Proposed Rule Change Method

[Howard]

Hows this for a rule change system:

1 - Retriever council reps for all regions in Canada send out a rule change proposal form to every FT club President in their prospective regions every January.

2 - All club Presidents present to their membership this form and ask for any member to submit any rule change that they would like submitted for review, on the official form.

3- Club Presidents gather forms from members and submit to RAC no later than April 30th of the same year.

4 - RAC disperses these suggested changes to all of their members for discussion and review. RAC can at this point ask submitting person to ammend or adjust the rule change as they see necessary for presentation to general membership to vote on.

5 - Once all submissions have been reviewed by RAC and adjusted as necessary, RAC forwards copies of all rule change proposals to all club Presidents for presentation to their clubs general membership to vote on whether they would like to support the change or not. This could have a timeline of whatever we decide is reasonable, maybe by the end of July.

6 - Club Presidents return forms to RAC with vote results, yea or nea on each presented rule change by end of August.

7 - RAC organizes rule changes that have been accepted or declined for presentation to general membership at the meeting prior to the National Open in September.

8 - CKC Board of directors reviews results & re-prints rule book with ammendments to be applied in the next calendar year.

This process could be done every second or third year, whatever we feel is reasonable. It would allow ALL FT competitors to have some input on the rules that affect them and majority will rule. It is democratic and it works well in other Retriever venues that use a similar system.

Open for discussion.......

Howard

[LeeW]

Howard I like the two year process ..Example even years are rule change proposals and odd years the changes go into effect..

I would like to see the meetings changed to the national amature for voting or even hold a national AGM were all can have the opportunity to be present.. In this day and age of tech this should a no brainer...

[Retrievers ONLINE]

Howard

Your proposal is very similar to the AKC process. Perhaps that's why you referred to Retriever Advisory Comittee (RAC) instead of Retriever Council?

Over a year ago, Ted Shih and I reviewed rule change processes in Retrievers ONLINE which issue went to many in the the US and Canada. We made specific recomendations to improve the process for both the RAC and RC based on ideas like yours. In total we got 2 responses and none from the powers that be. And yet everybody I talk to agrees there should be change and this forum is yet another example.

Go figure. This has been an on-going discussion for over 25 years and I have been active in it. I have for many years tried to report on the meetings for example but cannot get the minutes or a synopsis. I have submitted rule changes on behalf of clubs, the NRCC and myself as as a CKC member-all recognized avenues. I have also commented on proposals in the past but stuff the TSX issue seems to happen all the time. I encourage discussion to continue but until a Chair of a comittee decides to champion a change I don't expect we'll see what you and I want.

Dennis

[Howard]

Thanks Dennis,

Actually, I am referring to the process that the HRC uses in conjunction with the UKC. I use this as I was involved for a long time and found their system extremely fair and democratic as ALL HRC members have a say in the rules that affect their program.

Lee sent a similar proposal to the one I posted to the powers that be at CKC some time ago after he and I had a lengthy discussion regarding the seemingly unfair process that we currently use. It apperently fell on deaf ears as no response was ever received.

When you say a commitee chair needs to start a change process, who exactly would that be and how do we as a group approach them to start some dialogue and try to make some progress towards a better system?

I am willing to invest time in this process as I believe it to be necessary to keep our game alive. This would be a great step in the right direction as far as improving the FT game.

What is the next step? Do we need to have a general meeting, maybe under ORA's umbrella in Ontario to get the ball rolling? Or maybe a letter generated by the commitee chair you speak of to all Canadian FT clubs?

Howard

[Medie]

As a club president, I received an email from the RC of about 40 pages a few years ago...all the proposed changes at that time. I printed it for our records and forwarded the email to the executive and club members for their responses. I sent back our comments and I think only one other club did the same. When the new rule book came out, a lot of people were upset and wanted to know why they had no input. They did, providing their club received the original email...

This process is only good if people react to it and every club makes sure their RC rep has correct current contact info.

[Howard]

Your absolutely right Medie,

I would hope that if the changes were sent to the clubs to be voted on it would happen. If the club executives do not present the proposals to the members, or the members choose not to be present at the meeting when this takes place, then they have no right to be upset about the changes.

