|
 |
Senior Conformation Judges Association, Inc.
Wallace H. Pedé Chief Executive Officer
7200 Tanager St., Springfield, VA 22150
(703) 451-5656 Fax (703) 451-5979
|
November 1st, 2011
Mr. Ronald Menaker, AKC Chairman of the Board
All AKC Board Members
Mr. Dennis Sprung, AKC President
The American Kennel Club
260 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016
Subject: Chairman Bob Smith’s Committee’s Report on Proposal for
Judges Approval Process
First Mention January 2011: There was an
Executive Session to discuss Judging Approval.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Wade, staff, were present for this discussion.
In August the
Judging Approval proposal
was discussed and then, with amendment, unanimously approved in
the
October Board
Meeting.
Dear Ron, All AKC Board Members and Dennis:
Note: the following letter (bottom of this page) was prepared
and the time-consuming coordination effected prior to the action
and comments made at AKC’s October 2011 Board meeting which
obviously bears on some of the letters’ contents. The SCJA
will offer further comments concerning the AKC’s Board actions
at their October 2011 meeting. It is essential that the AKC
Board and Delegates be aware of the contents without further
delay, for any action they deem appropriate.
Reference the published comments of the committee chair
concerning other AKC Board members’ actions and comments on this
issue. Notwithstanding, we trust the AKC Chairman, Committee
Chairman and other AKC Board members realize that here in the
United States, we have a good number of our sovereign states
asking the Supreme Court for a decision questioning the action
of the U.S. President and federal government and a number of
State Attorney Generals questioning their differences with the
U. S. Government and asking for a decision. In view of actions
such as these and others, we trust it is acceptable for the AKC
President, AKC Chairman and other AKC Board members to listen to
and consider comments offered by organizations whose Board
members have equal, and in some cases, due to the greater
numbers, more versatile experience including at the national
level.
Incidentally, SCJA’s one and two-page letters have proven
ineffective. One such letter addressed to VP for Dog Show Judges
criticizing the action of the Director of Judging Operations was
sent through AKC’s Chief Operating Officer (at his personal
request) and was actually answered by the very person whose
actions were being questioned. Hard to believe, but a fact.
Another recent letter to AKC’s Chairman and Board asked for
their leadership to solve a problem involving thousands of
judges. Unbeknownst to the AKC Board, our letter was answered by
a fifth echelon staff member and referred to a forthcoming
unapproved committee report. The staff member obviously did not
realize his reply indicated our request for leadership was being
accomplished by a committee!!
FOLLOWING IS OUR ORIGINAL
LETTER FINALIZED PRIOR TO AKC’S OCTOBER 2011 BOARD MEETING.
We want to congratulate all AKC Board members who realized the
necessity of the motion to grant an extension to submit comments
on subject report. Notwithstanding, we find it incomprehensible
for the AKC Board to expect meaningful input and effective
coordination with the national judges groups Board members to
say nothing of their other members in the time frame mentioned.
An experienced management analyst knows very well you gain
little when the authors of a proposal critique the criticism of
their own efforts or products. A number of Board members on the
national judges groups, like the AKC Board members, have all
kinds of business, law, military and senior government
experience. This of course applies to the AKC Delegate body as
well. It most certainly should be taken advantage of. You can
rest assured, in the process, they have collectively analyzed
things just a bit more complicated than the subject at hand.
Over a year ago, the SCJA made a request personally to the
chairman of subject committee before initial action by the
committee - that an independent representative from each of the
national judges groups be made a member of the AKC committee.
Obviously, this never occurred.
The most egregious issue in this entire matter is the fact that
the AKC Board realizes full well that any change
involving an increase in the number of approved Groups must be
voted on by the Delegates! (This fact was included in AKC’s
official letter on this subject.) Yet somehow they believe the
Delegates are not the sole authority for voting on changes on
just who can judge an AKC dog show? (Last time we checked,
the clubs formed to conduct dogs shows needed both dogs and
judges to put on a dog show!!!!) The AKC Board has
repeatedly ignored the issue of the Delegates’ sole authority on
this issue.
AKC’s Bylaws are crystal clear – the AKC Board has no authority
to arbitrarily change any provision in AKC’s Bylaws or a rule
governing a dog show or any association or club formed to
conduct the dog show.
