Minutes of the Meeting of the Dog Show Rules Committee June 7, 2015

Transcription

1 Minutes of the Meeting of the Dog Show Rules Committee June 7, 2015 Chairperson Cindy Miller called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m., and asked the members to introduce themselves. Cindy noted that current members whose terms expire in September are her, Robert Schroll, and Johnny Shoemaker. Mary Manning was appointed to fill Charlie Schaefer s term. All must self-nominate if they wish to remain on the Committee. All Committee Members were present: Duane Butherus Linda Flynn, Secretary Sue Goldberg Mary Manning-Stolz Cindy Miller, Chairperson Harry Miller Nancy Perrell David Powers Robert Schroll John Shoemaker Cindy Stansell Also present were AKC Board Liaisons Tom Davies and Harvey Wooding and Staff Liaison Gina DiNardo. Delegate guests present were: Carl Ashby, U.S. Kerry Blue Terrier Club; Rita Biddle, Ingham County KC; Paul Bodeving, Rogue Valley KC; Anne Bowes, Pembroke Welsh Corgi Club of America; Karen Burgess, Greater Clark County KC; Kathy Coxwell, Bearded Collie Club of America; Marilyn Currey, American Chinese Crested Club; Margaret Curtis, Greenwich KC; Dr. Joyce Dandridge, Capital Dog Training Club of Washington, DC; Kim Demchak, Giant Schnauzer Club of America; Toni Doake, Town & Country KC; Barbara Gates, English Springer Spaniel Club of Michigan; Harvey Goldberg, Somerset Hills KC; Merlyn Green, Del Monte KC; Steve Hamblin, Pacific Coast Pekingese Club; Keith Hanson, Bichon Club; Eugenia Hunter, Irish Wolfhound Club of America; of America; Barry Hoovis, Montiello NY KC; Felice Jarrold, Old Pueblo Dog Training Club; Darlene Kelley, Sawnee Mountain KC; Michael Knight, Texas KC; Gail LaBerge, Atlanta Obedience Club; Stacey LaForge, Tibetan Terrier Club of America; Sandra Launey, Basset Hound Club of America; Ann Lettis, Grand River KC; Ron Menaker, Nashville KC; Aletta Moore, Airedale Terrier Club of America; Vivian Moran, Cardigan Welsh Corgi Club of America; Cathy Nelson, National Capital KC; Elizabeth Omeara, Rhode Island KC; Greg Paveza, Elm City KC; Diane Pearson, Bedlington Terrier Club of America; Julian Prager, Central Florida KC; Jan Ritchie, Richmond Dog Fanciers; Richard Rohrbacher, Welsh Springer Spaniel Club of America; Pam Rosman, Canaan Dog Club of America; Norma Ryan, Columbia Terrier Assoc. of MD; Kenneth Saenz, Chihuahua Club of America; Phillip Sample, Anderson KC; Gary Sarvinas, Maryland KC; Ereign Seacord, Welsh Terrier Club of America; Maureen Setter, Cleveland All-Breed Training Club; Larry Sorenson, Dachshund Club of America; Michael Sosne, Oakland County KC; Patti Staub, Greater Fredericksburg KC; Maggi Strouse, National Shiba Club of America; Mike Teeling, Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of the U.S.; Dianne Tyree, Tibetan Spaniel Club of America; Sally Vilas, American Shih Tzu Club; Lori Webster, Norwegian Elkhound Assoc. of America; Larry Wilson, Philadelphia Dog Training Club; and Mary Yadus, Mountaineer KC. Items sent to the Board Items sent to Jim Crowley for Board consideration included: Expression of a majority opinion in opposition to the September delegates meeting change to Sat/Sun and a request for reconsideration of the Sun/Mon delegates meeting schedule. The Sun/Mon schedule interferes with the delegates responsibility to their clubs to participate in their club s events, as well as their participation in other club s

