IN THIS ISSUE: pg 4 pgs 9, 11 pgs 11-20 SEE YOU AT: - ariLIST

The Tale of the ARI Database
By Mike Safley
There is an amazing fairy tale floating
about – a whodunit, really. The
question is who has been managing
the ARI database since 1998? I was
surprised to open the Winter 2004-05
issue of Llama Life II and find that the
ILR Registrar, Jan Wassink, is claiming
that maintaining the database was
never in the ILR’s job description.
After doing a bit of checking, I found
that the ARI Board of Directors was
equally amazed, particularly in light
of the fact that the ARI has written
over $1,600,000 worth of checks to
the ILR since 1998.
The issue of who was responsible
for maintaining the integrity of the
database is critical for several reasons:
(1) The database that the ARI received
upon terminating the ILR was not in
the condition expected for an up-todate
and in-use database; (2) The state
of the database adversely impacted the
ARI’s ability to provide registration
services to its members; and (3) The
ARI’s credibility was impacted by the
fallout from its termination of the ILR.
The mystery, then, is who was supposed
to be managing the ARI database
all those years. I’ll present the evidence,
each side’s argument, and then
leave it for you to solve the mystery.
The ILR’s Side of the Story
Jan Wassink alleges that since 1996
ARI has been “totally responsible for
all aspects of ARI,” and that they had
hired their own administrator (Jan
Wassink’s wife, Dar Wassink, which is
another story entirely). He also points
out that ARI paid its own rent (to the
ILR), hired secretarial staff to answer
the phone, hired “lawyers, accountants,
investment advisors, data processors,
website designers, and so on.”
24
Wassink goes on to say the ILR was
simply the “landlord” and the “vendor”
(seller) who “provided services” pursuant
to a contract with the ARI.
About the database, he says:
“A study of the contracts between
the ARI and the ILR, coupled with the
history and evolution of the division
of tasks between the ARI, the ILR,
and UC Davis shows clearly that the
ILR was not responsible, and in fact,
could not have been responsible for
making sure the ARI DNA database
housed in the ILR office was complete
and accurate…”
Wassink does admit, however, that
“The ILR was responsible to do the
necessary data entry and produce registration
certificates for alpaca owners in
accordance with the current ARI policies.”
So, as I understand the
Registrar’s position, they were not
responsible for maintaining the database
but they were responsible for the
necessary data entry tasks.
In Llama Life II, Mr. Wassink further
argues that “If the state of the ARI
database is “horrible” that is not the
fault of the ILR,” and continues by
complaining that “The ARI Board, the
ARI attorney, and Mrs. Forstner continue
to try to claim that the ILR was
responsible to maintain the ARI’s data
DNA database…”
This, my friends, is the essence of
the dispute. The ILR says they were
simply “sellers” and “landlords,” and
the ARI says they were managers of the
database and therefore responsible for
its integrity. Mr. Wassink says that the
evidence that he is right is “very clear.”
Part of his proof is that “…no documentation
exists and no conversation
took place that even discussed an ILR
role in maintaining the ARI DNA
database until November of 2003.”
I can tell you that this was news to the
ARI Board of Directors.
The ARI Position
The ARI Board of Directors’ position
is very clear: the ILR was responsible
for processing registrations, recording
parentage verification, issuing certificates,
data processing, and maintaining
the ARI database. The dispute could
not be clearer or the positions of the
respective parties more at odds.
Who’s Right?
This mystery of who’s right is even
more confounding when you consider
that the two parties have done business
in one form or another since 1989.
Millions of dollars have changed hands
as the registered herd grew from a few
hundred to over 50,000. How could
the parties end up with such a fundamental
misunderstanding of their
respective obligations?
A few additional facts, or clues, may
provide an answer, or at least clarify
who is right and who is wrong. The
following excerpts are from the contracts
between the parties.
1. The original 1996 Alpaca Registry
Administrative agreement provided
the following:
Relationship Between ILR and ARI.
Under this Agreement, the ILR shall
provide registration services and
conduct the day-to-day operation of
the Alpaca Registry as the independent
contractor of ARI…,
ARI shall not have the power to
control and direct the method and
manner of work to be performed by