Minutes of the Meeting of the Dog Show Rules Committee June 12, 2016 Chairperson Cindy Miller called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and asked the members to introduce themselves. She reminded Linda Flynn, Sue Goldberg, Nancy Perrell and Cindy Stansell that their terms are expiring and reminded them to self-nominate if they are interested in continuing to serve on the Committee. She also encouraged everyone interested to consider self-nominating. Committee Members present: Dr. Duane Butherus Linda Flynn, Secretary Mary Manning-Stolz Cindy Miller, Chairperson Harry Miller David Powers Robert Schroll Cindy Stansell Committee Member absent: Sue Goldberg, Nancy Perrell and John Shoemaker Also present were AKC Board Liaisons Tom Davies and Harvey Wooding and Staff Liaison Gina DiNardo. Other Board members present included Lee Arnold, Carl Ashby,Bill Feeney, Steve Gladstone, Alan Kalter and Ron Menaker. Delegate guests present were: Jaimie Ashby, Carolina KC; Jeffrey Ball, Ramapo KC; Thomas Barvie, West Highland White Terrier Club of America; Martha Lee Beckington, Mt Vernon Dog Training Club; Rita Biddle, Ingham County KC; Harry Booker, Kennel Club of Philadelphia; Anne Bowes, Pembroke Welsh Corgi Club of America; John Buddie, Collie Club of America; Karen Burgess, Greater Clark County KC; Viola Burgos, Naugatuck Valley KC; April Clyde, California Airedale Terrier Club; Richard F. Coletti, North Shore KC; Warren Cook, So. Oregon KC; Marilyn Currey, American Chinese Crested Club; Barbara Steinbacher Dalene, Garden State All Terrier Club; Almira Dallas, Forsyth KC; Fred G. Ferris, CT River Working Dog Assn.; Merlyn Green, Del Monte KC; Steve Hamblin, Pacific Coast Pekingese Club; Ralph Hogancamp, Minneapolis KC; Barry Hoovis, Monticello NYKC; Eugenia Hunter, Irish Wolfhound Club of America; John Ioia, So. Adirondack Dog Club; Ross Jones, Rio Grande KC; Patte Klecan, American Bouvier des Flandres Club; Michael Knight, Texas KC; Ken Mader, American Sealyham Terrier Club; Sid Marx, Colorado Springs KC; Aletta Moore, Airedale Terrier Club of America; Elizabeth Omeara, Rhode Island KC; Greg Paveza, Elm City KC; Thomas Powers, KC of Beverly Hills; Julian Prager, Central Florida KC; Richard Rohrbacher, Welsh Springer Spaniel Club of America; Barry Rose, Chain O Lakes KC; Bill Russett, Richland County KC; Kenny Saenz, The Chihuahua Club of America; Gary Sarvinas, Maryland KC; Barbara Shaw, Greater Collin KC; Patti Staub, Greater Fredericksburg KC; Sharon Steckler, American Boxer Club; Marlene Steinberg, Greater Philadelphia DFA; Richard Su, Keeshond Club of America; Katherine Sullivan, Field Spaniel Society of America; Robert Tainsh, Cedar Rapids Kennel Assn.; Bruce Van Deman, English Toy Spaniel Club of America; Robert Widden, Great Western Terrier Assoc.; and Ruth Winston, Ladies Kennel Assn. of America; Update on Items sent to the Board Items sent to Jim Crowley for Board consideration included Ch. 3, Secs. 4; 5, 7, 16, 17 and 19. These will be read at the June meeting for vote in September..
Dog Show Rules Committee Page 2 of 2 June 12, 2016 BOD Liaison Report DQ Reinstatement Procedure Harvey Wooding reported the Board is working on the Disqualification policy. The policy has been in effect for a long time and there are shortcomings in the policy. As a result, a committee of staff, including various areas and legal, drafted changes to the process and procedure. The policy remains the same, just the process has been changed. Harvey read the proposed procedures attached as Exhibit A, which are in effect now. Harvey discussed some of the revisions to the policy which the Board will consider at its July meeting. These include: A disqualified dog will be scheduled for reinstatement examination at last ½ hour prior to judging and must immediately leave the site. When the dog is disqualified, the handler must DNA swab the dog on site. If he is unable to do so or if he refuses, the dog will not be eligible for reinstatement. At reinstatement, the dog must again be swabbed. There would also be a $500 fee to cover the costs involved. Cindy Miller noted that in 2014, the Committee sent proposed revisions to Ch. 11, Sec. 8A to the Board. She noted that the major issue was the permanent identification. There were other recommendations sent to the Board which seem to be addressed by this proposal; i.e., superintendents and show secretaries will be advised of reinstatement exams and prior notice to Show Chair. She thanked the Board for making these changes and addressing our concerns. She did noted that the Committee resubmitted our proposed revisions last month for the July agenda, and she suspects it will be not approved by the Board because of these changes. Harvey noted that one of the criticisms on the current procedure is that it is a violation of the Rules. He read the Rule and noted that the application for reinstatement makes the dog eligible to be on the grounds. David Powers asked whether littermates would have the same DNA, and the answer was that they do not. Steve Gladstone looked into questions about DNA, and found that they can tell littermates apart. It may take larger alleles, but they can tell them apart. Linda Flynn asked whether a club did have the right of refusal, and Harvey stated that clubs will have the right to refuse reinstatement. A number of guests indicated they would not agree to reinstatement on their show grounds. In response to a question, Harvey noted that the Executive Field Representative would be responsible for ensuring the dog leaves the grounds. Steve noted the basic question is do we want to have a reinstatement procedure. It was noted that there are certain circumstances where we want to allow reinstatement. Another question was whether there should be some sort of appeals process. Cindy Miller noted that we had appointed a subcommittee in March (Cindy Stansell and Mary Manning-Stolz) which is analyzing and reviewing what other appeals processes exist and whether something should be drafted for disqualifications. There was also discussion about disqualified dogs being exhibited. Steve noted that if it is entered, AKC can only disallow the award. The Executive Field Rep can advise the owner the dog cannot be shown. If a list of disqualified dogs is given to superintendents, they can reject the entry. Harvey noted that the dog owner is notified by letter that the dog is not
