GRCA BYLAWS-- Article IX AMENDMENTS
Section 1 Amendments to ...the Standard for the breed may be proposed , at any time, by any member of the Board of Directors or by written petition addressed to the Secretary signed by ten percent of the members in good standing eligible to vote on the question...(Blah, blah, blah, etcetera)
It goes on to say that the Board may create a special committee to prepare the amendment for a vote. It also says that the Board can either accept OR reject the committee's recommendations as they see fit. But in either case, the proposal can move forward and be put to a vote of the Club membership.
The process is further explained. The amendment, once approved by vote of the membership, must receive approval of the AKC This appears to be merely a formality, since the American Kennel Club has ceded nearly all decision-making authority to parent breed clubs.
Please notice: THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF ANY RIGHT OF A SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE GRCA TO REWRITE, CLARIFY, OR EXPAND THE BREED STANDARD IN ANY WAY.
However, the GRCA claims that RIGHT for the Judges' Education Sub-committee of FIVE members.This provides an END RUN around the specific steps required by the BYLAWS.
At one point, the committee in question declared that the ACCEPTABLE color parameters for the breed INCLUDED the COLOR CREAM. This document was drawn up by the committee. It was THEN APPROVED by the Board of Directors. Once done, it was sent to the AKC. This last step is NOT REQUIRED under the GRCA Bylaws or by the AKC since it is NOT an AMENDMENT or official change to the breed standard. An AKC official told me that they only approved changes in the standard itself-- not any other document a breed club circulates in public. But is this merely a CLARIFICATION? So says the Board of Directors. But it is extra-legal; simply the opinion of a sub-committee.
When I questioned the document which had been issued by this sub-committee I was told by the Board of Directors that an ERROR had been made. The BLAME for it (including cream as an acceptable color) was placed squarely upon the sub-committee chair. She is a Canadian who MISTAKENLY included cream in the document because it is regarded as acceptable under the Canadian breed standard (she chairs the Standards Committee/ Judges' Education Committee of the Canadian Golden Retriever Club). In effect, Ainslie Mills was "thrown under the bus" by her fellow Club leadership. She was ENTIRELY to blame for the error. No one else was responsible in any way.
Within weeks, the document itself was altered and the word CREAM expunged. It was then REISSUED to judges by the GRCA-- or so I have been told. No one, however, would tell me how long the original document had been in place. Why did committee members put cream in the document to begin with? Did members such as Marcia Schlehr and Barbara Pepper agree to include it? Their objection to cream-coated Goldens is well documented. No objections on their part? Or did they even participate in the writing of said document? They were responsible for it. That was their job. As members of that committee could they simply absent themselves? And what of the Board of Directors? Did they READ the document BEFORE approving it for publication and use in judging venues? Did NOT EVEN ONE Board member OBJECT to declaring cream acceptable? When it was USED at judicial seminars did anyone object or even make reference to it? Did THOSE WHO conducted the seminars see a problem? Did any JUDGE question the inclusion of cream in the acceptable color range?
The LARGER ISSUE, of course, is whether this sub-committee OR ANY committee or sub-committee can PROPERLY declare what the breed standard SAYS OR MEANS. The Board of Directors told me (in an e-mail) that IT CAN. And apparently it can change it's mind and declare something else to be true. How do they defend this? They don't. They simply remain silent and refuse to explain themselves-- to me or anyone else. At the Annual Meeting of the National Specialty in North Carolina I asked the Board to explain and justify their actions. I was shouted down by the Club president while the entire Board sat in silence. That is the state of the current GRCA leadership. Our breed deserves far better. So do the Club members.
CONFORMATION IS CONFIRMATION. The success of a cream-coated bitch bred to the British Standard is proof of that. "Sophie" took Winners Bitch under an American judge, and then Best of Winners under a British judge at this year's National Specialty. Winning in the CONFORMATION ring that day CONFIRMED her outstanding quality. If either judge felt compelled to penalize her due to "unacceptable" coat color (if the breed standard was in fact augmented by the judges' education document and was of equal status to the standard itself in its color parameters) then she must have been deemed TRULY outstanding to overcome her pale presence. More likely, NEITHER judge considered the sub-committee document SERIOUSLY, IF AT ALL. Had either even seen it before entering the ring? Sophie was judged against the breed standard, NOT by some "clarifying" document. The latter, most likely was IRRELEVANT to both assessors in the show ring.
So three cheers for Ventess Sophia of Goldensglen, her owner Angel Martin, and breeder Jane Stevens. Though your win may not have moved mountains on Thursday, it most certainly shook the ground under the arena. Will it "move" the GRCA to adjust its thinking about coat color-- to comply with the acceptance of born-cream Goldens everywhere else in the world? Most likely not under the present Club leadership. For now, they will not be moved. But the breed will move on, with or without the current powers that be. And that is what matters most.
No comments:
Post a Comment