Any of you who follow my writings know that I am not the biggest fan of the delegate body overall. My basic problem, of course, goes to the restrictions placed upon those who are and are not occupationally eligible to serve as delegates. Certainly a club may have a delegate represent it, but the representative may not be its choice due to these restrictions. Furthermore, I am a firm believer that basic dog background requirements be required of all potential delegates. Then, of course, comes the longtime, unanswered question of just what the role of the delegate body is vis-a-vis the running of the corporation. Very technically in his August Chairman's Report, Ron Menaker tactfully and nicely reiterated the fact that the role of the Delegate Body insofar as running the corporation is extremely narrow indeed. John Mandeville in an article in the newspaper upheld Ron's viewpoint with even a greater emphasis on the limitations placed upon the Delegate Body by New York State law.
The Bylaws grant the delegates exactly five responsibilities: 1.) Electing new member clubs; 2.) Approving new delegates; 3.) Approving changes to the Rules; 4.) Approving changes to AKC's bylaws, and 5.) Electing the Board of Directors! That's it! If, in fact, the delegate body is permitted to expand its role, it is done with the consent of the Board and the Staff and may, in fact, under New York State law be construed as being illegal in action. Of course, the power of the delegate body is in its ability to annually elect the Board of Directors. So that again, and this is the technicality, if you don't like what a Board Member is doing, vote them out.
Now comes the role of the Delegate Committees. Ron is more liberal than John in suggesting that perhaps these committees are a bylaw granted responsibility. It has long been my personal opinion—which I was surprised and pleased to see confirmed by John in his article—that these committees are provided for under the provisions of Roberts Rules. I was, as most of you know, against the formation of these committees, however, I will admit that perhaps I was too inflexible at the time. I still have many problems with the committees as to how they work and the way they are used, but they do serve as a good outlet for many concerned delegates to vent. What I truly resent about these committees is the payment to the delegates of expense monies—on an unaccountable basis no less—and for AKC to have to pay for the rooms and food they eat and use. No different than AKC paying for the Monday caucus room that the delegates have decided to form and use. The people attending these voluntary meetings should be held responsible. Not AKC.
I suppose, truth be known, I would totally revamp the entire Delegate Body structure and duties. I would establish geographical meetings with representatives elected to meet two or three times a year for conformation, agility and obedience, with probably one annual meeting for everyone. I would have Board members once elected NO LONGER sit as delegates but have these clubs elect new delegates to replace these people. Once elected to the Board, duties and outlook for the Board Member is much broader than those of the individual delegate who represents his or her clubs outlook only. Conflicts can and do arise between the philosophy of being a board representative with all of AKC's needs to consider and the needs of an individual club. Should I go on? I doubt it. This will fall upon deaf ears, if read at all, is my thinking!
Well, the business section of THE NEW YORK TIMES last Sunday had a major article about AKC and the use of DNA in determining parentage of dogs. This was both timely and important as it emphasized one of the basic differences between AKC and other registries in implementing this kind of project. Additionally, it told of the inspectors' roles in seeing to it that these tests are properly done. Considering that AKC inspectors also go out into the field and look into the conditions of commercial kennels as well, it is hard to understand why certain delegates can be so upset that AKC inspectors have a booth at the Hunte breeders conference where over 1,500 attendees will be. I mean, really, don't we have to get these people to see our point of view or work to teach them our point of view? You just can't ignore them for the sake of the dog alone is the way I read what AKC is doing. Being an ostrich is hardly the answer to a registry with 250,000 dogs registered annually, is it! •
