Official Report and Findings of AKC vs Boulton Trial Board, courtesy of TheDogPress

PRESENTS

Official Report and Findings of AKC vs Boulton Trial Board

In what has to be one of the most unique hearings and set of charges provided, the Trial Board met, considered and submits the following as its Findings and Statement of Decision.

Because of the nature of the accusations, the extraordinary events that unfolded at the I hearing, and the difficulty of this decision, the Trial Board submits Findings and Decision under the Trial Board and Appeal Trial Board Procedures, Section D, "An opinion or expanded statement in detail of the reasons for its findings may be submitted".

The charges, although fairly straightforward, became quite unusual as the matter progressed.

The basis of the charges are that George D. Boulton, a judge licensed by the American Kennel Club to judge Best in Show, involved himself in a television show called Show Dogs, Moms and Dads, and in so doing, made statements detrimental to the sport.

There is no question that the comments made within that show and aired on television, comments made by George Boulton, were indeed inflammatory, embarrassing, intemperate, and Improper.

The procedure and the hearing conduct was, to say the least, disappointing and disturbing. Fortunately the individuals involved and required to judge the issues were of such a high caliber, that the rights and privileges of all parties were protected.

Heather McManus, representing the AKC, did as good a job of producing and presenting a case of great difficulty, as could be done under the circumstances.

One of the hearing officers on the Trial Board was a Trial Board member, an AKC judge and past exhibitor and breeder of long standing, a past Director of the American Kennel Club, and a man instrumental in the establishment of the discipline and procedures used by all Trial Boards. The other two hearing officers of the Trial Board are two practicing attorneys, with over 50 years of experience between them.

Representing Mr. Boulton was an attorney of unquestionable integrity and professionalism, all of which allowed this matter to proceed to a full and complete hearing.

Of some concern and disturbance is that the matter initially was brought forward, and as required by the AKC procedures, the charges were "sent by certified mail, return receipt requested; or other form of receipted or acknowledged delivery " to the defendant. The defendant maintained his innocence and requested a hearing through a request for Trial Board hearing, and he and his attorney, Mr. Kocontes, appeared at the hearing prepared to defend that charge:

"On or between August 2004 and May 2005, inappropriately publicly criticized an AKC judge that was not disruptive but did demonstrate a lack of sportsmanship."

This single charge, and the defense for that charge, is what Mr .Boulton and his attorney appeared ready to defend.

When the matter commenced, the AKC through their attorney, presented an Amended Declaration of charges now including five counts, one as to statements made against an AKC judge, Patricia Trotter; second, statements allegedly made against Francine Schwartz: third, statements made against Frank Sabella; fourth, statements made against Ramon V. Podesta; and then fifth, what appears to have been the original charge. This created a great deal of difficulty for the defendant and his attorney, and an offer was made by the AKC to adjourn the hearing to another date. However, since Mr. Boulton had gone to the expense and great deal of difficulty to bring witnesses from as far away as Florida to a hearing in California, since his attorney had already set aside two days, since the Trial Board members and the AKC had all of their witnesses present and had scheduled a hearing, and since the Trial Board had set aside two days for the hearing, the parties agreed and a hearing went forward.

During the hearing itself, a question did come up as to complaints and questions being made, and the AKC represented that, "There were a flurry of phone calls.” The hearing progressed in this manner, with no particular complaints ever being presented. Finally, while the final witness was testifying at the end of two days (two days filled completely with eight hours a day and very few breaks), the AKC presented 18 pages of documents which were written complaints as to what was done, what was said on the television show, and what the individuals in these complaints represented were derogatory remarks towards the AKC or judges. Of course, by that time, Mr .Boulton was severely prejudiced as he had never seen these reports, he was unable to respond to them, indeed his attorney had less than five minutes to read them over. In keeping with the AKC rules, they were admitted into evidence but given the weight that the Board felt they deserved. Mr. Boulton's attorney objected to the documents, as they were not given to him prior to the hearing to allow him to contact the individuals who had written them to question them over the statements.

Also in those documents was an internal memo within the AKC that they were aware of the problems with the television show, but decided to wait to see the entire series before taking any action.

At that time a question also came up as throughout the hearing there had been discussions that the producers of Show Dogs, Moms and Dads had promised to send letters to the AKC but the defendant had never received copies. The investigator for Mr. Boulton stated that he asked for copies from the producers but was never given them. At that time, Ms. McManus brought forth two letters from the producers and the individuals involved with Show Dogs, evidently received by the AKC in April of 2005 (one letter was dated April 13, 2005 and had no receipt stamp on it), almost a year before the hearing. All parties after some discussion agreed that these letters could come into evidence, but again, the defense counsel had never been provided with these copies, and did not have a chance to incorporate them into his defense. Mr .Boulton should have had copies of those letters prior to his testimony.

It is unfortunate that no one brought into the hearing anyone from the television show production, but without those letters, it is understandable why Mr .Boulton didn't try to bring in the individuals. He could not know that they were very supportive of him, and would have helped his presentation.

These procedural anomalies created a great deal of difficulty for the Trial Board, but the Trial Board was able to make a determination, based upon the evidence, the standards required, and the presentations made by both sides.

