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 out that the ILR Registrar, Jan Wassink, was 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 a mess, 2) The state of the database adversely impacted the ARI's ability to provide registration services to their members, and 3) The ARI's credibility was impacted by the fallout from their 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, the ARI has been "totally responsible for all aspects of the 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 they paid their own rent (to the ILR), hired secretarial staff to answer the phone, hired "lawyers, accountants, investment advisors, data processors, website designers and so on."

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, verifying parentage, 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 serve to solve, 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 the ILR to or for the benefit of ARI under this Agreement except to require that the results be accomplished in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The ILR shall have the discretion to determine the method and manner in which to accomplish its obligations under this Agreement, including determinations concerning the personnel to be utilized to perform the work and the particular methods and procedures to be utilized to perform the work hereunder...,

Administrative Services To Be Provided By the ILR. The ILR agrees to provide registration services to alpaca owners in the same manner and to the same extent and using the same degree of care as is provided to owners of other llamas with the various Divisions of the ILR subject to the terms of this Agreement. In addition, the ILR agrees to provide to the ARI the following administrative services:

At the end of each month that this Agreement is in effect, the ILR shall provide ARI with a full backup of the electronic data then maintained as part of the genealogical and ownership database for the Alpaca Registry.'

The 1999, Extension and Modification Agreement of the original administration agreement acknowledged that the "ARI maintains and administers a unique genealogical registry for alpacas using a computer database, bloodtyping and/or DNA verification of parentage."

The language in the contracts that the ILR shall provide the same standard of care under the contract for alpaca owners as it did for it's own llama owners is particularly persuasive. Are we to believe that the ILR was not responsible for their own database and if they were responsible for their database then it would follow that they were also responsible for the ARI's database. The fact is that the ARI, by contract, delegated the complete responsibility for operating the ARI's registry services, including maintaining the database, to the ILR and they paid the ILR a lot of money for their services over the years.

1998 - 2004
The Alpaca Registry
Expenses Paid to ILR

This is a lot of money, particularly if, as the ILR maintains, they were not responsible for maintaining the ARI's database. But, you can decide who you think is right.

The bottom line for me is that the ARI Board of Directors would be crazy to even consider reuniting with the ILR (as some have suggested) for the purposes of providing registration services. That would be a very bad ending for the "we are not responsible for the database" fairy tale.

Reproduced with permission from:

Alpaca Breeding Farm: Northwest Alpacas: raising suri and huacaya alpacas for sale, alpaca investment, and alpaca business plans for alpaca breeders and owners worldwide. Find more useful information at the Alpaca Library.

Copyright © 2003-2005 Northwest Alpacas

Maple Tree Alpaca Farm | Alpaca Library Information