Dog Show Rules Committee Page 3 of 3 June 12, 2016 eligible to be exhibited. The new procedure gives the superintendents notice. If the exhibitor still shows, he/she should be subject to an event committee hearing. Duane noted this needs to be in the policy and a statement needs to be sent to Executive Field Reps about how it should be done in terms of being seen by other exhibitors and spectators. In closing the discussion, Cindy Miller noted that our proposed amendments are still on the July Board agenda, and will remain on our agenda for September. Item 3 Staff Update Gina DiNardo noted staff survey of Puppies of Achievement Certificate has been completed, and staff is compiling the results. Recommendations are expected by September and will come to the Committee for input. Gina will also follow up on the status of the proposed revisions for Ch. 16, Sec. 6. Item 4 Territory Issue There should be information before September. Cindy Miller noted that depending on legal input, there should be a vote on Sec. 2. They separated Sec. 3 re venues. Secs. 1, 2 and 4 passed. Secs. 5-7 were removed and others were renumbered. Depending on what the lawyers decide, Harry Miller and Cindy Miller will revise Sec. 3. The 60 days before/30 days after will not pass. Harry noted the 60/30 did not do what was intended. Many people felt the host club approval created many issues. Questions arose regarding unreasonably denied. One concern was what constitutes unreasonable. Cindy invited comments be sent to her. A question arose whether a club not holding a show in their territory is a host club, and the response was that if they do not use the territory for two years, they no longer have the ability to approve or deny. Item 5 Clean up Italicized Portions of the Rules The Chairman noted that the proposed revisions were distributed to the Committee prior to the meeting for review. Since everyone was prepared to vote on the proposed revisions, Cindy presented them one at a time for vote. Upon motion by Mary Manning-Stolz, seconded by Robert Schroll, it was unanimously voted to propose to the Board to amend Chapter 7, Sections 1 and 2 as follows: Section 1. Delete the second paragraph and replace with a new second paragraph: The following persons will not be approved to judge if still engaged in these activities: Soliciting for kennel advertisements Soliciting or selling dog food, dog remedies, or kennel supplies Brokering or trafficking in dogs Serving as or employed by a licensed show superintendent or a professional show secretary Exhibiting dogs which he/she does not own or co-own Residing in the same household with a professional handler or a licensed show superintendent. Section 2. Delete the current section and replace with:
Dog Show Rules Committee Page 4 of 4 June 12, 2016 The application for approval to judge must be made on a form which will be supplied by The American Kennel Club upon request and when received by said club will be placed before the Board of Directors of the American Kennel Club who shall determine in each instance whether the approval shall be granted. Upon motion by Mary Manning-Stolz, seconded by Duane Butherus, it was unanimously voted to propose to the Board to amend Chapter 8 - Selection of Superintendent, Show Secretary and Veterinarians by moving this paragraph to Chapter 2, Section 20. Proposed revisions to Chapter 8 (formerly chapter 9) - Superintendents and Show Secretaries will be tabled to September. Upon motion by Robert Schroll, seconded by Mary Manning-Stolz, it was unanimously voted to propose to the Board to amend Chapter 9 (formerly Chapter 10) - Duties and Responsibilities of Show Veterinarians by adding the following paragraph to Section 2: The Judging Program shall include the telephone number, address and directions for the veterinarian on call or on site, and the directions to the nearest 24-hour animal emergency clinic, or if none, the most convenient veterinarian office. Proposed revisions to Chapter 10 (formerly Chapter 11) - Dog Show Entries, Conditions of Dogs Affecting Eligibility were tabled to September when the entire Chapter is done. Mary reported on the Appeals Process status. Cindy Stansell noted they did find one appeals process, but staff was to look into this. After some discussion, it was agreed that Cindy Miller should ask the Coordinating Committee for permission for staff research on the following issues: Review procedure for DQ by Event Hearing under Ch. 11, Sec. 8A. Understanding is that the current procedure is not similar to the disciplinary Event Committee procedure. Concern is that Event Committees under Ch. 11, Sec. 8A may not allow owner of dog to bring witnesses or confront complainant. Review how many times there are requests for reinstatements when the judge says no and, if needed, procedures and criteria to appeal the denial. Item 7 AKC Charter and By-Laws Article XII Complaints No action was taken. Item 8 Letter from OHA re NOHS A letter was read from Richard Grant, President of the Owner Handler Association requesting the Board reconsider its decision to add the asterisk identifying NOHS eligible dogs in the judge s book. Harvey noted that this has been put in place and the Board wishes to leave it in place for one year and see how it goes. Cindy Miller suggested that a separate page be added at the end of each breed in the judge s book in lieu of the asterisk. Harvey felt this was a good suggestion. Cindy also noted that stewards need to take responsibility. If clubs used more knowledgeable stewards, there would be no need to have an asterisk. Tom
