ILR BOARD MINUTES

ILR Board of Directors Conference
August 20, 2003
12:05 PM EDT

IN THE MATTER OF: SUSAN TELLEZ, Respondent - Click Here

The ILR Board of Directors teleconference meeting was called to order at 12:08 AM, EDT, by President, Jack Moore. Present: Karen Baum, Art Kennel, Jack Moore, Sally Rucker, Sally Taylor and Jan Wassink, Registrar.

Motion: Sally Rucker. Approve minutes of July 30, 2003. Second: Karen Baum. 4 Ayes.

The next teleconference meeting will be September 17, 2003 at 12 Noon EDT.

Registrar’s Report:

1. Jan presented and explained the financial reports for year-to-date, and current month compared to last year.
2. The ARI Request for Proposal was completed and sent by Jan last week.
3. Cal Heminway, program designer, made a visit to the ILR office last week. Jan felt the meeting with him was very positive.

1. Tellez Hearing Update: There was discussion of the written decision regarding the Susan Tellez complaint as prepared by ILR Attorney, Tim Goddard. The ILR BOD voted to accept the decision and sanctions as presented. 4 Ayes. Sally Taylor recused herself as a member of the Rules Committee.
2. Screening Form: The revised screening form has been completed by the committee and will be circulated to the BOD for input and then will be sent to vet and phenotype screeners for their comments.
3. Strategic Plan: There has been a revision of the plan and the committee will report next month.
4. Advocacy: Sally Rucker reported that her perception from the Lama Community meeting was that the government relations advocacy for the ILR should primarily be to maintain a support and communication role and to focus on raising funds to finance the llama community’s representation on the executive board for USAHA under the ILR banner. She will make a concerted effort to solicit funds for the Government Relations Fund. The ILR will continue to match funds in the Endowment Fund up to a total of $25,000 and will pay 5% interest per year on money in this fund. The interest will be transferred to the Active Fund twice a year. The money in the Active Fund will go to support the USAHA function.
5. Use and Enjoyment: Jack Moore reported that the “Lleaping for Llife” program at the Ohio State Fair was tremendously successful with over 200 organ donor cards being issued to people in the audience.

Motion: Sally Taylor Adjourn meeting. Second: Jack Moore. 5 Ayes

Meeting adjourned at 3.00PM EDT.

Respectfully submitted,
Sally Taylor, Secretary

On February 3, 2003, the International Llama Registry, Inc. (“ILR”) received a formal request and Complaint alleging that ILR member Susan Tellez (“Tellez”) had committed violations of the Registry Policies of the ILR (“ILR Policies”). Specifically, the Compliant alleged Tellez submitted inaccurate information to the ILR by not identifying the known dam of Chilena Tekena #51 (ILR # 223151) (“Tekena’) as Chilena Candelaria #323 (ILR #185591) (“Candelaria”) and that Tellez submitted inaccurate information relating to the transfer of Tekena under the name and identity of Chilena Girasol (ILR #223148) (“Girasol”). ILR members Barbara Carlomango, Kathi McKinney and Sally Taylor (collectively “Presenters”) were appointed to investigate the allegations and present their findings to the ILR Board of Directors (“Board”).

Notice of Hearing and Request for Response together with a copy of the Complaint were served upon Tellez, which notified her that a hearing was scheduled for May 23, 2003, at which the Board would receive evidence on the allegations asserted in the Complaint. Tellez submitted a response to the ILR on April 10, 2003 and a second response on April 30, 2003, through her counsel, Thornton W. Price III. Mr. Price requested a continuance of the hearing to allow Tellez additional time to prepare her defense. The Presenters agreed that the hearing should be continued. The hearing was rescheduled, after an additional continuance requested by the Presenters, to July 23, 2003.

On July 23, 2003, the Board met by telephone to hear evidence and argument on the allegations asserted in the Complaint. Mr. Price appeared on behalf of and represented Tellez. Tellez presented 26 exhibits, all of which were received. The Presenters presented 24 exhibits, all of which were received. Dr. Heinrich von Baer, testified on behalf of the Presenters. Tellez testified in her own defense. All other evidence was submitted in the form of written statements or documents.

