September 20, 2011
Mixed Breed Dog Clubs of America, Board of Directors
To: Board Members
Re: Complaint Dated June 27, 2011
Of course, I take issue with Lorraine’s slanderous, inflated and overly dramatic remarks made in her letter, and I will do my best to address Lorraine’s accusations paragraph by paragraph, line by line and word by word.
First paragraph:
“...On more than one occasion, displayed behavior that is not sportsmanlike and is not in the best interests of the Club. Prior to the latest incident.....”
She provides not a single piece of proof, evidence or documentation. Without any proof or evidence, her words are just that. Just words, and her own opinions and beliefs.
Second paragraph:
“....the delay in bringing the charges was to allow our Club to obtain insurance............as it is obvious that Ms. Phillips is a vindictive person and I would not wish myself.........”
Once again, no proof or evidence or documentation of her accusation is provided. More words, more beliefs and opinions.
Third paragraph:
“.......where she wished the BOD of CA of be disciplined or dismissed......”
I had every right to make a complaint to the National board, just as Lorraine is doing now. I witnessed actions by the California Board in 2007 and before, that concerned me deeply. I felt the future of the club was at stake and at risk of harming the club, and eventually affected the National Club as a whole. After the National Board’s decision to not hear my complaints because, according to them, they didn’t want to involve themselves in the matters of another chapter, I immediately requested to change my membership to National to remove and distance myself from the California Chapter, a decision that I uphold to this day.
There was not a shred of evil, as stated by Lorraine, in my reason to file a complaint. My concerns were strictly for the club and the future of mixed breeds to have their own club. At the risk of severing several long-term friendships, I separated myself from the club. To this day, I know it was the correct decision.
I find it totally silly and perplexing that Lorraine sees her complaint as valid, yet sees my complaint as a vindictive and a waste of the Board’s time.
Fourth paragraph:
“.........Jackie took offense at that and replied to me that she saw nothing wrong with the images.”
Once again, Lorraine’s perception of something, is compared to another’s perception. Again, Lorraine perceives herself as the person who is correct, and the other person as the evil, vindictive and offensive person.
I did send her the photos that I created, which were from a high quality cell phone, and she expressed her concerns and thought they were not appropriate since they were informal and in my yard with each dog next to each ribbon and trophy. At this point, I reminded her about all the shots by the show photographer, and told her there were a bunch she could use, if she wanted “professional” shots rather than the casual images I had sent her. I never heard back from her. I figured she went with the professional images.
Paragraph Five:
“Ms. Phillips has set a pattern of creating havoc and reacting in decidedly unsportsmanlike fashion when she feels she............”
Once again, no proof or evidence is provided, and Lorraine continues her highly slanderous and overly dramatic and empty remarks and accusations based on her opinions and beliefs.
Paragraph Six:
The emails between Lorraine and myself in January were a private conversation between two adult people (or so I thought at that time), and were not intended to become public. However, if she wants to make them public, I will address them here. I was highly embarrassed for Lorraine for the remarks she made, but it is her choice to make the conversation public.
The conversation started with her asking about a document I sent to her, describing my dog’s, Dino, recent AKC RAE title, and that she could not read it. It began as a simple and common misunderstanding between two people when the article would appear in the newsletter.
I sent Lorraine the document for the newsletter over a month prior on January 1, 2011. I sent her the information to her with plenty of time to review it, in my belief, yet she waited for over a month to open it, or attempt to open it. When she could not open it, because I had not converted it to a Text document, she brought it my attention. She told me she was working on the next newsletter, and I thought she wanted the RAE article for the next newsletter since she was asking me about the article at that time. She never said, as I pointed out to her numerous times, that the next newsletter was only for the Specialty, and nothing else. Here is where the confusion continues, and the hostility begins on Lorraine’s part.
Lorraine’s email to me on February 13 clearly indicates where she turns the conversation hostile and vindictive all on her own. She becomes extremely offended at a simple question and confusion I had about not understanding why she waited a month to ask me about what I submitted. At this point, I attempt to continue to steer her back to the original email she sent me and what her original question was. I point out her original questions and what she was asking me and how I responded and was attempting to answer her questions. Even though I try to continue to bring her back to her original comments, she remains hostile and act as a victim, stating that she does not feel appreciated for everything she does to put out the newsletter. To this point, I never said anything to that matter. That is all Lorraine’s imagination. I am solely responding to her request to open the document.
One email I forwarded to her about the Sacramento Kennel Club was to prove to her that mixed breeds were still being prevented from showing, when Lorraine states in one of her emails, “Who is telling you now that you can’t compete with your mixes? Nobody!” I was showing her written proof that mix breeds were still being prevented from showing when she believed that was never happening. I told Lorraine that I thought she was out of touch with the mixed breed world, and I was showing her proof. Her anger, hostility and victim mentality escalated even higher at this point. It appears that she does not like to be proven incorrect or out of touch.
(As a side note, that same club is preventing mixed breeds from showing again in their upcoming trials in October. The problem persists.)
The email sent to her on March 6 named “Speak Out for Off Leash Walking” was mistakenly sent to her. I have a large “dog people” email group that I will, on occasion, send out dog related information. Lorraine was on the list and has been for many years. Not once has she ever questioned her inclusion on that list in the past. I forgot to remove her name from the list prior to sending it out. It was simply over looked. It was not the deceptive and devious move on my part to harass Lorraine, like she make everything out to be, and the poor victim she assigns to herself. It is obvious the email pertains to a subject that is to my local area, and does not pertain to her, yet she intentionally involves herself and then complains about it.
Paragraph Seven:
“.......or any of the people that Ms. Phillips has had altercations with.”
Once again, no proof has been provided. This is merely Lorraine’s opinion to prejudice the situation.