The discussions and decisions were made difficult by the individuals involved who did come forward to testify, not only because of the nature of the testimony, but the personal knowledge, respect and admiration of those individuals by the members of the Trial Board. Personal knowledge of the witnesses even caused some concern, as personal contact was impossible to avoid because of past relationships. Indeed, from the hearing one of the hearing officers and one of the witnesses were leaving from the hearing to judge at the same dog show.

The Trial Board was also made aware of the fact that the AKC had in error caused Mr. Boulton to be suspended from judging. While it is true that only two clubs canceled judging contracts, it is impossible to know how many clubs or individuals contacted the AKC during that six month period, and were told that Mr .Boulton was not able to accept assignments. The Trial Board did not have to address that issue, due to the determination on the charges.

In the discussions in Count I as to statements presented as made against Patricia Trotter, they were deemed not to have been comments made detrimental to the sport of purebred dogs, in that the comments were not necessarily negative. Actually, as there were more comments that Mr. Boulton did not understand her judging, but were not necessarily negative as to what she did.

The second count had to do with Francine Schwartz, and it was decided they also were not prejudicial as Mr. Boulton stated that Francine Schwartz had not "found the dog," which meant that other judges had and she had not. Also, the comment that he would let other people enter under this judge is that which people should do, if they don't like a judge, just not enter under that judge.

As to Count IV, statements made about Mr. Podesta, again it was felt that the comments were made in a manner that was not necessarily negative to the judge or the sport, and therefore not sustained. As to Mr. Podesta, the statements submitted were that it was more a prediction that Mr. Boulton had looked at the competition, and did not feel that the competition would be a problem for his dog. This is not a criticism of the judge.

It was decided that Count V most likely referred, as it did in the original Count I, against Mr. Frank Sabella.

In the tape aired, the comments about Mr. Sabella and his judging were interspersed with Mr. Boulton's comments, wherein Mr. Boulton made some outrageous statements, and primarily his statement was that the judge was "THE BIGGEST DAMN FOOL IN THE WORLD." This statement, and the words stated, inflamed the senses of the Trial Board members, as well it should. It caused great embarrassment to the AKC, and indeed could well have been sufficient to sustain the charges against Mr. Boulton.

Especially troubling to this Board is the personal knowledge and respect by the Trial Board Members for Mr. Sabella, his years in the sport, and an impassioned statement that he made at the Trial Board hearing as to the efficacy, importance, and respect given to the sport of purebred dogs.

The decision, and the difficult part of that decision, was for the Trial Board to determine whether or not the statements made by Mr .Boulton referred to Mr. Sabella, and more importantly, if they did not refer to Mr. Sabella, did they fall within the parameters of Count V, "inappropriate/y, publicly criticized an unnamed AKC judge. "

From the very beginning, from the testimony of the first witness, and throughout the hearing, it became clear that the production of Show Dogs, Moms and Dads was a canard. Statements were taken out of context; clips were put in, and inserted in inappropriate and misleading ways. There was a great deal of "cutting and pasting", meaning taking words from one segment and putting them into another.

We were fortunate to have testify a witness who also was involved in the program, Susan McQueen, who very quickly saw as the production continued, that she was being misquoted and that the intent of the producers was to somehow perform a "hatchet job" on the sport as well as those involved in the sport of purebred dogs, and she withdrew from the show. Fortunately she had the assistance and advice of another party, Billy J. Price.

Mr. Price came before us, and provided his testimony. Mr. Price, an AKC delegate and retired police officer, provided some insight into the process of filming and editing. He also made an impassioned statement as to the function of the Trial Board. As was pointed out to Mr. Price at that time, the need and desire of the Trial Board to be fair and honest is critically important to the reputation and future of the AKC.

It is extremely important that individuals realize that when they come before a Trial Board, or when they become involved in an AKC procedure, that they will be treated fairly, honestly, and with dignity and respect.

The Trial Board was left with the unwelcome job to first determine if indeed the statements as portrayed on film, were as represented, and second to decide if they fell within the guidelines of the accusations.

Unlike the video tape of the police beating of Rodney King, there was no question that the television presentation Show Dogs, Moms and Dads was bits and pieces patched together, and used to somehow project the image the producers wanted to project, not the reality of dog shows or dog show exhibitors. It was the representation given to Mr. Boulton that they wanted to honestly show exhibitors and their dogs, and that was how it was presented and the reason for which Mr. Boulton agreed to be involved.

It became clear to this Trial Board that the cutting and pasting of the comments alleged to be between Mr. Sabella and Mr. Boulton was just that. It was not proven (or at least not dis-proven by a preponderance of the evidence), to this Trial Board by any standard, that Mr. Boulton made those statements as they related to Mr .Sabella or his judging.

To assist in that, the Trial Board was shown that the statements made by Mr. Boulton were recorded while he was judging at the New Mexico show, and the judging by Mr .Sabella was done in another state on the same day at approximately the same time. Therefore, of course, it would have been impossible for the two parties to have been filmed at the same time responding to each other. While it was always possible that Mr. Sabella was shown a tape of Mr. Boulton's statements and he interspersed his statements to that tape, or that Mr. Boulton was shown a tape of Mr. Sabella's statement and then he reacted to those statements, it is very unlikely based on the nature of the comments. In other words, it became clear to this Board that Mr. Sabella was not responding to Mr. Boulton, and Mr. Boulton was not responding to Mr. Sabella.