The hearing lasted approximately six hours, (two hours taken by the Presenters and four by Tellez), which necessitated the Board having to decide not to hear closing arguments, accept written closing arguments or setting a second date to hear closing arguments. Mr. Price and the Presenters both requested that a second date be set so that they might present oral closing arguments, to which the Board agreed. The Board also agreed to allow the Presenters to present an additional statement from Mr. Gonzalo Campos in rebuttal to certain testimony presented by Ms. Tellez. Ms Tellez testified Mr. Campos had committed fraud against her by instructing the caretakers to substitute Girasol for Tekena when Mr. Campos and Tellez had agreed that Mr. Campos would receive Tekena when Tellez’ partnership with Mr. Campos was dissolved. The Board also decided that it would be helpful to hear from Mr. Campos and the caretakers, America Torres and Macelo Sachez if testimony or statements from those persons could be obtained.

On August 4, 2003, Mr. Price and the Presenters were notified that the Board had set aside August 13, 2003 to hear closing arguments. Mr. Price was also notified that the Board would receive a written statement from Mr. Campos, but that the Presenters had elected not to attempt to obtain the testimony or statement from Ms. Torres or Mr. Sachez. On August 6, 2003, Mr. Price requested an additional continuance on the grounds that Tellez would be flying from Houston to Kansas City to be a judge at the Missouri State Fair Llama show. Mr. Price did not state that he could not be available. Because Mr. Price, as counsel for Ms. Tellez would be available, the Board was only to hear oral argument (except for the possible receipt of written statements) and the presentation was to be by telephone, the Board decided that an any inconvenience Tellez would incur from rearranging her schedule did not outweigh the prejudice that a further continuance would cause the ILR and the Board.

On August 13, 2003, the Board reconvened by telephone to hear closing arguments. Mr. Price presented the Affidavit of Maria America Torrez Maldonado, as Exhibit 27. No other statements were received. The Board then heard closing arguments from, Ms. Carlomango for the Presenters and Mr. Price on behalf of Tellez. The hearing was then closed, with a written decision to be issued within 15 days. The Board then reconvened by telephone to carefully review, consider and weigh all the evidence and argument of Mr. Price and Ms. Carlomango. The Board having done so, now renders its findings and decision.

1. Article IV(B) of the Registry Policies of the ILR (“Policies”) states “[o]wners are responsible for accurate record-keeping of all births, deaths, breedings, transfers of ownership, and for furnishing the Registry with this information.”

2. At all relevant times Tellez was the owner of Candelaria and Tekena.

3. Under the Policies, owners are responsible to exercise reasonable care in the submission of information to the ILR to assure that the information is complete and accurate. The ILR must be able to rely upon the honesty and integrity of its members to take all actions necessary to confirm that the information submitted is accurate and complete. The submission of inaccurate and/or incomplete information can cause serious harm to the ILR and third parties relying upon registration provided through the ILR

4. The Application for the Registration or Listing of Tekena, dated February 10, 2001, (Exhibit C) and the Application for the Registration or Listing for Girasol, dated January 8, 2002 (Exhibit D) were both signed by Tellez. On both applications, Tellez stated, “I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the information given above is correct: and I hereby agree to abide by the by-laws and policies of the International Lama Registry.”

5. The application for Tekena states the dam as deceased. No name is given. Tellez knew, however, that the dam was Candelaria, a llama that had been previously disqualified due to an umbilical hernia. Exhibit 5, submitted by Tellez, dated August 2000 identifies the dam of Tekena as Number 323, which was the ear tag number of Candelaria. Exhibit 5 also states that Tellez and her partner Mr. Campos, intended to export Tekena from Chile, where she was born, to Europe. Girasol was to be exported to the United States.

6. Tellez is a sophisticated and experienced breeder and importer. Tellez testified that she had imported over 600 llamas from Chile to the United States. Tellez has registered numerous llamas with the ILR and is knowledgeable of the Policies and procedures followed by the ILR for the registration of llamas.

7. By identifying the dam as unknown, Tellez knew that she would be permitted to have the cria of Candelaria, Tekena, screened, for registration. Tellez further knew that if she identified the dam as Candelaria, Tekena could not be registered or screened due to the prior disqualification of Candelaria.

8. Tekena was screened by Dr. Louise B. Linton on February 9, 2001 and given microchip number 034633106. Tekena was not given an ear tag number.

9. The evidence presented by Tellez indicates that at the time of the screening, or shortly thereafter, Tellez intended to export Tekena from Chile to France. France importation requires registration of a llama in the United States. Tellez claimed the French Registry required health examination by ILR screeners, which was why she had Tekena screened in Chile. The French buyer stated that “any health examination will qualify for the French Registry” and that the US screeners did not need to examine Tekena.

10. Blood testing of Tekena by the ILR correctly identified the dam of Tekena as Candelaria, which resulted in the disqualification of Tekena, despite the prior screening.