Under the current system, the general membership really does not have a vote on the changes, the RC has the power to do as they please whether they get input or not. This is wrong, and needs to be changed. Once the system is fixed, no one would have the right to complain as they had the opportunity to be involved in the process if they chose to.

Howard

[Retrievers ONLINE]

Thanks Dennis,

Actually, I am referring to the process that the HRC uses in conjunction with the UKC. I use this as I was involved for a long time and found their system extremely fair and democratic as ALL HRC members have a say in the rules that affect their program.

Lee sent a similar proposal to the one I posted to the powers that be at CKC some time ago after he and I had a lengthy discussion regarding the seemingly unfair process that we currently use. It apperently fell on deaf ears as no response was ever received.

When you say a commitee chair needs to start a change process, who exactly would that be and how do we as a group approach them to start some dialogue and try to make some progress towards a better system?

I am willing to invest time in this process as I believe it to be necessary to keep our game alive. This would be a great step in the right direction as far as improving the FT game.

What is the next step? Do we need to have a general meeting, maybe under ORA's umbrella in Ontario to get the ball rolling? Or maybe a letter generated by the commitee chair you speak of to all Canadian FT clubs?

Howard

All Councils are chaired by a CKC director. For Retrievers it is Jim Campbell from BC. The overall head liaison staff for CKC for all concerns regarding field trial retrievers and hunt test retrievers is Elio Furlan.

The members of the Council are found at:
http://www.ckc.ca/en/portals/0/pdf/Council/2009-2011%20Retriever%20Council.pdf

You'll probably be surprised at who is there. I think one of the best ways to effect change is to get the Council members themselves to push the Chair and Elio for changes. I have tried in the past to get some Ontario reps. to do this. So far no luck.

ORA can certainly play an organizing role but remember not only is it just for Ontario but as far a CKC is concerned ORA is a non-entity. Even the NRCC which has tried to play an active leadership role is just considered "another" club. Krakadawn when on NRCC executive worked hard to effect changes and get a seat on the Council but as far as I know never got anywhere. I tried when I was NRCC president also.

These are some of the reasons why I think the change needs to be spearheaded by Council members themselves in additon to any "club" actions.

Dennis

[krakadawn]

You're quite right Dennis, NRCC lobbied Council to include a position on the RC for a representative from NRCC.
No other 'club' in Canada has the organization that NRCC has as far as Directors,Executive and representation yet NRCC is viewed as just another club.
Howard's proposal has much merit and will be supported by all Ontario clubs in my opinion.For the life of me,I find it hard to understand the opposition to process. That has been my biggest and foremost concern that I too have continually voiced.......PROCESS!

To be frank, both the chair and the CKC rep.(as mentioned) need to be changed. This year again was almost another cluster ^%$# when the ball was dropped during the RC's fall meetings regarding the submissions from NRCC.

It is so difficult in this day and age that a RC agenda could not be circulated and maybe even....are you waiting......THE MINUTES!, where recommendation for changes are made.

Peter has been very good to inform and support various issues. Unfortunately, he is only one person. Other RC members also need to be better on board and share what's going on.Changes in process are literally free so regardless of CKC's financial challenges, they should be implemented without undue costs.

Howard, we can discuss this at an ORA mtg. but the action will have to look like an united front from Ont clubs and others.And to that I would definitely be supportive.

Peter,
We hear a rumour that RC will be splitting membership to create an equal panel of FT'ers and Hunt Test'ers??? Any truth to that and are there other issues being addressed??

Jim

[3 black dogs]

We hear a rumour that RC will be splitting membership to create an equal panel of FT'ers and Hunt Test'ers??? Any truth to that and are there other issues being addressed??



Yes Jim there is a leter being circulated by Ross McLaughlin pushing for this it will be posted for comment on the CKC site soon so every one can go there and voice thier opinion on this before the diredtors vote as to what should be done.
here is the form letter he is circulating

Canadian Kennel Club
200 Ronson Dr, Suite 400
Etobicoke, ON
M9W 5Z9

Sep 10

Attention: Mr. Joe Mauro, Chief Executive Officer

FORMATION OF RETRIEVER HUNT TEST COUNCIL

1. This letter is to request the formation of a Retriever Hunt Test Council that would be separate and apart from the existing Retriever Field Trial Council.

