If ever there has been a longtime, soft underbelly for AKC, it has been in the Trial Board area. First of all, there is absolutely no recourse to find out what factually went on during the proceedings. Even those accused can't get copies of the transcripts. Remember how years ago Steve Gladstone was the great thorn in the side of the Board when he tried to get that information? Today, things have remained the same, and no documentation is readily available* (see Addendum to this story). And you know, of course, how in the latest Trial Board contretemps involving George Bolton, “Showdog Moms & Dads,” Bravo and NBC, a Trial Board decision came back to bite the Board in that proverbial soft spot. And without taking sides in the matter at hand perhaps this outcome will cause the policymakers to rethink and modernize all of their outdated and antiquated methods of handling legal matters.
To start with, the latest fiasco, as I understand it, revolved around the statements made by George Bolton on the above-mentioned series of aired TV shows. I never saw any of the programs nor listened to the tapes. Candidly, those kinds of shows are just not my cup of tea. Nonetheless, I am told that in the aired productions, Mr. Bolton voiced off at some judges’ decisions so negatively that the Board at AKC decided to investigate whether his remarks were so prejudicial to the sport as to warrant Mr. Bolton's suspension from certain AKC activities. Indeed, the reaction from the Fancy to what Mr. Bolton had allegedly said was so strong that the Boltons wrote an unsolicited article to DOG NEWS in their own defense. This article alleged that George had signed a release unwittingly permitting the TV people to cut and slice anything they wanted, which in effect gave them carte blanche of unbelievable magnitude. Why anyone would be so foolish is another matter. Anyway, according to George, the TV people took advantage of him and had him say things he never said or even meant to say on the program. I guess in the long run, when this entire matter came to a head, the Board rejected Bolton's argument and indeed suspended him from all AKC event activities. George appealed the decision and asked for a Trial Board.
This, of course, is distinguishable from when a judge is suspended for speaking out of turn. In the case of Ann Hearn, for instance, her appeal for her inappropriate remarks would be to the Board's Judges appeal committee—should she decide to appeal at all. Bolton's was much greater in scope, and so he was entitled to a Trial Board appeal.
The three members of the Trial Board were to have been Evan Ginsburg, Esq. (Chairman of the TB), Bill Bergum and Betty-Ann Stenmark. Ms. Stenmark recused herself and Mr. Evans appointed in her place Kathy Field Casteel, Esq. The Trial Board, by an alleged 2-to-1 vote, denied the Board's request and upheld Mr. Bolton's appeal. I did speak with Mr. Ginsburg, who told me it was the majority’s opinion that AKC failed to bear the burden of showing sufficient grounds to find Bolton guilty. He did not believe he was permitted to release either the majority decision nor any of the transcripts. It would appear the TB majority bought Bolton's defense that while he may have acted stupidly in signing the broad release, he never did so with malicious intent. Indeed, the majority believed that the producers spliced the questionable statements without Bolton’s knowledge. Again, most people are being very closed mouth about what went on, but the more questions being asked seem to have opened the communication processes more broadly. I am told by a witness that instead of running the TB as an administrative trial, the two lawyers acted as though this was a courtroom trial. This was denied by Mr. Ginsburg, who claimed that if anything the Trial Board members bent over backwards in being liberal towards AKC. Furthermore, this witness said, “It was the most ineptly run thing I ever attended.” However, to Mr. Ginsburg’s credit, he convincingly denied those statements. In any event, to say that the folks at AKC were anything but happy with the results understates the case. Again, I say that for years these Trial Boards were stacked against the person taking the appeal. Now that the reverse has happened, how will AKC react? Time will tell!
* Addendum
Just as this issue was going to bed, I received a call advising me to call Bill Bergum, who rumor had was the TB dissenter. When I had earlier called Bill, he believed he should not make any comment whatsoever. I presume that when those in charge heard of Mr. Ginsburg’s conversation, who by the way sounds particularly open-minded and frank, there was a change of heart somewhere. In any event, I called Bill, who read to me in a telephone conversation his written dissent to the TB decision. This dissent is being printed with full permission.
Bill Bergum’s Dissent In The George Bolton Trial Board
The Trial Board has made a monumental decision that will have an enormous adverse effect in the sport of dogs. It is a very sad day for those who judge in the sport. Pandora’s Box has been opened. We have created a world of “rights rather than deeds.”
An exhibitor can now rage against and criticize the decisions of a judge without fear of serious reprimand. A precedent has now been established.
If evidence was not properly presented by AKC, the defense attorney should have asked for a recess and an opportunity for discovery. He did not. Near the end of the decision, when the prosecution introduced 18 pages of evidence, the defendant should not have allowed it.
The defense knew if they projected an image of their client as “poor little me, take advantage of, not in tune with what goes on in the real world, and not so smart, etc.,” they would prevail—and they did. They did not have to worry about the other stuff. They were right on target. We must remember this was an administrative hearing and not a court of record.
I am truly sorry there is such a huge difference of opinion and understanding as to how this will affect our sport.
I am sorry I cannot be a party to this decision.
(As read by Mr. Bergum to the writer)
In researching this article, I also attempted to reach Mrs. Casteel, but unfortunately we never connected, notwithstanding her apparent willingness to talk with me and notwithstanding the fact she knew not why I was calling her. Furthermore, the witnesses for AKC asked not to be identified, and another witness, allegedly for Mr. Bolton, Bill Price, was unreachable by me. I also requested a copy of the majority decision, which was not forthcoming. With a deadline at hand, I am hopeful the majority decision will be released for next week’s issue, or I will be able to put it online with this article itself. As for the meat of Mr. Bergum’s dissent, without reading the transcripts, it’s hard to come to a conclusion. Reading between the lines, though, it sure does sound as if there were some weird goings-on during this administrative hearing, doesn’t it! •
