JOSEPH E. GREGORY
5976 20th ST., SUITE 260
VERO BEACH, FL 32966
August 28th, 2006
To The AKC Board of Directors For Their Collective Action
260 Madison Ave. 4th
Floor
New York, NY 10016
Subject: Jim Crowley Letter Dated July 17th, 2006 to Joe Gregory in Response to Gregory Letter
Dated July 5th, 2006
Dear AKC Board Member:
In my letter dated July 5th,
2006, I requested the entire AKC Board, to whom it was addressed, respond to my request for an exception to the AKC Board’s policy established at their May 2006 Board meeting. The July 17th letter represents the views of Ron and Dennis not the entire AKC Board. I have learned that my July 5th letter was received by AKC Board members after the July 2006 Board meeting and obviously could not have been included on the agenda for the July AKC Board meeting. Since this entire matter is a result of the AKC Board’s new policy, my July 5th letter should be discussed and considered by the entire AKC Board. Indeed, I made it clear I was addressing the entire AKC Board when I said, “Before the AKC Board considers whether NCA meets the requirements for the first listed exception, the following comments, opinions and facts are provided…”.
Since subject letter comments on a number of points, and since every AKC Board member received a copy, I feel compelled to address them below:
-
Ron and Dennis state that in the opinion of AKC’s management and Board that NCA does have comparable events in place. This view of Ron and Dennis merely repeats the AKC Board’s original views which were requested to be reconsidered as an exception. This obviously should have been considered before the entire AKC Board.
-
Reference NCA’s offer to act as a farm team for the AKC. Since Dennis has asked Col. Pedé for a thorough reply to him concerning the NCA offer, Col. Pedé will respond with the details to assist Dennis on this subject. Subject letter states that NCA rules do specify only NCA registered dogs subject to NCA registration may be exhibited.” This is misleading (I trust not purposely) since it refers to dogs properly registered with other approved registries being subject to NCA registration. We have said clearly and repeat registration is not required with the NCA for a dog to be exhibited and dogs may be shown repeatedly without being registered with the NCA.
-
Paragraph 3 mentions that in effect nothing would preclude the AKC Board from adopting a policy. That is quite obvious. The real issue is can the AKC Board issue a policy that changes a rule completely ignoring the sole power of the Delegates? It is evident that a good many individuals in the sport were not familiar with AKC’s Bylaws and the provisions contained therein. It would appear that some of AKC’s Board members were not familiar with the details either. One nationally renowned writer and former AKC employee in charge of judges is on public record as having said he too made a mistake in interpreting AKC’s bylaws on this subject.
-
Paragraph 4 simply
reiterates, “The AKC policy which permits its approved judges to accept
assignments at non-AKC shows for breeds they have not yet been approved to judge by AKC.” Conveniently omitted is the fact that an AKC judge must ask permission to judge at a show other than an AKC show with a very real threat they can have their judge’s license revoked if they do not “ask permission”. Extremely intimidating and since the judges are not employees of AKC a good many legal scholars believes this is not within your purview. I would strongly recommend each of you ask to see the advice given the AKC Board by their own attorney many years ago cautioning AKC about antitrust violations or tortuous interference with business relationships. AKC’s attorney was referring to one individual in a far less severe case than the AKC Board’s policy placing severe restrictions on non-AKC employees, i.e. its thousands of judges.
-
Again subject letter quotes and speaks for the AKC Board, and yet the Board never did collectively consider my July 5th, 2006 letter. My July 5th letter pointed out to the AKC Board that the NCA met the criteria of the #1 exemption. I expect an answer reflecting the AKC Board’s decision. Jim brings up other facts for Ron and Dennis contained in the AKC Board’s original policy. In the fifth paragraph of the July 17th letter about “ultra vires”, I’m afraid misses the boat. It is crystal clear, and no one disputes that Article X Section 9 of AKC’s Charter, Constitution and Bylaws”gives the AKC Board the power to issue and revoke judges’ licenses. Indeed, the AKC can discipline an individual judge for any number of infractions. The AKC Board cannot, however, issue a policy, (i.e. a rule) affecting the disciplining of all or a large group of its judges.
The real issue of “ultra vires” action by the AKC Board is not as Jim inferred that I stated. Rather, it is the fact that the AKC Board did not comply with Article IX of their bylaws requiring them to comply with Article XIX which specifically denies the AKC Board the power to make or change a rule. This article grants the sole power to the Delegates.