2. At the inception of the hunt tests, it was prudent to place the responsibility for them under the jurisdiction of the Retriever Field Trial Council. The guidance and experience of many field trial council members, judges and participants allowed the hunt tests to become a successful program for working retrievers.

3. In the past few decades, however, hunt tests have grown tremendously in popularity and sophistication. There are as many, if not more, individual participants in hunt tests as in field trials and the sport continues to attract many new members. There are also many experienced judges and many more qualifying each year at all levels. The hunt test program has reached a level of maturity that makes it a unique sport requiring a different point of view.

4. Hunt tests have now evolved to the point where a separate council is required to provide the necessary guidance, expertise and dedication to address the further development, concerns and issues of the hunt test program.

5. For these reasons it is requested that a Retriever Hunt Test Council be formed to allow this popular sport to reach its full potential.


Sincerely,

[Retrievers ONLINE]

It certainly makes sense to have separate councils for Hunt Tests and Retriever Trials. I recall that when CKC started hunt tests, it was stated that this would be an eventual goal.

Over the years, it appears that the CKC has tried to select at least some reps based on their activities in both venues. Unfortunately some reps were field trialers and had never been to a hunt test and some were hunt testers that were not trialers or at least "finge" trialers.

So this should be an improvement if the composition improves. It also means reps can focus on fewer issues during their limited conference calls. I suppose some individuals could serve on both councils. All this assumes the CKC will maintain or improve activity and communication as required on both Councils.

On another note, since when does CKC post issues on their website for discussion and how does one find out that they are posted there? Chris?

Dennis

[3 black dogs]

Denis if you go to the ckc site and login go to the top menue bar and hit the drop down menue that reads membership services. you will see published for comment this is where new clubs and other concerns are listed for the membership to have thier say.

you have to have a look a couple times a month or you may miss some of the ongoing issues.

Chris

[HeatherS]

I heartily agree with the proposal to have two distinct Retriever Councils, one for Field Trials and one for Hunt Tests. As Dennis stated, although it is possible to wear two hats, it is not always the case and everyone gets short changed when that occurs. Typically that has been Hunt Test participants, though perhaps not now.

I find it interesting that Ross has gone the route he has, through the Board of Directors. Previously, when I was a member of the Council, I was told that it was a decision of the RCouncil itself. In conversation with many hunt test people in my area, it was clear they wanted separate representation. With that in mind, I proposed the creation of an independent Hunt Test Council a few years ago. I was VERY surprised when the Council members voted against it. Among other reasons was the belief that joint representation would allow rules changes to be consistent between the two books (??). Frankly, I found it paternalistic for the Retriever Council to deny Hunt Test participants an independent voice, to feel they could and should speak for them, to decide rule changes on a game many had never seen.

So perhaps Ross’s attempt to make a change by going to the top (ahem) is a wise one.

[Vinny]

The idea of a seperate council fot HT has been around since the start of the program, but it usually is only Ontario that has pushed for it. Most other Zones realize there are not enough people in the retriever game to take the chance of further splitting them. Back to the original thread topic, Howard has a great idea except basicly this is how the process now works in other zones that have communictions between the clubs and the RC Rep's.
Dan

[Retrievers ONLINE]

The idea of a seperate council fot HT has been around since the start of the program, but it usually is only Ontario that has pushed for it. Most other Zones realize there are not enough people in the retriever game to take the chance of further splitting them. Back to the original thread topic, Howard has a great idea except basicly this is how the process now works in other zones that have communictions between the clubs and the RC Rep's.
Dan

Wow! If this is how the process works, how come nobody has EVER seen results of voting, feedback, and comments on rule changes or even minutes of the RC conference calls? Do the communication zones keep it all to themselves? What happened to Canada!!
Go back and read Howard's proposal- there is no way anybody is following that process. Tell me what zone you refer to and I'll find all sorts of retriever people who have not been at all involved in the process of rule changes.

Cheers

Dennis
Dennis

[Labber]

I think that the CKC's policy regarding membership for participation either as a competitor or judge is going to do FT's & Ht's more harm than good.
When new people are finding the fire to play, they are also realizing the $$ end of it.
While the membership is really only a small amount compared to the overall cost of playing, it is another deterrent in the long run.
At the very least, membership should not be neccessary for the minor stakes participants & judges, where no championship points are earned.
I wonder if this point can be raised at a CKC directors meeting.