I am among those who think that both Board and Staff have been most courageous in initiating and implementing policies both old and new, particularly in the areas of the judging community. Indeed, most people have been pleasantly surprised by the aggressive stances they have taken. Effectively putting aside the “60 Points of Light” philosophy and substituting a “hands-on” emphasis, setting up a system for taking breeds away—flawed as it is—and protecting its own interests by establishing a code dealing with competitive registries and events vis-à-vis its own events were all necessary steps. Arguably long overdue steps. And as laudable and commendable as I think these acts are, the emphasis upon judges and judging only indicates two things to me. First, the overemphasis upon the judging community is greatly exaggerated in the conformation world as a much more serious problem within the sport of showing dogs than it should be. Secondly, the Board itself is top heavy with individuals with generic judging backgrounds, as opposed to longtime breeder-exhibitor judge types. I say this because their actions always seem to give exceptions to clubs in violation of existing Rules, particularly when it comes to territorial questions. But more importantly, never publicly considered are the problems of the cheapening for earning the American Champion, which is an inherent result of the permissive attitude of the various Boards for the last 30 years or so.
Pinpointing blame on one particular Board of Directors in any one area is ridiculous. Boards act cumulatively and slowly, rather than with speed. As well they should. Indeed, the call of 20 years ago for a compilation of a book containing all past existing Board policies was a goal never accomplished, as far as I know. One still must rely on the masterful Jim Crowley for many an interpretation of what is going on, and even then the documentation is frequently unsubstantiated. I dread thinking what would happen were Jim to retire. In any event, when many a Board has taken on controversial Rules of the dog world conformation proceedings such as doing away with BOW, or limiting the age at which both majors may be achieved, or increasing the 200-mile limit between shows—once defeated by the Delegates, future Boards shy away from these fractious debates. In areas of policy, they are more aggressive than in Rules, since the Board controls this policy area totally. Of course, from where I sit, I think an entire Delegate Body concept should be redeveloped. In 1912, when a Board attempted to do away with the Delegate Body altogether, it was probably a good idea badly handled. Had the Board then been more sensitive and less dictatorial, perhaps we would not be faced with the myriad of conflicts to modernizing AKC. This is the direct result of the power myth the Delegates seem to have in ALL matters AKC. A careful reading of the Constitution and Bylaws clearly indicates they do not!
The George Bolton case grows stranger by the day. If you recall, I printed Bill Bergum's minority report but was neither offered nor given permission to print the majority report. How one report can be made public and not the other befuddles me, for sure. Nonetheless, come the Board May Minutes, announcing that Bolton has been suspended from judging privileges for one year. This after a Trial Board reversed the finding that he be suspended from all AKC event privileges from a year due to alleged conduct prejudicial to the sport. When I made inquiry, I was told, first of all, that that information was incorrectly printed in the Minutes. Mr. Bolton has a month to appeal, and in matters disciplinary, it is not until after the appeal date it is to be printed publicly. “An administrative error, it would seem, was made.” Nonetheless, as long as it was now public, I asked how, if he was found not guilty by a Trial Board, the Board could now suspend him?Yet another semantic interpretation—it seems the Trial Board was brought about by an alleged infraction of a Rule that covered a multitude of alleged infractions. The Board reasoned that judging infractions fall into its singular area of policymaking! Since the Board has the authority to enforce all judging policies, they claim to be able to do whatever they want in this area. Therefore, they reason they have the right to do this, since it does not cover all AKC events (Rules) but judging policies only. Seems to be stretching the point a bit to me, although one can certainly understand their unhappiness with what was seen and said on that TV program.
Not too long ago, I was contacted by a person I did not know and who is now on the PERSPECTIVES Committee, asking me to write a historical account as to how and why DOG NEWS originated. I respectfully turned down the well-meaning request on the basis that since PERSPECTIVES is only available to Delegates, even when requested by the general Fancy, I did not believe I should contribute to such a publication. It seems that now the newsletter will print articles other than those from Delegates. Unlike several years ago, when I was asked to write an article about pet insurance by a Delegate on the Committee who did not realize then that the policy in effect was to have only materials from Delegates.•