Senior Conformation Judges Association, Inc.
 

Wallace H. Pedé Chief Executive Officer
7200 Tanager St., Springfield, VA 22150
(703) 451-5656 Fax (703) 451-5979

August 26th, 2006

To The AKC Board of Directors Collectively
The American Kennel Club
260 Madison Ave.  4^th Floor
New York, NY  10016

Subject:  AKC’s Guidelines for Conformation Dog Show Judges and Correspondence On This Subject Through The Years
 

Dear AKC Board Members: 

There is no need to read all of the enclosed letters which represent a sampling of the many requests the SCJA has made since 1989; however, we have enclosed them for ease of reference (if interested) and for the information of those individuals NOT on the AKC Board at the time they were written.  In the enclosed letters, the SCJA has repeatedly requested the objectionable phrase “FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE GUIDELINES SUBJECTS A JUDGE TO POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.” be removed.  This phrase gives the Guidelines the status to impose disciplinary action on individual judges contrary to the provisions of AKC’s Bylaws. 

     The AKC Board policy was adopted in 1989 without a vote of the Delegate Body after the Stanek trial, where as an AKC judge, he awarded the CEO of his company’s dog Best in Show.  (This resulted in Stanek’s life suspension.)  This is another example of an AKC Board policy going on for seventeen years and being used to discipline certain individuals on a selected basis while ignoring others.

     The only response the SCJA has received from the AKC on the issue of the national judges organizations being offered the opportunity to furnish input on matters affecting judges was the positive action taken by Ron Menaker as indicated in an informal note from Ron, who was an AKC Board member at the time.  Shortly after the incidents in 2003 which prompted the Chairman of the Board to appoint the Conflict of Interest Committee, SCJA’s CEO did have a personal conversation on behalf of the SCJA with AKC President, Dennis Sprung.  During that conversation, Dennis indicated quite emphatically that the objectionable phrase threatening disciplinary action to judges would be removed.  During this time frame, the undersigned also spoke personally with AKC Chairman of the Board, Ron Menaker.  During that conversation, at Ron’s request, he was faxed a copy of his personal handwritten note of December 4, 1997 to the undersigned which had to do with judges’ input.   

     During this conversation, Ron suggested I contact the newly appointed chairman of the Conflict of Interest Committee, Dave Merriam, which I did.  Dave, as he so often has done in the past, responded and called personally to let us know that the committee recommendations would, in effect, have the Guidelines refer in a different  manner to our judges, and specifically that the threat of disciplinary action be removed; in essence,

exactly what Dennis had indicated.

     Ladies and gentlemen, the committee was appointed over two years ago, and I note that the latest published copies of the Guidelines, furnished last month, still have the objectionable phrase (and we believe one without proper authority ) in the Guidelines.  The question is raised, of course, has it been used to discipline any of our judges since Chairman Menaker appointed the Conflict of Interest Committee?  The SCJA would like to once again recommend the phrase “FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE GUIDELINES SUBJECTS A JUDGE TO POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.” be summarily removed from AKC’s Guidelines and that the entire Guidelines be rewritten as the SCJA has suggested through the years in a manner more appropriate for guidelines and as the Chairman of the Conflict of Interest Committee, Dave Merriam, agreed would be happening. 

     Would it be asking too much to have a report in writing as to the status of SCJA’s suggestions made through the years since shortly after this questionable phrase was inserted in the Guidelines in 1989?   Also, we are talking about guidelines for JUDGES.   Why not, as our AKC Chairman agreed years ago, have some input from our judges organizations?  With all due respect to the individuals, the judging experience of the first two echelons of those responsible for writing and amending the judges’ guidelines is non-existent.  Compare this to the hundreds of years of multiple-Group and all-breed judging experience of the Board members of the national judges organizations, and  our request seems most reasonable.

Sincerely,

Wallace H. Pedé

Chief Executive Officer

WHP/kms

Enclosures:  Previous SCJA Letters on This Subject  

Copy to James Crowley for Administration and Distribution to AKC Board Members

SCJA: Dedicated to serving for the good of all associated with the dog world.

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 PASTE THIS LINK into a REGULAR email message, then from your own contacts list, select as many recipients as you want this puppy can handle it!  He's his daddy's boy - trained to help you share the news.... and he's a keeper!