In the June 2024 edition of SHOWSIGHT, Doug Johnson’s article titled, “The Parent Club Dilemma” highlighted a pervasive problem in the sport that is detrimental to its future. I’d like to share my thoughts on this very important concern and take it a little further by considering not only the issues Doug touched on but also by looking at some of the overall issues fanciers deal with that ultimately build resentment and distrust towards breed clubs. Implementing the solution proposed in this article can go a long way to strengthen clubs by creating trust towards them instead of negativity.
In the not so distant past, before the Internet changed how we live, breed parent clubs held huge influence and impact on the sport of dogs. Today, not as much. Thanks to the Internet, people can find the breeds they love, locate breeders, get educated and involved without ever contacting the parent club. This has led to large numbers of breeders not belonging to their breed’s parent club. Those who bought dogs from these breeders often also don’t join since the breeders don’t belong.
The number of breed fanciers who say they have been made to feel unwelcome by those who are running parent clubs is also not insignificant. Politics in clubs can be said to be the biggest reason fanciers don’t join or stay with their breed clubs. Seeing the negatives that some people in clubs experience is a reason to not be a part of a club. Some fanciers even state, “Parent clubs are unnecessary today, except for controlling the Breed Standard and holding the National as well as Regional Specialties.” How have things come to this? How is it that so many are alienated from their parent clubs? There are issues that, on the surface, seem impossible to fix, especially breed clubs that are not held accountable to their membership, aided by AKC recognizing the issues at hand and how they so deeply affect the sport.
A common situation driving experienced breeders and exhibitors away from their parent clubs are officers who cling to office in any way they can, despite the damage they are causing to the club and, as a result, also to the breed. Exerting extreme control over the membership in an attempt to stay in power makes it very difficult for some members to stay with the organization, and for others to join, due to the resultant bitter politics. It’s not unusual to find some of the best breeders are not members of their national breed clubs! Often, those in control consider experienced, knowledgeable breeders to be a threat rather than an asset. When this happens, how can a breed club state that their main goal is to support the breed while disavowing the many breeders working to preserve it and the fanciers who love it?
While the obvious solution is to get problematic boards and officers out of office, this is harder to do than one might think. It’s often practically impossible. Those in power can play musical chairs indefinitely, as they term out from their positions, by being nominated for a different office by the nominating committee they themselves appointed. This makes it almost impossible to remove them from their positions of power once entrenched.
Power in a club can easily stay in one group’s hands indefinitely. Power seekers generally only admit people into the club who they believe will not challenge them. They prefer to admit “their people” who share their same ideas, have dogs from them, or are considered non-threatening. To do so, problematic boards and officers manipulate who can join the club. For example, recently, a breed club was fortunate to have 18 people apply for membership in a period of two months—four were admitted. A TOTAL OF FOUR! What could possibly be the reason why so many were rejected? One sign that a club is going bad is when the board does not have transparency. And in this case, the board and officers refused to explain their reasoning, backed by their constitution.
Among those rejected were breeders who have produced champions in the breed, a board member’s husband, as well as new pet owners sponsored by persons who oppose the ruling officers’ policies. The only explanation people can come to is that someone is worried that these new members would not vote for them in the upcoming election. This is also not the first time this has happened in this club. Scenarios like this are common in other clubs too. This is a big problem because there is no recourse for sponsoring members and applicants when rejection is so clearly politically based and not based on the qualifications of the member. Refusing applicants does not benefit any breed, and in the end, it can be incredibly harmful because of the number of people alienated from the parent club and possibly the breed. The loss of these applicants is a loss of talent, who in the end may choose to go to another breed where they feel more welcome, or they may leave the sport entirely. Is it not the purpose of a breed club to educate newcomers and judges to the breed? How is this accomplished by alienating prospective members and also established, accomplished breeders? How can any breeder feel comfortable asking puppy buyers to consider joining the parent club when there is a high probability of their being rejected?
When members are considered problematic, some clubs resort to extreme measures by either trying to pummel them into submission or silence, or threatening lawsuits on behalf of the club. The member is warned to “cease and desist” their opposition, whatever it might be. Conversely, there are the lawsuits on behalf of members who try to correct club officials’ unlawful behavior regarding the established rules and regulations. This is more rare, since the person(s) suing would have to be able to afford starting a lawsuit in the state the club originated in and be able to pay their attorneys to pursue justice from the club. Either way, lawsuits are costly to the clubs and their members and they will never end satisfactorily since, at a certain point, club members may align with one side or the other, creating a permanent rift in the breed. Additionally, allowing lawsuits to be the determining factor in how a member is heard means that only those who can afford it are heard.
Recently, in a new trend, instead of lawsuits, some clubs are increasingly threatening members by bringing them up on what could be considered faulty “charges” that are not correctly based on the club’s constitution or by-laws. This is an attempt to bring dissenting members in line, or worse, drive them out of the organization. Putting a member up on charges is an incredibly extreme action, which in the past had been reserved for only extreme situations.
It is impossible to believe AKC is unaware of the issues club members are having. There has to be some sort of easily accessible recourse for fanciers to be able to go to the AKC to ask for help. When clubs are able to act without consequences they are emboldened, since there is no oversight and recourse by AKC. Ignoring a constitution, by-laws, or standing rules with impunity can result in increasingly constant transgressions against members by those in power, since they know there is little members can do. As a result, unethical club officials repeatedly flaunt rules and regulations with very little worry.
There is always someone with a horror story that makes one wonder why anyone would be in that breed. In dog clubs. In dogs. The common refrain at the AKC Delegate meetings is that we need to get people involved, they need to join their breed clubs. We are doing so much to get people involved, yet one of the biggest problems is the elephant in the room: rogue clubs. A rogue club would be any club that systematically ignores their membership’s needs, club constitution, by-laws and standing rules, or the AKC rules and regulations. The damage caused by these clubs is incalculable. One thing can be said with certainty: ignoring the causes leading to a rogue club damages the sport. It is time for the Delegate Body and AKC to consider real solutions to this issue.