A good many individuals, as well as some well-respected AKC judges who happen to be attorneys, agree that the AKC Board acted in an “ultra vires” manner. No one is saying the AKC Board did this with total disregard to their bylaws, but since the AKC Board believes there is this legitimate difference of opinion, it would make sense, and would certainly show that the AKC Chairman and Board members do not want to be accused of acting in a dictatorial fashion. If the AKC Board proposed a rule change to the Delegate Body, I believe, as do many others, to settle this dispute in an amicable fashion, the Delegate Body should vote on the change; after all, the Delegates are not enemies of the AKC. They play a very important and integral part in conjunction with the AKC Board, and most importantly, the Delegates have the sole power over the rules. That’s plain English and certainly excludes the AKC Board.
Subject letter makes the point that the AKC Board does not believe it appropriate for its approved clubs to put on these non-AKC shows. I cannot imagine anyone arguing with that. I gather from this comment some AKC approved clubs have put on shows for other registries. FOR THE RECORD, NO AKC CLUB HAS PUT ON A SHOW FOR THE NCA.
For the benefit of everyone, the AKC Board should define “significant interest”.
I would like to recommend, and again, a good many people agree, that this be put forward to the Delegate Body for a vote in accordance with accepted procedures, and that the effective date of January 1st, 2007 be suspended or postponed until
the AKC Board gives this entire matter further consideration.
Certainly the AKC Board, acting with the best interest of the AKC in mind and in an honorable fashion, could not be criticized, and in all likelihood would be applauded, by submitting this question to a vote of the Delegate Body. Some of us are at a loss as to why the AKC Board would not trust the Delegate Body to make the correct decision.
Jim’s reply for Dennis and Ron addressing some of the issues in my original letter needed clarification, hence, the length of this letter. Again, I believe, and I request, the entire AKC Board address my letter of July 5th, 2006, as well as this reply to the Crowley letter of July 17th, 2006 and furnish me your decision.
I do hope that each AKC Board member, in good conscience, would consider one of the points made in the AKC’s recently approved “AKC Code of Sportsmanship” concerning competitors: “Sportsmen find that vigorous competition and civility are not inconsistent and are able to appreciate the merit of their competition and the effort of competitors.’ Ladies and gentlemen, this applies to all levels of competition.
Sincerely,
Joseph E.
Gregory
To: Mr. James P. Crowley, AKC
Executive Secretary,
For Proper Administration
Concerning The AKC Board
JOSEPH E. GREGORY
5976 20th ST., SUITE 260
VERO BEACH, FL 32966
July
5th, 2006
Mr. Ron Menaker,
AKC Chairman of the Board
The American Kennel
Club
260 Madison Ave. 4th
Floor
New York, NY 10016
Subject: AKC Staff (Stansell and Gaeta) Phone Call of May 9th,
2006 and Stansell’s Subsequent Letter of May 10th, 2006 to Mr. Joseph
Gregory, AKC Approved All-Breed Judge, Regarding Judging Conflicts
Dear Ron,
I was informed by the callers
that the purpose of subject call was to advise me of a new rule that the AKC
Board had, just hours before, voted and passed concerning Judges Conflicts.
According to Mr. Stansell’s letter of May 10th, 2006, the relevant
text of the new rule is as follows:
“JUDGING CONFLICT OF
INTEREST”
No AKC judge may have a
significant interest in a dog registry or dog event-giving organization
deemed by the AKC Board to be in competition with the American Kennel Club.
Significant interest would include, but not be limited to ownership of,
employment by, a directorship in, and holding office in.
Any AKC-approved judge, who shall judge a purebred dog event in the U.S. not in
accordance with the rules of AKC, which apply to such purebred dog events
without the express permission of the AKC, may be disciplined even to the extent
of having his or her AKC judging approval revoked.
An AKC-approved judge may judge
breeds that are not AKC registerable and/or that they have not been approved for
by AKC at non-AKC events. The AKC Board has also given permission for the
judging of certain other events based upon the following criteria:
1. AKC has no comparable
events in place.
The callers personally advised me
that this new rule affected me since I had a financial interest in the National
Canine Association. They asked no questions about its operations or policies.
The National Canine Association, Inc. (NCA), a Delaware registered corporation,
was founded over nine years ago. Mr. Stansell and Mr. Gaeta told me that
my personal investment in the NCA was inconsistent with my being an AKC judge,
and that to retain my AKC judges license, I would have to divest my ownership
interest and official position in the NCA.