The decision of the Trial Board, therefore, was that the burden of proof, being upon the American Kennel Club, to prove that Mr .Boulton made those statements about Mr. Sabella, was not met.

The Board considered whether to use the standard of clear and convincing evidence (used in an Administrative Law proceeding), or even the standard of by a preponderance of the evidence (as used in a civil court and the lowest possible standard). The Board decided that even under the lowest standard, that of a preponderance of the evidence, the burden was not met.

The Board was not through at this point, as it then was left with a further burden, to determine if Count V was to be upheld.

"On or between August 2004 and May 2005, inappropriately publicly criticized an unnamed AKC judge that was not disruptive but that demonstrated a lack of sportsmanship."

A great deal of the Trial Board's efforts were put as to whether or not those statements made by Mr .Boulton, statements that offended the sensibilities of this Trial Board, were made about "an unnamed AKC judge."

The testimony un-refuted was that Mr. Boulton made those statements in response to a question by the producer of Show Dogs, Moms and Dads, in an agitated manner, as to what he would do if a judge made certain comments. With that in mind, it became clear that Mr. Boulton was not making those comments about a specific judge but rather in response to an illusory situation, and a hypothetical question. With that in mind, the Trial Board was left with but one conclusion.

It would have helped a great deal, had one of the parties brought to the hearing either in person or by declaration a statement from the producers of the show a statement of what did happen and what actually was the basis of the statements. But, for whatever reason, neither party did so. Therefore, the burden of proof remained with the AKC, and the defendant did not have to prove the issues before the Board.

It is important and the Trial Board wants to make it clear that in this era of instant communication: television, emails, PDA's, text messaging, and cell phones, it is essential to realize that individual making any statement can be subject to not only personal but public scrutiny. Further it is important to understand that when one takes on the role of an AKC judge, he or she takes on more than just an obligation to judge at a dog show. The integrity and the reputation of the American Kennel Club are paramount, and becomes a duty, obligation as well as the honor of each person to stand up and protect that status of each person so licensed as well as that of the AKC. When a person so licensed reflects on or represents in any manner their opinions, their statements, or even their thoughts as to other individuals so licensed, the AKC, or the sport of purebred dogs, they do so as a representative of the AKC and must be circumspect in doing so. While certainly each person retains the right of freedom of speech in America, with that freedom comes a certain responsibility, and when you accept the licensor of the AKC, that obligation and burden is increased.

If ever there was a "biggest damn fool in the world," it was Mr. Boulton to allow himself to be so badly misused by Show Dogs, Moms and Dads. While it is true that the lure of stardom, the chance to become a movie star, the publicity and the notoriety that accompanied that, can be seductive and was so in this case, it must be always considered carefully.

While it is true that in this instance the Trial Board found that the burden of proof was not met, and the charges were not sustained, this does not mean that a person can act with impunity in making statements such as those attributed to Mr. Boulton.

The integrity, the reputation, the upholding of the sport of purebred dogs, is paramount and requires an un-wielding burden on those who take on the role of an American Kennel Club judge. It is hoped by this Decision and the Statement of Findings that issue will be reiterated, and this Trial Board in no way means to denigrate or belittle that duty.

At the hearing the Board became aware of the extraordinary efforts now being made by the AKC to avoid any similar situations in the future. The entire board is aware of the conflict between the First Amendment rights of all individuals as well as the AKC. This process now in consideration will help to balance those rights, and protect not only the AKC but all persons charged in any future instances.

All Trial Board members did not agree with the decision of the majority. So that it can be clear that strong feelings were generated by this matter, included in the decision is the opinion of the minority of the Board. That decision as set forth is a strong one well reasoned, and should be carefully considered by anyone who would act at any time in the future in a manner detrimental to the sport or this organization.

"The Trial Board has made a monumental decision that will have an enormous adverse affect in the Sport of Dogs. It is a very sad day for those who judge in the Sport.

Pandora's Box has been opened. We have created a world of “rights rather than deeds."

An exhibitor can now rage and criticizes the decision of a judge without the fear of a serious reprimand A precedent has now been established.

If evidence was not properly presented by the AKC the Defense Attorney should ask for a recess and an opportunity for discovery. He did not. Near the end of the hearing when the Prosecution introduced the 18 pages of evidence the defendant should not have allowed it.

The Defense knew f /they projected an image of their client as poor little innocent me, taken advantage of, not in tune with goes on in the real world, and not so smart, etc., that they would prevail, and they did! They did not have to worry about the other stuff. They were right on target. We must remember, this was an Administrative Hearing not a Court of Record.

I am truly sorry the there is such a huge difference of opinion and understanding of how this will affect our beloved sport.

It is the decision of the majority of the Trial Board that the declaration of charges and the amended declaration of charges are not sustained, the case is closed and the charges are dismissed.