"ARTICLE IX: BOARD OF DIRECTORS GENERAL POWERS
The Board of Directors shall have the general management
of the business and affairs of the Club and generally perform
all duties appertaining to the office of director provided,
however, that all the powers conferred by this Article of the
Bylaws shall be exercised subject to all other provisions
of these Bylaws and to the statutes of the State of New York and
all amendments thereof and additions thereto."
(underlining added)
This Article gives the AKC Board the general power to run the
AKC provided they comply with all the other provisions of the
Bylaws and to the statutes of the State of New York and
all amendments thereof and additions thereto.
We are somewhat surprised, on occasion, as to how many
individuals in authority are not aware of ARTICLE XIX of AKC’s
Charter, Constitution and Bylaws. ARTICLE XIX quoted
below certainly is an unequivocal statement. Sole power means
sole power. It trumps any words that individuals use to bring up
a perceived conflict.
Remember, we are stressing ARTICLE XIX of AKC’s Charter,
Constitution and Bylaws, titled "RULES". Individuals often
get it confused with a rule but it is a Bylaw
entitled "RULES". To quote ARTICLE XIX of AKC’s Charter,
Constitution and Bylaws:
"ARTICLE XIX: RULES
The Delegates to the AKC shall have sole power to make
the rules governing dog shows and field trials and the clubs
or associations formed to conduct them." (underlining added)
Since the Delegates have the "sole power" to make a rule,
it does not include the AKC President, AKC Board of Directors
and obviously no AKC staff member. The SCJA wants to point out
that no one, including the AKC Board of Directors, can use
ARTICLE X SPECIFIC POWERS of AKC’s Charter, Constitution and
Bylaws as authority to take the action they have taken in
changing a rule. ARTICLE X outlines in 16 sections the AKC’s
Board of Directors’ "SPECIFIC POWERS" without detracting
from any general powers of the AKC Board of Directors or
the bylaws.
ARTICLE X Section 9 gives the AKC Board the power to
issue and revoke licenses to judges, superintendents and
handlers. The power is given to the AKC Board, not to their
subordinates on the staff or some committee. This in no way
alters the "sole power" of the Delegates to make or
change a rule. The AKC Board was involved in another apparent
violation a few years back which the SCJA brought up at the
time. After 120+ years of approving judges, as required by the
Bylaws, the AKC Board of Directors, many of whom were judges,
including the Chairman, on their own decided they would like
more breeds while serving on the AKC Board - - - and what do you
know? The AKC Board delegates the very important
judges approval to the subordinate AKC staff. Some folks wonder how
many AKC Board members or their wives have been turned down for
breeds by their subordinates or committee since the change????
Something that no one is aware of happening before – a very
senior AKC Board member was approved for the remainder of the
breeds in a Group and a number of breeds into their next Group
in the same issue of the Gazette!
Section 3 of ARTICLE X indicates that the AKC Board of Directors
should indeed examine all proposed amendments or alterations to
the Bylaws, Rules or Regulations of the AKC and report
thereon to the AKC for action. Note - the AKC Board
reports - they don’t’ take action - the Delegates have the
"sole power" to take action on rules governing dog shows.
ARTICLE X also clearly indicates without a shadow of a doubt in
Section 4 "All matters in dispute as to interpretation of the
Rules or Regulations of the AKC shall be submitted to the Board
for its construction, which shall be decisive." Obviously, the
AKC Board cannot illegally make a rule for dog shows without the
Delegates approval, publish it, put it in effect, then when it’s
in dispute, take action on it. Remember, that is if there is a
dispute with a rule or regulation, NOT A
BYLAW, Article XIX gives the Delegates the "sole power"
to make the rules governing dog shows. If there is a dispute,
between a bylaw and a rule and the AKC Board somehow wants to
argue with the Delegates, it can only be settled by a
government entity, state or federal. The Senior Conformation
Judges Association has already had two disputes in past years
settled by federal statutes and settled in accordance with the
laws of the land and the statutes cited by the Senior
Conformation Judges Association. As the more senior AKC Board
members realize, there have been a good many other AKC policies
established by the Board that the SCJA has recommended be
discontinued and that in fact, have been discontinued from Hands
On Testing many years ago to the infamous Slay’s list of
punishment and fines for our judges. Amazing how many
individuals within the sport aren’t aware of what prompted the
changes.
