Page 1 of 2
Pat Cornelius to Cheri McNealy About Eve Auch 5/13/2015
What happened with Eve all those years ago - happened just as I said it did - and here's another credible person stepping forward to validate
those facts. So now you have it from several sources - people who, on their worst day -??- or their best -??- could not be mistaken for "lemmings"
of mine; or "minions"; or "without two brain cells to rub together"; or "one of the usual suspects". Now you know *where* the rumor "Cheri
vowed to destroy/take down the DPCA" came from....and I don't think its all that difficult to figure out the "why" of it. For 30 something years I
was an interested, engaged and contributing member of DPCA and for even longer, I have been an advocate for and lover of the Doberman
Pinscher. In word and deed. To a fault sometimes. Try as some might - and they've tried very hard for a very long time -- my TRUE history with
the DPCA and the breed can't be erased or re- written by figments of anyone's imagination. There, but for the Grace of God - go any of you....and
on its face, that should scare the living crap out of everybody. Thanks for your patience and please feel free to share. --- Cheri McNealy
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Pat Murphy [email protected]
To: Cheri McNealy [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 6:41 PM
Subject: Eve Auch and her removal as ROM Coordinator and Futurity Director
Cheri
Since I see my name coming up concerning this issue YET AGAIN, I am sending this to you and asking that you
please post it.
I am tired of the record not accurately reflecting the events.
As you know, Eve Auch held TWO appointed positions for the DPCA back in 1999. Futurity Director and
ROM coordinator. These positions were the equivalent of committee chairperson positions – ie. she SERVED
AT THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD. Following receipt of complaints to various Directors, I was asked by the
BOARD in May of 1999 to investigate the allegation that she had abused her positions. I was also asked to
report to the board in writing with the results of that investigation. I was on the board at the time. This was in
essence an issue of “employee retention” and thus would have been normally dealt with via executive session
with only the motions arising from that executive session being reported out to the membership. I wrote a
six page, single spaced report which consisted primarily of the “testimony” in the form of written
statements from the parties who were complaining and/or my summaries of my telephone interviews of
other complainants.
Neither you nor Linda Hoff (now Siegel) were among the people interviewed or whose complaints were
reported on. In fact, I told you and Linda I did not want to talk to you, I wanted to talk to the folks who had
actually complained to the board.
As part of my report, I also made certain recommendations, in the form of proposed motions, and after
consulting with other board members, advised that all the motions would receive seconds and identifying
which board members would second these motions. Three different board members indicated their
willingness to second these motions.
After that information was disclosed to the board, it was my understanding that David Horton spoke with Eve
and later indicated to the board that she elected to resign the above positions. Thus, the motions were never
made and never had to be reported out. There was no need to file a grievance; the proper procedure was
followed and in fact this matter was handled more delicately than the “executive session” that occurred at
the Pomona Nationals two years ago to discuss Jeff Helsdon’s nomination of me for ROM committee chair in
which my alleged inadequacies were apparently discussed in “executive session” without my ever being
notified of whatever those inadequacies were (let alone being given an opportunity to address whatever the
Page 2 of 2
Pat Cornelius to Cheri McNealy About Eve Auch 5/13/2015
concerns were) and then reported out in the form of public minutes with my name included. To this day I
have never been told what the issues were - other than that supposedly I didn’t do something I was supposed
to do – wonder what??. But now there is forever a record in the DPCA minutes of my being turned down
by the board for a committee chair position which I would have been proud to hold, and as to which I had
many ideas that I hoped would improve the program. I was turned down without explanation despite having
chaired numerous committees for the DPCA as well as serving on the Board as recording secretary, filling in for
Vic as corresponding secretary when he was ill, and serving as Chapter Club secretary when it was still called
that, as well as serving as a director for more years than I can now remember. Because of the executive
session, the decision not to accept my nomination made it appear as though I had done something wrong or
that I was incapable of handling the job.
In the past, while serving under four different presidents, the norm for committee appointments was for the
board to discuss the president’s recommendations and then – if there was an issue with a recommended
appointee – discuss with the president a different appointment – not plaster that proposed appointee’s name
all over the minutes as part of an executive session that makes the appointee appear to be the Darth Vader of
the DPCA.
Of course, now that I see what is being written about the UDC, I suspect where some of the issues may lie,
having been a founder of that organization and also having served as a founding board member. It appears
that devotion to betterment of temperament as well as structure and health is not viewed as favorably as I
had hoped it would be by all breeders, though I know there are MANY out there who aspire to that goal and
on the occasions when I have done an evaluation and have had the opportunity to discuss with those
breeders after the fact their goals and aspirations, I do all that I can to encourage as much education as
possible about temperament as well as the other aspects of the “total” doberman.
I continue to watch with complete dismay the factionalization of the DPCA. This is occurring from the top, not
from within, and it is a shame. IT COULD BE STOPPED WITH APPROPRIATE LEADERSHIP. It is impossible to
protect this breed, and to serve the purposes that are contained within the constitution and by laws of the
DPCA if you are not willing to listen to different points of view and at least respect that person’s perspective,
even though you may not agree with it. The best example that I can think of is how saddened I was when
Naomi Shorr passed, having served for many years with Naomi on the board and having enjoyed her prickly
personality, even though at times her prickles were directed at lawyers in general and me in particular. Naomi
had a unique voice which the DPCA is sorely missing, at this point. She was always a strong advocate for her
position, but she did it in such a way that you had to admire how she could get her point across – even though
you didn’t agree with it – with respect and with force. She never bludgeoned anyone into having to accept her
point of view; she used persuasion and reason – something which is sorely lacking at present. I hope that
members of the DPCA will look to the many “old timers” who have counseled moderation and inclusion,
not the “off with their heads” Alice in Wonderland rhetoric that is being bandied about by those who have
what is hopefully a temporary “bully pulpit”.
You have permission to post this to Cyberdobes and to cross-post as appropriate.
Pat Murphy Cornelius