Interim report following the Reno Meeting,

Interim report following the Reno Meeting, March 1996
The Unification Effort ...
Where it stands at this point in time.

At the January, 1996, Llama Assembly, the Unification Working Group (UWG) gave its considered report including recommendations for subsequent action. The UWG asked that a Steering Committee be appointed whose charge would be to organize a Congress that would focus on the creation of a new, unified organization based upon the merger of the ILA, the ILR and ALSA as outlined in their (the UWG) Final Report.

Their recommendation that such a Steering Committee be comprised of officers of ILA, ILR and ALSA was expanded by consensus of the membership of Llama Assembly '96 to include representatives from LANA, RMLA, AOBA and CLA as equal participants.

In February of 1996, the Unification Steering Committee had one telephone conference call. The decision was made to meet face-to-face at a date when each of the seven member organizations could be represented by at least one person - no easy task! It was also determined that an operating fund would be established with each member-group contributing $300.00.

The Committee met in Reno the last weekend in March with six of the seven-member organizations represented (CLA was unable to attend at the last moment). Present were: ALSA - Tony Rollins, AOBA - Allan Dewald, ILR - Kathi McKinney, ILA - Jack Moore, LANA - Nelson Leonard and Marilyn Milton, and RMLA Linda Kyriopoulos and Bob Riley. Each organization represented could express one vote, regardless of representation.

To provide direction, the Committee adopted the following as its interpretation of its mission: "The Committee agrees that there is a need to continue, enhance and expand ongoing cooperation within the lama community."

Following extended dialogue, the Committee came to the conclusion that if the UWG's Final Report statement, "Without the cooperation of the ILR, there will be no unification", was accepted at face value, a negative TLSC vote on the merger of ILR, ILA and ALSA would effectively terminate the current pursuit of unification and this group could adjourn.

The consensus of the Committee was that industry unification based upon the premise of merger of the three major organizations was not possible at this time.

TLSC felt there were many factors leading to such a conclusion, preeminent among which were widespread distrust, hostility, and printed and widely-circulated charges and counter charges that seriously and negatively affected what was proposed as "unity". It is difficult to recall any other issue that has divided this community as has, ironically, Unification"!

The Committee did feel, however, that it was critical that continued efforts at closer industry cooperation be pursued leading to a positive and attainable format that, while perhaps not as revolutionary as "merger", could place the components of the industry closer to the goal of unity sought by most.

If not "merger" then what?

With the "window of merger opportunity" lowered, discussion centered on clarifying "needs" or problem areas facing the lama community, relying heavily on groundwork provided by the Strategic Planning group and the Unification Working group. Concentration now focused on problems negatively impacting the lama and its owner ... problems that had a fighting chance of resolution. Could these needs or problems be best served by cooperative and unified efforts of organizations on local, regional, national and special-interest levels?

The perennial problem of consistent and renewable funding of (1) contesting governmental issues directly affecting the lama and its owner, and (2) research necessary for the health and welfare of the lama was the number one problem identified by TLSC. In the early years, funding of such universal endeavors was assumed to be the responsibility of the ILA, with support in varying degrees from other organizations and individuals.

In retrospect, a "bake sale" approach to the funding problem was regularly employed, with varying degrees of success, on a reactive basis ... in response to erupting crises. This is NOT to be interpreted as sarcasm in reference to the heroic efforts of individuals and groups who fought the brush fires and battles of the lama world over the years.

The Canyonlands issue reflects this historical approach to crises funding. We were very fortunate that "Canyonlands" erupted proximate to Llama Assembly '96, which provided a platform for presentation with a responsive audience representing concerned organizations and individuals. What if the Canyonlands issue (the llama as an alleged disease carrier) had to be presented to the entire community by mail or newsletter? Instant support generated at the ASSEMBLY enabled the appointed Task Force to move quickly and effectively with necessary financial backing and direction.

At this point in the Reno discussion, one member proposed that a "National Lama Trust Fund" be established. A Trust Fund with all organized entities within the community sharing in consistent and renewable funding which would be made available for the two identified major areas of need ... response to pertinent governmental issues and aggressive pursuit of necessary research. Brilliant ideal Where would we be now if such Trust Fund had been established and successfully administered ten or fifteen years ago? Some say it has been tried and it didn't work. If this is true, then let us profit from history, find out where there were problems, what worked and what didn't, then make certain the attempt is assiduously made to not repeat errors and to pursue successes.

Committee members representing ALSA, ILR, ILA, LANA and RMLA agreed to address the concept of developing a workable National Lama Trust Fund. All the members further agreed that all lama organizations would contribute to the Trust Fund on a fair and equitable basis. This was a major and very positive step forward confirming the underlying willingness of all lama organizations to work together!

In addition, three other Committee members will focus on the governance of such a fund. How best can the individual owner/breeder be represented? Shall assets be invested? How can such a Fund be administered without creating another" level of organization?

Return to TLSC Report
TLSC Home Page