2 Dog Show Rules Committee Page 2 of 2 June 7, 2015 events. By returning to the Mon/Tues schedule, delegates will be more in tune with the sport and the fancy. The Committee votes on making the awarding of Reserve Best Junior mandatory and requesting reconsideration on the procedure for awarding Reserve Best Junior similar to Reserve Best in Show. Pee Wee update. The minutes of the March meeting were previously distributed to the Committee members and approved. Item 2 Board Update Harvey Wooding noted that the Committee recommendations on Reserve Best Junior will be reviewed by the Board at its June meeting. He noted that staff is committed to doing it as originally passed. Regarding Pee Wee class, he suggested that clubs come up with an outline and he will get it in the right hands. One application for a Pee Wee class special attraction has already been approved. Staff has an outline in process, and as soon as the Board approves guidelines they will be published in the minutes. Any interested club should contact Doug Lundgren. A special attraction does not require approval. Harvey reported that the Board has been looking at changes to the Rules coming from staff. They have taken the position that they have a responsibility to continue to promote the sport s well-being and growth. The Board has challenged staff to look at ways to do this. The Board will look at them and approve what they feel is beneficial. It is not the intent to pre-empt the business of this Committee. Item 3 Dog News Article re Concurrent Specialty Gina DiNardo reported that Event Operations accommodated all designated specialties on that day. After the all-breed show was cancelled, representatives of the specialty club talked to allbreed club representatives and the AKC EFR. All parties agreed to allow the specialty to be held, Events Ops approved it, and it was successfully held. It was deemed in the best interests of the sport to continue the specialty shows. Item 4 Ch. 11, Sec. 8-A/Reinstatement Procedures for Disqualified Dog Cindy Miller read the changes proposed and approved by the subcommittee on January 13, Robert Schroll moved that the proposed changes presented by the subcommittee be presented to the Board for consideration. Johnny Shoemaker seconded. Discussion arose on various points including contacting judges in advance that are familiar with the breed and group of the dog to be evaluated for reinstatement and judges will be informed of the process including waiting for EFR before performing the exam. It was noted that it is Board policy that disqualified dogs are permitted to be on the event grounds for a reinstatement procedure. Cindy Stansell gave her position on this matter. She noted that what staff is doing to correct the procedure is appropriate and the proper way to handle it. Sue Goldberg read her position paper (Exhibit A) on the proposal. A vote was then taken on the motion made by Robert Schroll, seconded by Johnny Shoemaker that the proposed changes presented by the subcommittee be presented to the Board for consideration. Three members were

3 Dog Show Rules Committee Page 3 of 3 June 7, 2015 opposed Cindy Stansell, Mary Manning-Stolz and Nancy Perrell, and the remaining seven members were in favor. The question who is staff was raised. There was discussion on the lack of feedback on the proposals presented by the Committee to the Board for consideration. The proposals are sent to Jim Crowley and the Committee never hears further until something appears in the minutes. Many of the Committee s proposals are stalled or dropped by staff without the Committee being advised. Item 5-7 Update on Misc./FSS Competition; Altered Dogs in Misc and Open Shows Carry-over of one major and some points earned in Misc. Certificate of Merit Expansion Cindy discussed the progression from FSS to Misc. and Joy Brewster s proposal to allow altered dogs/bitches to compete in open shows. This would be only in FSS/Misc class. Linda Flynn discussed the Open Show and Parade of FSS/Misc. Breeds held at the Greenwich Kennel Club Show, noting what an incredible success and educational experience it was. She felt this type of event should be encouraged if the AKC s intent is to recognize more FCI breeds. Cindy Stansell is still working on procuring the information needed for further discussion. Robert Schroll noted he has opposed altered dogs competing at regular shows in the past when this has been proposed. He felt there is a difference in altered dogs competing in FSS at Open Shows, noting this gives the opportunity for all to see these new breeds and bring in new people. For those reasons, would support altered dogs in FSS breeds at Open Shows. Duane Butherus asked if we approved this proposal, would altered animals be eligible to earn a Certificate of Merit from Open Shows. Cindy Stansell reported that she is still getting results in on her survey. She has contacted the official breed people. Her Pumi contact is opposed to allowing altered dogs to compete at Open Shows. Cindy Stansell is still receiving numbers and hoped to have data for the September meeting. However, Cindy Miller noted this has been on our agenda for a year. This is not a rule; it is a special attraction and Board policy. We are just stating our Committee consensus for their consideration, and staff will agree or disagree with us. She is trying to move things forward. It was moved and seconded that Gina DiNardo request staff consider whether altered dogs should be allowed to compete in FSS and Misc. classes at Open Shows. There were eight members in favor, Cindy Stansell opposed and Nancy Perrell abstained. Staff is requested to respond by drafting a proposal for the Committee s review in September or advising the Committee that altered dogs should not be allowed to compete in FSS/Misc. classes at open shows and the reasons staff is opposed. Cindy Stansell noted that she had been instructed by Cindy Miller to put this topic on hold until the Board decided what to do on Open Shows and the Certificate of Merit. Although it was on the agenda, she was not aware that this was going to be discussed at the June meeting because the Board had not yet made a decision. She asked to table this until September so that she could bring the material to the September meeting. There was discussion on the Certificate of Merit and carryover of points from Misc. class once the breed is approved and eligible to compete in its group. It is proposed that one major and 50% of the points be carried over, since the entry fee for dogs competing in Misc. is the same as

