HeatherS
01-07-2008, 05:52 PM
I take a few weeks off and $%@&* hits the fan! Between the holidays, a daughter home for Christmas and a week in Cuba, I have been remiss in staying up with this forum. I would like to attempt to address some of the issues that are running rampant. If I’m repeating some of what has been said, I apologize.
As for the process – I am the first to admit it stinks. Retriever Council reps are appointed, not elected, and therefore should not be in a position to arbitrarily make very important decisions. (Whoever suggested that changing the point schedule for the AFTCH was a “housekeeping” issue was obviously mistaken.) I have talked to Elio Furlan of the CKC Shows and Trials Divisions about this on several occasions. His response – all Councils are appointed. This doesn’t make it right, of course, but I ask you – with so many clubs failing to even vote for National judges, would they take the time and make the effort to vote for a CKC Rep?
As for the AFTCH point schedule, it was brought up at the first meeting I attended in 2000. I was appalled that we in that room could make that decision so it was tabled so reps could get feedback from their clubs. At that time I contacted through both email and snail mail every club, judge and competitive person (running an All-Age dog) in my area (Ontario South Central) with a form letter – yes or no and explain. I read them all, put them in two piles and voted accordingly.
For the last Retriever Council meeting, now all done through teleconferencing, I sent every club in my area the agenda template and asked them to send any and all concerns back to me for inclusion in the full agenda. Did I have to agree with all of them? No, but I had to include them. At that time I also contacted every club in Ontario North as they did not have a rep then and I offered to put their concerns on the agenda as well.
I think I got three responses.
I also told all my clubs I would forward the complete agenda to them when I received it so they could peruse it and let me know how they felt about anything and I would respond accordingly.
I know I got two responses.
Note: I used the name and email of all the club’s secretaries as furnished by the CKC. If that was wrong, there’s not much I can do about it. Better make sure your club’s contact info is correct at the CKC. And if your secretary filed it in the circular file, well again, not much I can do.
And, I’ve asked on numerous occasions that the lead time between the agenda completion and the meeting be longer so the reps can get more input. Elio agreed. For the last meeting we had two weeks. Whoop. We have, actually, pushed our meetings back to allow more time for "grassroots" input.
I’m definitely not trying to pat myself on the back, but it strikes me that this is the only way to do the job. If this doesn’t sound like anything you’re used to, well, perhaps you should find out why.
Now, specifics - the exam - is it a bad idea? I would suggest that it is an excellent idea, one that was proposed at my first Council meeting in 2000. (They do it in the US so it must be good…) Nothing happened then but it’s happened now. (Did someone say the RCouncil rep for eastern Ontario was against the idea? Not as I recall.)The issue is not just simply one of rulebook changes. Too many judges by far haven’t cracked a rulebook in years. The new exam will ask them to not only answer but to indicate in what section their answer is based. (Bill K. has an issue with this.) 50 questions - 1 for the right answer, 1 for the right section. Sometimes there are multiple locations; we have tried to be as complete as possible. I have asked that right answers with “wrong” section identification be forwarded to me by the CKC so we can be perfectly complete. All new judges will write it – you should see it by March. The CKC will be determining how existing judges will write it (I've suggested all judges with surnames A to F) but everybody will in the next five years. Any questions? (Do you think we’d decide we need an exam, write one, have phone, email and face-to-face meetings to tweak it then not know how to implement it?)
And if I let the exam “get out” or discussed council decisions or showed drafts to people, it is certainly not because they’re “special”. Retriever council decisions are not made easily or with very little thought, and are certainly not made in a vacuum. In my opinion, the more discussions that go on at tailgates, the better.
And, to echo Peter (thanks for the defense, Peter, but hey…. it was you that got me into this job!!), let’s not forget that, although Ontario has four reps, more than any other province, we are still part of the larger picture and if the west feels differently than “Ontario” on any issue we will be defeated. Democracy in action.
The NRCC - I can’t recall at any time rule changes coming from the NRCC, though I would certainly argue they should. I think it’s an under-utilized resource. How does it happen? Does it go through a rep?
Retriever Council Chair – not a retriever guy, but, as Peter said, it is not necessary to know all our ins and outs to chair a meeting.
Your RCouncil Rep – check the CKC website. http://www.ckc.ca/en/portals/0/pdf/Retriever%20Council.pdf
It’s not your Zone Board of Director, by the way.
My comment to all the bitching and complaining I hear at tailgates is one thing: WRITE IT DOWN. We can call a meeting whenever we want, now that it’s by phone. Getting changes done is based more on (1) when the Board of Directors meet as they must rubberstamp council decisions (and they don’t always, by the way, but having attended BofD meetings I must grudgingly admit they are thorough) and (2) the cost of reprinting the rulebook which means you’ll only see changes every few years.
To sum up - and hey, I have broad shoulders so have at me – the view of the Retriever Council is to help provide a rulebook that has enough clarity that judges can use it to make correct decisions but that will not in any way hog-tie or impede them in doing their job. Does the CKC have faults? You betcha. Does the Rulebook have faults? Yup. And if anybody can figure out what to do about it, let me know.
