that's not exactly how it went. Let me clarify.
1) For reimbursement of most of the money the GSDCA-WDA seeks all they have to do is provide receipts. It's that simple. Any claim for reimbursement always includes receipts. You didn't turn in your expense account without receipts.
2) For some of the other expenses they were told in advance, in writting, that the GSDCA would not reimburse. GSDCA-WDA should not expect to be reimbursed for other expenses they were told in advance, in writting, that the GSDCA would not pay.
3) The GSDCA is not unhappy with the costs. They knew well in advance what it was going to cost and how much and have no problem with legitimate expenses.
4) The GSDCA is not "dropping the tab" on anybody. If these are legitimate expenses then just turn in the receipts.
1) For reimbursement of most of the money the GSDCA-WDA seeks all they have to do is provide receipts. It's that simple. Any claim for reimbursement always includes receipts. You didn't turn in your expense account without receipts.
2) For some of the other expenses they were told in advance, in writting, that the GSDCA would not reimburse. GSDCA-WDA should not expect to be reimbursed for other expenses they were told in advance, in writting, that the GSDCA would not pay.
3) The GSDCA is not unhappy with the costs. They knew well in advance what it was going to cost and how much and have no problem with legitimate expenses.
4) The GSDCA is not "dropping the tab" on anybody. If these are legitimate expenses then just turn in the receipts.
by SitasMom on 23 February 2014 - 21:02
official gsdca-wda (facebook) has a post explaining many of the issues and also what GSDCA is refusing to reinburse...
by bubbabooboo on 23 February 2014 - 21:02
The courts will decide what was legitimate based on the contract that the GSDCA had with the WUSV. This is not the first time a primary contractor (GSDCA) has tried to hang a subcontractor (GSDCA-WDA) out to dry by refusing to pay after the job was completed by the subcontractor.
by Mystere on 24 February 2014 - 11:02
Susie,
Thank you. I could not remember the first name to save my life!! :-)
Thank you. I could not remember the first name to save my life!! :-)
by Keith Grossman on 24 February 2014 - 14:02
"official gsdca-wda (facebook) has a post explaining many of the issues and also what GSDCA is refusing to reinburse..."
As explained by one of the complicit parties? Seriously?
As explained by one of the complicit parties? Seriously?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