Paragraph Seven:
“....I fully believe that Ms. Phillips, should this case go against her,..........”
Once again, Lorraine is deciding the outcome ahead of time and predicting what she thinks I might do. How neutral and professional is that?
Paragraph Seven:
“I have served on the BOD for some years, and have personal relationships.....”
Once again, Lorraine is stating what she feels the outcome will already be before any decision is made, and she is predicting, as what she feels is an authority over myself, what I will do and why I will do it. I think that is called authoritarianism. Is that right to have an officer on the board with such skewed views?
I too have served on many, many dog club boards in my long history in showing dogs, including County Wide Dog Training Club in Santa Rosa, All Breed Lure Sports Association ( a founding member), San Francisco Dog Training Club, Mixed Breed Dog Club of California (Chris Dane was President for several years), and Trinity County Dog Training Club in Weaverville. In addition, I have been members of many clubs without being on the board including Disc Dogs of the Golden Gate
Paragraph Eight:
“I also know that the CA Chapter had issues with Ms. Phillips when she was a member...”
Lorraine is talking about concerns on my part about the California chapter from 2007 that are already closed, decided and set into storage, and I don’t feel it is necessary to bring back up. However, let it be known, I am remaining totally cooperative in this matter.
I will explain what happened in the past straight from the horse’s mouth, instead of the story from the watering hole that Lorraine has appears to prefer to regurgitate.
As stated above, I transferred my California membership to National because I was very concerned with how the California chapter was being run at that time. I expressed my concerns to the CA board and other members on numerous issues, which was headed by Betsy Jones at that time. Dawn Bushong was also a board member. I felt the club was heading in the wrong direction, at a detriment to the future of the club. I was not removed from the board. I simply was not allowed to run again for the next term. I was allowed to serve out my current term. It was very obvious to me and other club members who approached me afterwards, the inability imposed upon me to run again for the board, even though it was my full desire to remain on the board and help steer it correctly, was being forced due to the concerns I expressed about the future of the chapter, and the people running it.
Paragraph Eight:
“...since our current Club President is also the President....I am certain that Ms. Phillips will claim bias against her.”
Once again, Lorraine is guessing, incorrectly, at what I will and will not do.
I find Kitty Norwood to be one of the most competent and clear thinkers that this club, National and California, has ever had. We have been friends for a very long time, and I respect her abilities to do her duties for mixed breeds. I voted for her in every election, and I have seen evidence of her love and devotion to mixed breeds that equals my own, which is very high. She, by far, out weighs the abilities of Betsy Jones and Lorraine Peterson to do justice to the Mixed Breed Club. Kitty is free to make her own decision as she chooses. That is her position, and I will abide by what ever decision she makes. She has my full vote of confidence to do what is right for the future of this club and mixed breeds.
I am professional enough, having run my own full time business for several years, to be able to separate my business life from my personal life, and I would suggest that Lorraine learn this skill. She appears to be mixing her obvious personal distaste for me with her professional abilities to perform her duties as an officer of this club.
Paragraph Eight:
“...if she does not claim bias in my favor due to the length of time...”
As stated in her letter, Lorraine will not be involved in the outcome. She has proven she can not make an unbiased and neutral decision. Her personal feelings are way to strong and detrimental to making a just decision.
I also believe that Dawn Bushong and Betsy Jones should be removed from voting in this decision. I am not confident they can be unbiased and neutral in this matter since I was forced to make public complaints about their abilities to serve on the California board in 2007.
Paragraph Eight:
“.....Indeed, I would be surprised if Ms. Phillips does not claim bias on both counts.”
Once again, Lorraine is make a decision and stating exactly what she already firmly believe will be my response. Professional and unbiased?
Paragraph Eight:
“I do not know if having ......and it certainly is not a foregone conclusion.....I am just of the opinion that it might be good idea.....by considering that proposal.”
Let me state an obvious word that repeats in all of this matter: “opinion.” Lorraine’s letter and these accusations coming down to that one word: “opinion.” These are all Lorraine’s opinion and ideas and conjectures. She provides only here-say, her opinions and her beliefs to substantiate her claim of unsportsmanlike behavior, which is about as broad and general as saying somebody is “insubordinate.” She re-hashes very old club business that has already been settled, filed into storage and covered in dust. She supports her claim of unsportsmanlike behavior with emails that accuse me of unprofessional words, when she, in turn, used in her own words like “snotty crap” and “whining and bitching” to describe my response. Where is the professionalism and sportsmanlike behavior on her part?
In conclusion, it is obvious to me that Lorraine does not like me, and her remarks demonstrate an obvious and very strong distaste of me. This is very perplexing, since we have only personally met twice, and albeit briefly, at the Specialties in 2010 and 2007. In addition, I can not ever recall having a face to face conversation with Lorraine that goes beyond “good job” from performance in the ring. With that information, our only contact outside the Specialties has been through the newsletter. And, since I didn’t submit anything to the National newsletter for many years before submitting the recent article about Dino earning the first AKC RAE, it continues to perplex me to the fullest how Lorraine can hold a very deep and obvious dislike toward me, and I am very troubled why she has gone so far above and beyond her Officer duties to file this complaint against me. What one person would consider to be a conversation between two adults with different opinions (which is totally normal and common, in my belief), Lorraine has turned into an overly dramatic, multi-scene charade, where she plays the central victim queen and must take out anybody who rubs her the wrong way or disagrees with her beliefs.
Instead of Lorraine admitting that she was not clear in her initial instructions or directions, and that she might be acting a tad overly dramatic, she in turns, attempt to make somebody else appear to be the villein in her story, instead of accepting responsibility for her own actions, which a normal, adult human being would do in this case.
Sincerely,
Jackie Phillips