As for the process – I am the first to admit it stinks. Retriever Council reps are appointed, not elected, and therefore should not be in a position to arbitrarily make very important decisions. (Whoever suggested that changing the point schedule for the AFTCH was a “housekeeping” issue was obviously mistaken.) I have talked to Elio Furlan of the CKC Shows and Trials Divisions about this on several occasions. His response – all Councils are appointed. This doesn’t make it right, of course, but I ask you – with so many clubs failing to even vote for National judges, would they take the time and make the effort to vote for a CKC Rep?
As for the AFTCH point schedule, it was brought up at the first meeting I attended in 2000. I was appalled that we in that room could make that decision so it was tabled so reps could get feedback from their clubs. At that time I contacted through both email and snail mail every club, judge and competitive person (running an All-Age dog) in my area (Ontario South Central) with a form letter – yes or no and explain. I read them all, put them in two piles and voted accordingly.
For the last Retriever Council meeting, now all done through teleconferencing, I sent every club in my area the agenda template and asked them to send any and all concerns back to me for inclusion in the full agenda. Did I have to agree with all of them? No, but I had to include them. At that time I also contacted every club in Ontario North as they did not have a rep then and I offered to put their concerns on the agenda as well.
I think I got three responses.
I also told all my clubs I would forward the complete agenda to them when I received it so they could peruse it and let me know how they felt about anything and I would respond accordingly.
I know I got two responses.
Note: I used the name and email of all the club’s secretaries as furnished by the CKC. If that was wrong, there’s not much I can do about it. Better make sure your club’s contact info is correct at the CKC. And if your secretary filed it in the circular file, well again, not much I can do.
And, I’ve asked on numerous occasions that the lead time between the agenda completion and the meeting be longer so the reps can get more input. Elio agreed. For the last meeting we had two weeks. Whoop. We have, actually, pushed our meetings back to allow more time for "grassroots" input.
I’m definitely not trying to pat myself on the back, but it strikes me that this is the only way to do the job. If this doesn’t sound like anything you’re used to, well, perhaps you should find out why.
Now, specifics - the exam - is it a bad idea? I would suggest that it is an excellent idea, one that was proposed at my first Council meeting in 2000. (They do it in the US so it must be good…) Nothing happened then but it’s happened now. (Did someone say the RCouncil rep for eastern Ontario was against the idea? Not as I recall.)The issue is not just simply one of rulebook changes. Too many judges by far haven’t cracked a rulebook in years. The new exam will ask them to not only answer but to indicate in what section their answer is based. (Bill K. has an issue with this.) 50 questions - 1 for the right answer, 1 for the right section. Sometimes there are multiple locations; we have tried to be as complete as possible. I have asked that right answers with “wrong” section identification be forwarded to me by the CKC so we can be perfectly complete. All new judges will write it – you should see it by March. The CKC will be determining how existing judges will write it (I've suggested all judges with surnames A to F) but everybody will in the next five years. Any questions? (Do you think we’d decide we need an exam, write one, have phone, email and face-to-face meetings to tweak it then not know how to implement it?)
And if I let the exam “get out” or discussed council decisions or showed drafts to people, it is certainly not because they’re “special”. Retriever council decisions are not made easily or with very little thought, and are certainly not made in a vacuum. In my opinion, the more discussions that go on at tailgates, the better.
And, to echo Peter (thanks for the defense, Peter, but hey…. it was you that got me into this job!!), let’s not forget that, although Ontario has four reps, more than any other province, we are still part of the larger picture and if the west feels differently than “Ontario” on any issue we will be defeated. Democracy in action.
The NRCC - I can’t recall at any time rule changes coming from the NRCC, though I would certainly argue they should. I think it’s an under-utilized resource. How does it happen? Does it go through a rep?
Retriever Council Chair – not a retriever guy, but, as Peter said, it is not necessary to know all our ins and outs to chair a meeting.
Your RCouncil Rep – check the CKC website. http://www.ckc.ca/en/portals/0/pdf/Retriever%20Council.pdf
It’s not your Zone Board of Director, by the way.
My comment to all the bitching and complaining I hear at tailgates is one thing: WRITE IT DOWN. We can call a meeting whenever we want, now that it’s by phone. Getting changes done is based more on (1) when the Board of Directors meet as they must rubberstamp council decisions (and they don’t always, by the way, but having attended BofD meetings I must grudgingly admit they are thorough) and (2) the cost of reprinting the rulebook which means you’ll only see changes every few years.
To sum up - and hey, I have broad shoulders so have at me – the view of the Retriever Council is to help provide a rulebook that has enough clarity that judges can use it to make correct decisions but that will not in any way hog-tie or impede them in doing their job. Does the CKC have faults? You betcha. Does the Rulebook have faults? Yup. And if anybody can figure out what to do about it, let me know.