11. On May 5, 2001, Tellez was notified by her buyer in France that the buyer would not accept any animals at that time due to the hoof and mouth disease epidemic that was in Europe at that time.

12. In May 2001, Ms. Torres and Mr. Sanchez supervised the selection of animals to be exported to the United States. Tekena was shipped, with other llamas and alpacas that Tellez had presold to buyers in the United States, to Santiago, Chile to be placed in a pre-embarcation quarantine operated by Bryan Pantin for export to the United States The evidence suggests that Mr. Pantin placed new ear tag numbers on the animals prior to the time they were placed in quarantine.

13. Dr. Heinrich von Baer, an experienced and well known veterinarian and llama breeder in Temuco, Chile testified concerning his knowledge and experience with the generally accepted practices of owners, breeders and exporters of llamas and alpacas in Chile. Dr. von Baer explained that the generally accepted standard of care in Chile requires all animals to receive an ear tag number at birth, which remains with the animal through out its life. The ear tag number becomes the animal’s identity and should not be changed. If any ear tag numbers are changed, the owner must be careful to maintain records that record the both the old number and the new number. There was no evidence this practice was followed. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that very little records were maintained.

14. Tellez testified that prior to the time the animals were to be placed in quarantine, she dissolved her partnership with Mr. Campos due to his dishonesty. She also testified that she and Campos divided the animals and that the animals she was to receive included Girasol. Mr. Campos was to receive Tekena. Tellez also testified that Mr. Campos has instructed the persons who were in charge of the care of the animals, Ms Torres and Mr. Sanchez, to switch Tekena for Girasol. The testimony was supported by the Affidavit of Torres. A statement from Mr. Campos stated that Tellez ordered the selection of the animals that were to placed in quarantine and that Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Torres loaded the animals for delivery to Mr. Pantin in accordance with Tellez’ orders and that he, Mr. Campos, arrived after the animals had been loaded on the truck to provide the necessary health papers for transport.

15. Tekena was placed in quarantine in Chile in July 2001. Tekena arrived in New York and was placed in quarantine on August 21, 2001. It is not clear whether Girasol was also placed into quarantine. There was no evidence of the current location or status of Girasol. A huacaya llama named Girasol, with ear tag number, 245 is listed as one of the llamas that was to be shipped to Bon Burgess (Exhibits 13 and 14), but that animal was actually Tekena.

16. On January 8, 2002, Tellez submitted an application for the llama that was actually Tekena under the name of Girasol. All of the information contained on the application was inaccurate, as the animal being registered was the same animal for which Tellez had previously applied for registration under the name Tekena and was denied registration.

17. After ownership of Tekena (under the name Girasol) was transferred to Bon Burgess and Cindy Burgess on January 18, 2002, the Burgesses had their vet screen the animal and insert a new microchip into the animal, number 407C733311.

18. Based upon the application submitted by Tellez and the veterinarian examination, the ILR registered the animal that was actually Tekena as Girasol.

19. On April 6, 2002, the Burgesses sold Tekena, under the name of Girasol, to ILR member Barbara Reinicke for $10,000.00. After the sale, a cria was born to Tekena on June 25, 2002.

20. In January 2003, Ms. Reinicke had the cria and the dam, Tekena, DNA tested. The results proved that the animal sold as Girasol was Tekena. Ms. Reinicke then checked the microchip number and found two microchips, Tekena’s original microchip number 034633106 and the one placed by the Burgesses veterinarian.

21. Based upon the above fact, the Board finds that Tellez as an owner submitted inaccurate information to the ILR, which was the result of at least her failure to exercise reasonable care in verifying the information that she submitted. The Board therefore concludes and finds that the imposition of sanctions is proper and necessary to protect the integrity of the ILR.

22. In determining the appropriate sanction, the Board has followed the factors set forth in Section 9 of the ILR Policies and Procedures for Enforcement by the Board of Directors of By-laws and Policies. Those factors are:

a. Whether the violation was temporary and/or inadvertent.

b. Whether the violation was caused by factors beyond the Respondent’s reasonable control.

c. Whether the Respondent has taken steps which render the reoccurrence of such violation unlikely.

d. Whether the Respondent reasonably believes that his or her action was not in violation of the Governing Documents.

e. Whether the violation caused harm to any other person or to the ILR.

f. Whether the Respondent cooperated with the ILR in the investigation of the violation and/or correction of the cause of the violation.

g. Whether the Respondent has previously engaged in the same or a similar violation.

h. Whether the violation was inconsequential in nature and/or duration.

i. Whether the Respondent acted reasonably and responsibly to avoid or prevent such violation.

j. Whether the violation caused damage to the integrity, accuracy and/or reliability of the Registry system.

k. Whether the violation caused damage to third parties who relied upon the Registry system.

l. Whether the violation was the result of intentional action, carelessness, gross negligence or mere negligence.

m. Any other factors the Board of Directors may determine appropriate.