4 Dog Show Rules Committee Page 4 of 4 June 7, 2015 those in regular classes where championship points are awarded. This would encourage participation from Misc. through regular status. It was noted that the Committee supported this proposal provided that these Misc. dogs would still be required to obtain a major and before the latest proposal for awarding points in the 4-6 mos. puppy competition, which could be counted towards championship points. Gina noted that currently only puppy and open classes are offered in Misc. Harvey noted that no dog has won a Certificate of Merit title from the 4-6 mos. competition, and unless we expand the opportunity, they will never earn the title. Carl Ashby spoke on the proposal and the logic behind the title and the Board s intentions. He noted that it is improbably that that single point will result in a finished championship of an inferior dog, but this is up to the delegate body. He noted that it is an attempt to raise interest in new people. Nancy Perrell noted that the Certificate of Merit may not necessarily mean they have earned a point on their own merit. Johnny objected to the point being awarded. Harvey asked the delegates to keep in mind that the procedure is that the proposal will be read, and then it can be divided and the point section could be amended. Cindy Stansell noted that day of show entries are no longer allowed for 4-6 mos. competition and questioned whether that has caused a decline in entries. It was suggested that the Board consider expanding availability of limited open shows at Group shows rather than just at allbreed shows. Cindy Miller suggested some proposed revision to the Certificate of Merit proposal. Linda Flynn proposed just eliminating the 4-6 mos. puppy competition from the proposed amendment. It was noted that Ch 16, Sec. 1 and Ch. 3 Sec. 22 be reviewed and revised. After some discussion, it was agreed by Gina and Harvey that they would return this to staff to be divided and returned to the delegate body and the Committee for review. Item 9 Proposal for Gold and Silver Championships to address lack of majors The proposal submitted by an exhibitor through Greg Paveza was read. After discussion, Duane Butherus moved that no further action be taken. Nancy Perrell seconded and it was unanimously voted. Linda Flynn will advise the proposer through Greg Paveza. Item 10 Limited Junior Judges for Group Shows This was proposed due to confusion in the Rules and Policies regarding judges approved to judge Limited Junior Showmanship. The Junior Show Guidelines do not specifically provide for a judge approved to judge limited junior showmanship for all the breeds in a group is approved to judge junior showmanship for that group at a group only show. The option of using one judge to judge all breeds and juniors at a group show, for the group the judge is approved to judge is a service to the clubs. Clearly it is an oversight since if a judge is approved or permit for all the breeds in a group, as well as permit or approved for limited juniors for all the breeds in that group, the judge should be eligible to judge a Group Show for those breeds. Linda submitted a proposed revision to the Junior Showmanship Judging Guidelines, Sec. 2, to Harvey for Board consideration. Harvey reported that the Board is giving consideration to a revision to fix for this issue, and expects it to be voted at the July Board meeting. Item 11 Change in Policy regarding deadline for entries for the 4-6 mos. Puppy Class This item involved a fine assessed against two clubs for the acceptance of entries in the 4-6 mos. puppy class after the closing date for entries. Day of show entries were allowed when this competition was a pilot program, but have not been allowed since July of One of the concerns was the need for inclusion in catalogs and points processing if the proposal to award