Dog Show Rules Committee Page 5 of 5 June 12, 2016 Davies noted that if the OHA encourages its members to wear pins, then what difference does it make whether they wear a pin or asterisk an owner-handler? Richard Grant asked who was surveyed, and Harvey responded that 2500 exhibitors were surveyed. He explained that in the first survey, respondents rejected the asterisk. After complaints by judges and exhibitors, the survey was repeated and 70% were in favor of the asterisk. The Board put this in place on January 1, planning to review it after the first year and make any adjustments. Richard requested a copy of the survey, and Harvey agreed to try to get a copy to Cindy Miller. Item 9 Proposal for Different Show Levels Cindy Stansell reported that this was on hold to see how the new process was going. Sid Marx, author of the proposal, noted it was on hold there was disagreement in the community as to how far forward this was going. He is still working on this with the subcommittee. It was agreed to table this to December. Item 10 Removal of Dates on Class Placement Ribbons Marjorie Tuff spoke on this proposal to delete dates from ribbons to save clubs money. Cindy Miller noted that we were told the last time this issue was discussed that there would be no cost saving due to set up charges. In the past, there was very little support little or no cost savings, having to store ribbons and keep track of them. Marjorie noted that a number of small clubs are having a hard time buying ribbons and then having to throw them out. Robert Schroll expressed disfavor to this proposal. He noted that people often look back at that first placement ribbon and remember when they first started in the sport. He also felt that we are eliminating too many traditions. Cindy Miller noted that if you have a package deal with a superintendent, they count very closely the number of ribbons required, so this is not an issue for larger shows, but this may be cost effective for smaller shows and specialties. After some discussion on how to properly word the proposed revision, Duane Butherus moved, seconded by Mary Manning-Stolz, and all, except Robert Schroll, voted to propose to the Board to amend Ch. 5 Sec. 2 by adding the following new last sentence: Ribbons or rosettes used for regular and non-regular class placements must meet the requirements, except the date of the show and location of the show do not have to be included on the face. Permit Altered Dogs in all Non-Regular Classes Cindy Miller noted that at independent specialties, veterans are permitted and are eligible to compete in BOB. It has been suggested that altered dogs should be eligible for all nonregular single entry classes and be able to compete for BOB. Cindy Stansell noted that she is against this because of legislative issues and mandatory spay/neuter bills. The only reason we are winning is because of the economic impact of dog shows. As soon as we allow altered dogs, we will lose. Harvey asked for input by Sheila Goff s department, and noted they are not in favor of this. It is an invitation to the AR people. Cindy Stansell also noted that there are coat changes in many breeds. Cindy responded to Duane s question as to how this impacts the economics of dog shows that they have published how much money dog shows bring to North Carolina, and the dogs are required to be intact. If they passed a
Dog Show Rules Committee Page 6 of 6 June 12, 2016 spay/neuter bill, they will lose revenue. This argument was how the bill was defeated. If we allow altered dogs to compete then there is no reason. It was noted that this would only be applicable for independent specialty shows and a small number of dogs. Harvey suggested the Committee get input from Sheila Goff on this. Cindy will contact Sheila and report back in September. Item 12 Closing Time for Entries Harvey noted the Board agreed to the date extension for a holiday. They also were looking to shorten the time frame between closing and the dog show; however, the superintendents didn t like that. Another suggestion was to extend the time frame for entries from noon to 11:59 pm to give extra time that day for electronic entries. This is a suggestion, not a requirement. This is optional for the superintendent and the club. Gina noted three superintendents were opposed. The rule does not stipulate that they must stay beyond normal business hours. The superintendent can specify the time. This works for most business practices. Steve noted that the Board is still discussing Reserve Best Junior, but still wants it done the way it was proposed. Staff is sending out a survey to Juniors to see what they prefer. Carl Ashby noted the Board is looking at a Juniors Program. He noted that Juniors are governed by regulations rather than rules. The Board sent recommendations to staff for development. It was noted that one thing that will help is not assigning judges to judge juniors that do not want to judge them. This has caused some negative experiences for juniors. Steve mentioned some recent shows which have run very late, some starting groups at 4 pm. He reminded everyone that it is up to the show chairs to tell the superintendents how they want their judging scheduled. There was much discussion on timing and order of groups, and the fact that it is under the control of the show chair, not the superintendent. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Flynn, Secretary