Before the AKC Board considers
whether the NCA meets the requirements for the first listed exception, the
following comments, opinions and facts are provided:
1. In my opinion, the NCA
clearly falls under the first exception listed in the Stansell letter of May
10th, 2006 i.e. “AKC has no comparable events in place.” I have since learned
that not all AKC Board members, if any, were briefed on the very different
format of NCA events. For the record, the NCA was never contacted by any AKC
staff member to ascertain the details of NCA events which would have clearly
indicated AKC had “no comparable events”. This being the case, it is difficult
to comprehend how individual AKC Board members could have reached a fair and
unbiased decision concerning the NCA. In this respect, the NCA will furnish each
AKC Board member an outline of the very different format of an NCA event
compared to an AKC show. Without the AKC Board considering these vast
differences, it is inconceivable that each AKC Board member would be able to
make an intelligent decision as to whether the NCA meets the criteria of AKC’s
first exception to their new rule, however questionable the new rule might be.
2. The NCA had
attempted to work with the AKC offering, in discussions with President Dennis
Sprung, to act as a farm team for the AKC in order to provide further training
in breeds that judges would one day want to apply for with the AKC. There is
some question as to whether AKC Board members were made aware of this offer.
Clearly, our aim was not to suppress the AKC in violation of numerous federal
and state anti-trust laws, but rather to provide an avenue of training for our
newer judges while at the same time offering a totally different show venue for
the newer and less experienced exhibitors. Additionally, no dog has to be
registered with the NCA to participate at an NCA event. The NCA will furnish the
AKC a more comprehensive list of differences.
3. The precedent for AKC
judges being involved in other event-giving organizations is extensive and dates
back over twenty years to the founding of the States Kennel Club. The creation
and purpose of the NCA was discussed extensively with various officers and
directors of AKC, and no objection was raised at that point prior to my making a
substantial financial investment.
4. I have
been an AKC approved judge since 1965 and an all-breed judge since 1992. There
is no documentation in the record to show that my involvement with the NCA has,
in any negative way, been reflected in my judging performance or in my
commitment to purebred dogs. In fact, I believe that my involvement in the NCA
has enhanced the sport which AKC, by its charter, is committed to furthering.
5. The AKC
Board adopted this new rule with no warning whatsoever and without consultation
with the many individuals affected including judges and those with positions in
other organizations. Still others believe the AKC Board has acted in an “ultra
vires” manner.
For the record, and as previously promised verbally, I agree to divest my
considerable financial and personal interest of nine years of dedicated service
to the NCA. I do this as a result, and consequence, of the direct threat stated
by Mr. Stansell and Mr. Gaeta to revoke my AKC judges license thereby
invalidating approximately 70 legally binding contracts that I have entered into
in good faith with AKC member and licensed kennel clubs. These contracts were in
strict accordance with AKC rules at the time they were signed. I have further
been advised that the New York statutes for Not-For-Profit Corporations
prohibits negating existing legal contracts by a subsequent change to a
Not-For-Profit Corporation’s bylaws.
Due to AKC’s threat to revoke my judges license, I will comply with the AKC
Board’s new rule. In addition, I feel morally obligated to fulfill legal
contracts that I have entered into and to eliminate any personal financial
liability that I might incur by breaching the contracts that I have already
signed with the AKC clubs.
However, despite the actions that I have agreed to above, I reserve any and all
rights to seek redress afforded me under federal, Delaware and New York State
statutes, AKC’s own Charter and Bylaws and any other statutes as well as the
express mandatory obligations placed on all Not-For-Profit Corporation Board
members mandated in the Not-For-Profit Corporation laws of New York. I will also
reserve the rights afforded me to seek redress of the authority granted the New
York State Attorney General pertaining to Not-For-Profit Corporation Boards
involved in alleged “ultra vires” actions.
Sincerely,
Joseph E. Gregory
cc: Mr. James P. Crowley, AKC
Executive Secretary (for record purposes)
This letter is being sent to AKC Chairman of the Board, Ronald Menaker, AKC
President, Dennis Sprung and All AKC Board Members.
Handy links:
SCJA Cites AKC Charter/Bylaws re Delegate Duties June 2006
Delegates have "sole power" to make the Rules!
Not the AKC Board.
Senior Conf. Judges Assoc. Letter to the AKC Board April 2006
Individual Rights or AKC's Right to Change The Rules
in Mid-Game?
AKC Conflict Of Interest Policy May 2006
The Policy That Launched A Rebellion
Senior Conf. Judges Assoc. Letter To Members
No Judges' Associations Were Contacted, SCJA Reacts, Seeks Input
Conflict Policy Prohibits Learning New Breeds May 2006
Where Are Judges To Learn About Plott Hounds and
Icelandic Dogs?
____________________________________________________
DoodleDog's pup
is not great with snail mail yet but
if you
copy and