23. Applying the above factors, the Board finds that:

a. The violations were not temporary and/or inadvertent. Rather, the viola-tions were due to what appears to be an intentional act in the case of the failure to identify the dam of Tekena as Candelaria and at least carelessness in the misidentification of Tekena as Girasol. The violations would have gone undetected but for the actions of the ILR and those of Ms. Reinicke.

b. The violations were not caused by factors beyond Tellez’ control. Accurate record keeping, truthfulness and verification of the information submitted to the ILR would have prevented the violations. A simple check of the microchip numbers of the imported animals would have identified the llama as Tekena.

c. There was no evidence by Tellez that she has recognized her own responsibility for submitting false and inaccurate information to the ILR. Tellez attempted to place all responsibility on others. If an owner chooses to rely on others to provide information that the owner submits to the ILR, the owner must exercise due care to determine the reliability of the information. Here the evidence was that the caretakers, Ms. Torrez and Mr. Sanchez did not maintain accurate records or that Tellez had instructed them to do so. There was no evidence that Tellez maintained accurate records herself or that she employed any procedures to accurately identify animals, such as ear tag numbers, as is the standard practice. The Board is also troubled by a statement Tellez made in a letter (Exhibit W) wherein she encouraged others to place any birth date that one chooses on an application. Because of these concerns, the Board has no confidence that without the imposition of sanctions the violations will not be repeated.

d. At least in the case of Tellez’s failure to identify the dam of Tekena as Candelaria, Tellez could not reasonably believe that her actions were not in violation of the ILR Policies.

e. Tellez actions have caused substantial harm to the ILR and its members.

f. Tellez has partially cooperated with the ILR in its investigation to the extent documents identified by Tellez as exhibits were helpful to the investigation.

g. The violations were not inconsequential in nature and/or duration.

h. The violations caused substantial damage to the integrity, accuracy and/or reliability of the registry system. The violations strike to the heart of the registration process. The ILR must rely on representations from members and their integrity in attesting to the truth of the facts stated. Members who violate that trust harm all members and impair the faith in the integrity of the registration process, which is fundamental and vital to the continued operation of the ILR. The submission of information to the ILR that a member has not verified as being accurate, which ultimately proves to be inaccurate, is a serious offense. The ILR purports to disseminate accurate information on which people make breeding, buying and other decisions in breeding programs. The submission of inaccurate information to the ILR infects the integrity of the process and the reliance that others can place on the fact that a llama has been registered by the ILR. The ILR must, therefore, have a policy of zero tolerance toward the submission of inaccurate information when the evidence proves that the submission was due to an intentional act, carelessness or the failure to exercise reasonable care, as is the case with the violations committed by Tellez.

Based upon the above findings, the Board concludes that Tellez did violate the ILR Policies. The Board further concludes that the following sanctions are appropriate and should be imposed:

1. Tellez will be denied all registry services for a period of three years.

2. Tellez may apply to have her registration privileges restored at any time after one year from the date of this decision. Such restoration will be conditioned upon Tellez’ consent to a two year probation, upon such terms as the Board may then determine to be reasonable and appropriate, and repayment to the ILR of all costs and fees, including attorney fees, that the ILR has incurred in the investigation and prosecution of the violations.

3. Any member who assists Tellez, directly or indirectly, in the registration of any llama that is owned by Tellez, or in which Tellez has any interest, during the time period that Tellez has been denied her registration privileges, may be subject to sanctions.

4. Any person who has purchased a llama from Tellez that was part of importation from Chile that arrived in the United States in August 2001, or who has bred an ILR registered llama to any llama that was part of the importation from Chile and arrived in the United States in August 2001, shall be permitted to register the llama, record the transfer with the ILR or register any cria born of such llama only upon special application submitted to the ILR and subject to DNA testing for the sire, dam and cria as the ILR may determine necessary. The USDA/APHIS records obtained by the ILR through the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of which is attached as an appendix identify by ear tag number those animals that were part of the importation at issue.

5. This opinion shall be published in the ILR minutes and ILReport to provide public notice of the proceedings and the Board’s decision.

Dated this _21st____ day of August, 2003.

BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INTERNATIONAL LLAMA REGISTRY, INC.