5 Dog Show Rules Committee Page 5 of 5 June 7, 2015 points in this competition were to pass; however, there does not seem to be support for this proposal. Nancy moved, it was seconded, and unanimously voted that we send this to back to the Board to re-evaluate allowing day of show entries and non-superintended events for 4-6 mos. puppy competition. Item 12 Group Time Ch. 7, Sec. 12 There was discussion about changes to the group order and starting time. The main concern is late group start times, especially when groups could have been started an hour or two earlier, and there are empty rings. Tom Davies noted that the Show Chair is responsible for setting the group starting time. Johnny pointed out as a superintendent, he would look to see which breeds within a group would be finished first and what time and that would be the first group and starting time for the groups. It was felt show chairs need to be educated that they are responsible for scheduling judging times including group, and as to options. For example, there is nothing to prohibit a break between groups or holding groups simultaneously. Another example is a notice in the judging program stating that in the event of severe weather, groups may be judged simultaneously. It was noted that Board policy states a 30 minute notice must be given of group order change, and there was agreement that there needs to be some notice so that exhibitors and handlers can plan their day. Harry Miller reminded us that the Superintendents work for the clubs and suggested moving start times ½ hr ahead of the superintendent s time, nothing that you can always move the time back, but never forward. It was also noted that some of the people writing judging programs are not familiar with dog shows, so it is even more important for show chairs to be on top of this. A suggestion was made that Events Plans be requested to send out such information annually in a letter to Show Chairs, in its bulletin or with the application package. Gina will pass this suggestion along to Events Plans. Item 13 Delegate Meeting Schedule Return to Mon/Tues Meetings There was some discussion of the rescheduling of the Sat/Sun meeting and much discussion of previous correspondence sent to Jim Crowley regarding consideration of changing meetings back to the Monday/Tuesday meeting schedule. Nancy Perrell noted that the club she represents would prefer her to attend the delegates meetings than to work at her club s show. Sue noted that when we signed on as delegates, we were aware that we would need to take time away from work for Mon/Tues meetings. Linda pointed out that next year the delegates meeting conflicts with Westchester, every year the delegates meetings conflict with shows in the Northeast close to the delegates meeting, and with shows nationwide. Upon motion by Linda Flynn, seconded by Robert Schroll, it was voted that to have Cindy Miller discuss this at the Coordinating Committee meeting. The idea of including non-regular classes in the calculation of points for Grand Champion wins was raised. It was noted that this has been addressed before, specifically with respect to the Veterans classes. It was noted that other factors would need to be addressed. It is a difficult issue. This will be on the September agenda for discussion.

6 Dog Show Rules Committee Page 6 of 6 June 7, 2015 The subject of points for low-entry breeds, specifically Dandie Dinmonts, was raised. It was pointed out that both sexes should be counted in the calculation of points for winners. It was also suggested that the definition of low-entry breed should be revised. Dandies are a really low entry breed some low entry breeds have an entry in 3,500 shows, but Dandies are only in 350 shows. Of those, 160 shows had one entry. They are becoming extinct. Tom Davies suggested having group placements counted in points calculation.

7 Dog Show Rules Committee Page 7 of 7 June 7, 2015 The meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Linda Flynn, Secretary

8 Dog Show Rules Committee Page 8 of 8 June 7, 2015 Exhibit A REINSTATEMENT OF A DOG DISQUALIFIED FOR ATTACKING Presentation for the June 6, 2015 DSR Committee Approximately 3 years ago, the issue of reinstating a dog that has been disqualified for attacking was brought before the Dog Show Rules Committee. The intent was not to eliminate the possibility of reinstatement, as we recognize that there may be extenuating circumstances which would allow for a reinstatement to occur. Rather, it was to review the many failings of the current process and clearly define what must occur at the time of the infraction to correct them. Our primary focus was to protect our judges, our exhibitors, our clubs, their officers, and their venues from injury as well as from litigation. Many serious and thoughtful discussions have been held among the entire DSR committee and among the appointed subcommittee consisting of Mary Manning, Harry Miller, Robert Schroll, Johnny Shoemaker, Cindy Stansell, and myself as Chair. The proposal submitted at the March meeting was voted on by the subcommittee as follows: 4 in favor, 1 opposed, 1 absent. Despite the majority vote in favor, a dissenting minority opinion was distributed to the entire committee at the March meeting, without the prior notice our protocol requires. Dissenting opinions are welcomed and provide food for thought. Debate on any issue can be informative and thought-provoking. Such debate is very appropriate before a vote is called. However, once a vote is taken, the members of this committee have historically bowed to the will of the majority, presented a united front, and moved on. In this case, however, responses and rebuttals have continued. Our Chair has asked me to summarize our reasoning for the proposal as presented for this final vote to be taken today. In reviewing the current Rules and Regulations, Chapter 11, Section 8-A, we found, to our surprise, that a rule is already in place prohibiting a dog that has been DQ'd for attacking from being on the event grounds: "The disqualified dog may not again compete at any AKC event nor be on the grounds of an AKC event unless and until, following application for reinstatement by the owner to the American Kennel Club, the owner receives official notification in writing from the AKC that the dog's eligibility has been reinstated." This means that every reinstatement that takes place at an event is in violation of a rule that currently exists. Therefore, our proposal to remove reinstatements from event grounds does not change anything, but merely reiterates, supports and enforces a current rule. In doing so, it not only protects judges, clubs, officers, venues and spectators, it also protects the AKC itself from being held liable for violating its own rule. A judge, spectator, or exhibitor bitten by a dog that has already been DQ'd for attacking may elect to sue not only the owner, but also the AKC, the event-giving club, its officers, and the venue, who in almost all cases are unaware that such a reinstatement is taking place, much less having given permission. Even if ultimately held harmless, defending a lawsuit is an expense most clubs struggling in these difficult economic times can ill afford. And how many venues would continue to welcome dog clubs if they stand at risk of being sued? We also examined identification methods to ensure that the dog that committed the infraction is positively identified so that if a reinstatement goes forward, we know for certain that the dog presented is the same dog that attacked. As it stands now, there is no