One especially egregious provision in the Smith Committee Report
still remains – AKC’s insistence that a new provisional judge
must attend the AKC Institute thereby making it
necessary for new provisional judges to attend two basic courses
should they want to attend the original, and by far, the most
comprehensive basic course a new judge could attend – the ACEF
Basic Institute. One AKC Board member covers the fact that the
AKC should get out of judges education and leave it up to judges
that have been judging 30 – 50 years. He also talks about the
hundreds of thousands of dollars that would be saved.
To his credit and with previous thanks from SCJA Board members,
Committee Chair Bob Smith was a motivating factor and indeed
played a leading role in assisting the SCJA CEO in putting on
the very
first national judges institute in the early 80’s even paying
his own travel expenses in the process. Presently, the committee
chair and other AKC Board members who agree that the oldest most
experienced judges institute should be acceptable apparently
were unable to convince the AKC Judges Department to give up the
dictatorial power they enjoy irrespective of the cost saved for
the improved quality of judges education. Worth mentioning,
AKC must be extremely mindful of their financial liability
concerning the IRS when you treat individuals as employees
rather than independent contractors. We should not have to
continually bring up the subject of IRS rules concerning the
limited authority an organization has over independent
contractors! If you want to make our judges employees, that’s
another story, and with it goes all of the ramifications
involved. This really should not enter into the equation. We
apparently were misled into believing this problem would be
solved in the committee report. Apparently, it was not.
The SCJA suggests once again that one of the AKC Board members,
who has indicated personally that they agree, make the motion
that the SCJA’s (now ACEF) five-day original Judges Institute be
accepted along with AKC’s own one or two-day course. (Do away
with the "MUST ATTEND AKC’S INSTITUTE".) NOTE – Since the ACEF’s
very first Judges Institute, the AKC has always had a full day
of the top individual within AKC to lecture on AKC Rules,
Regulations and Judging Guidelines and Bench Committee
Hearings and Trial Boards – AKC’s Executive Secretary, Mr.
James Crowley – who has always been the after-dinner speaker as
well. Also, all the time necessary has been allotted for an AKC
Rep to speak, and on many occasions, we have had a number of AKC
Board members address the class as well as an AKC Board Chairman
and President or two. The change in AKC Rep attendance and
approval status occurred sometime after a change in the AKC
Judges Department. Strong exceptions were expressed concerning
SCJA official correspondence containing written recommendations
made to the AKC Chairman of the Board, Board members and AKC’s
President.
We were somewhat disappointed when the subject of appointing a
member from each of the national judges groups was suggested,
and we were told, in effect, that that wasn’t a good idea since
the judges groups just look out for the judges!! Inferring that
the judges had little regard for the good of the overall sport
and couldn’t be trusted to offer constructive criticism! The
SCJA finds this rather insulting to infer that those of us on
the Board of Directors and SCJA members don’t have the best
interest of the sport at heart. In case anyone didn’t realize
it, all of us are very much a part of and deeply involved in the
entire sport, and we get zero compensation and many members
donate expenses as opposed to the AKC Board of Directors who,
for well over a hundred years received no compensation for their
services until the latest change in leadership.
AN INTERESTING THOUGHT!
Just suppose ARTICLE XIX did not mandate that the Delegates had
the "sole power" – what on earth would be wrong in having the
Delegates confirm something as important as the judges approval
process that some committee and the AKC Board approved? Remember
the AKC Board reports – it doesn’t take action on certain items.
THIS SUPPOSITION doesn’t change the unequivocal clarity of
ARTICLE XIX. It appears the AKC Board does not trust the
intelligence and good intentions of the Delegates to confirm the
decisions the AKC Judges Department and committee and the AKC
Board want.
THE SCJA BELIEVES THE SMITH COMMITTEE REPORT HAS SOME
REDEEMING FEATURES, BUT IT COULD DO WITH A LITTLE TWEAKING – IT
ALSO NEEDS PROPER APPROVAL - - - - - WHAT MAKES THE BOARD
BELIEVE THE DELEGATES WILL NOT APPROVE IT???
The SCJA agrees with many of the others who have called for more
time before it can be properly resolved. It is therefore
requested that final action be delayed, and the report be
administratively handled as mandated in AKC’s Charter,
Constitution and Bylaws.
Sincerely,
Wallace H. Pedé
Chief Executive Officer
WHP/kms
cc: AKC Executive Secretary, James P. Crowley
Info copy: AKC Delegates
|