9 Dog Show Rules Committee Page 9 of 9 June 7, 2015 procedure in place for such identification. Many of us are aware of substitutions of dogs to achieve reinstatement. Our proposal allows for several different methods of identification, namely a microchip or a tattoo or some unalterable body feature such as a torn ear or a broken tooth that can be recorded. Nowhere does it state that a microchip is mandatory. It also requires that a photo of the dog be taken in the ring at the time of the DQ. I have asked 6 show photographers, all of whom had readily agreed that they would photograph such dog - not necessarily stacked in show pose - for any club that requested it, thereby making the photo part of the official show record. Our proposal also allows for the fact that some dogs may be so out of control that they cannot be photographed nor scanned nor examined for a tattoo. In the normal course of judging, when a dog cannot be examined, the judge writes, "could not examine". In the same way, the judge or Event committee would note, "could not be identified." It has been argued that this identification process would "create a spectacle" that we would not want the public to see. I would submit that the spectacle is the attack itself, not the paperwork and proper procedure it would engender. It has also been argued that the time it takes to identify the dog in the ring would "shut down a show like Westminster". However, the current procedure requires that a DQ for attacking form, in triplicate, be filled out in the ring at the time of the attack and that the judge, the exhibitor, and the event superintendent or secretary complete and sign their appropriate section in the ring, regardless of whether the show is televised or not. It is important to note that once it leaves the ring, jurisdiction over that dog is lost. As very few judges carry such a triplicate form with them, this means first summoning the superintendent or show secretary which could take quite a bit of time in outdoor shows that may be very spread out or at indoor shows covering several halls or buildings. Imagine if you will, the time it would take you, the just-attacked judge, assuming you are physically able to do so, to read and fill out the following information, taken directly from Section A of the DQ For Attacking form: "Event name, date, breed, class, armband number, write a 'brief note outlining the circumstances of the attack"', checking off boxes that indicate whether or not you have informed the exhibitor of the disqualification, checking off boxes that indicate you have marked the judge's book noting DQ, Attacked, checking off boxes to indicate if you have "informed the exhibitor that the dog CANNOT compete at any future AKC event until the owner has received official notification from the AKC that the dog's event eligibility has been reinstated", then printing your name, signing and dating the form. Next, comes Section B, in which the exhibitor must certify that s/he has read Section A, plus the following: then print and sign his/her name and date: "When a dog is disqualified for attacking any awards at that event shall be cancelled by the AKC and the dog may not again compete unless and until, following application by the owner to the AKC, the owner has received official notification from the AKC that the dog's event eligibility has been reinstated, in accordance with the Rules Applying To Dog Shows, Obedience Regulations, Rally Regulations, Tracking Regulations Or Regulations For Agility Trials." Next, the event superintendent/secretary must fill out Section C, listing the owner's name, phone number and , and the dog's name, breed and AKC number. Only then, per the directions at the top of this form, "Upon completion, judge should detach pink copy and

10 Dog Show Rules Committee Page 10 of 10 June 7, 2015 hand it to the exhibitor in the ring." Note that that instruction is both in bold and underlined. The point here is to underscore that the amount of time all of the above would take would easily allow for a scanner, if available, to be run over the dog by its handler, or a tattoo to be noted and a photo to be taken. And again, if the dog cannot be positively identified, for want of any of the above, then it simply will not be eligible for reinstatement. Period. If the dog is perceived to be a continuing threat to the other dogs in the ring, they could be excused until the paperwork is complete and the judge, assuming s/he can continue, has had a few minutes to regain his/her composure, as we all know that being attacked is unnerving at best and the judge would not want to relay that nervousness to the next dog in line. Although these attacks happen infrequently, one person bitten that could have been prevented, is one too many. Per the AKC, a dog DQ'd for attacking has no business being on the event grounds until AFTER it has been reinstated. Per the AKC, all the paperwork following a DQ for attacking must be completed in the ring. The proposal changes nothing, it merely upholds, clarifies and expands upon what already exists. We, as Delegates, have an obligation to protect our judges, our clubs, their officers and our venues. Approving this proposal will do exactly that. Respectfully submitted, Sue Goldberg, Chair, Subcommittee on DQ Reinstatement Phone: (908) brandongrp@aol.com