When a breed becomes recognized by the AKC, the breed club must submit their constitution, by-laws, and code of ethics for AKC review and approval. This occurs once again when a club applies for member status. What is the point of this if, after that, these articles can be ignored with impunity? Why is there not a simple mechanism in place to help members ensure their clubs adhere to the established rules and regulations? Going to the AKC to complain is considered useless by most in the fancy. AKC is known to respond that they do not get in the middle of club politics, possibly out of fear of being drawn into a lawsuit. This is shortsighted, since there are now many breeds and their representative clubs struggling to survive. Losing members and ultimately breeders/exhibitors to the sport because of this is not helping. AKC is choosing to not correct bad behavior. It seems reasonable that a club should not stand under the AKC umbrella unless it is going to stand under AKC rules.
When a club has violated their constitution and bylaws, AKC’s current protocol is reliant on a byzantine pathway to resolution which is described in AKC’s publication, “Working-It-Out Guide and Facts.” Initially put forth is AKC’s explanation that the club may have a different interpretation of what the constitution and by-laws mean. Meanwhile, the member(s) perceive a flagrant flaunting of these documents. The accuser is advised to first put the complaint in writing to the club. Should the issue not be resolved, AKC then recommends the member introduce a bylaw amendment or changes to the standing rules. This is difficult to do in clubs that are held in a stanglehold by its officers. For the next step, the complainant is advised to send a written complaint to AKC Club Relations. Several people interviewed for this article claim they have followed this step and, despite an obvious issue, they and their concerns were dismissed.
If not satisfied with the outcome, the accuser is advised to take advantage of a non-binding mediation handled by an outside source: “CPR, an Alternative Dispute Resolution Provider.” The first issue is both parties have to agree to participate. There is no reason for a club to do so. Additionally, the filing fee for this service is $650, ostensibly to be split between parties. AKC subscribes to this service with the demand that both parties acknowledge that AKC is not directly involved in the dispute. In an attempt to preclude a lawsuit, AKC removes their liability by requiring both involved parties to agree that AKC, CPR or their hearing officers are not to be held legally responsible regarding the outcome. As a last resort, another way to be heard is to take the case to the AKC Board for a decision. This happens very rarely. Participants in the fancy are usually unaware of these described options, not having been told the steps to be taken upon their initial contact at AKC, possibly because the process is so convoluted?
AKC describes club problems as non-AKC problems. The issue with this is that AKC is involved. They have welcomed these clubs into their auspices. When problems do not get resolution, a ripple effect moves through the sport. Considering AKC always approves a club’s constitution, bylaws, and sometimes its standing rules when applying for admittance, the expectation in the fancy is that they be followed and enforced. Does AKC just stand by when there are clear violations in other situations? No. Normally, it takes action. But it seems, in many cases, the complainant is shuttled down this torturous road described above. Some give up and walk away from the sport. Others are so angered that they may institute a lawsuit to force compliance. Those willing and able to bear the cost, and who possess the emotional stamina a lawsuit requires, will likely not opt for the type of non-binding mediation offered by CPR. They want action. They want their club to do the right thing, and if not, they expect AKC to step in to make sure the right thing occurs. The CPR mediation scheme has no teeth.
A preferable, far simpler solution is creating a resolution board run by AKC. Having access to a resolution board fixes the problem when fanciers believe there is an issue that their club is ignoring or refusing to deal with that involves their constitution, by-laws, and ethics. Say a club breaks the rules by refusing to send out their yearly membership list to members, this is a perfect item to take to the resolution board for mediation. It also brings to AKC’s attention that a club is not adhering to rules and regulations they are obligated to follow, for which, up to now, there is no recourse. Should there be issues proven—there must be consequences.
The resolution board cannot be an opt-in venture. All breed clubs must participate. They are being called to defend themselves against an accusation that they have violated their constitution, by-laws, or code of ethics. To not do so forfeits the club’s position, leading to some sort of consequence. AKC should expect all clubs to be accountable and the resolution board is the best way to be accountable. The big difference between this method and AKC’s prescribed course of action is that club members have a simple solution to the problems they face. They are not forced to seek multiple sources of resolution within the AKC or outside of AKC.
It’s important to stress here that a resolution board is not devised to deal with personal matters between club members. The board is solely set up to resolve situations involving a club’s constitution and by-laws not being adhered to. A resolution board gives members the ability to hold club officials accountable. Power in the club becomes a little less lopsided. This is a sensible solution. A resolution board lets club members be heard and can prevent future wrongs by reminding club officials they must adhere to the established rules or the club can suffer consequences.
To set up the resolution board, volunteers from the AKC Delegate Body or members in the sport can step forward to serve as hearing officers. Guidelines must be established to qualify hearing officers. Based on the guidelines, AKC staff can qualify a hearing officer, or a delegate committee can be established to process applications to become a hearing officer and to run the hearings. Basic training in mediation should be devised and provided online for hearing officers, to ensure the best reasoned and informed outcome. Legal liability needs to be addressed prior to activation of this board. There should be a way to minimize any liability on the part of AKC and the resolution board. Another advantage of the board is that less time will be taken by AKC staff, and possibly the AKC Board, dealing with club disagreements, since they go directly to the resolution board.
When a case comes in front of the resolution board, three hearing officers are chosen from the volunteer pool. They must not have any relationship with either party. They cannot belong in the same breed or belong together in other clubs. Ideally, they should not judge the breed the club represents or the Group it belongs to. The panel must be totally random after these qualifications are applied. Once a hearing officer has served in a year, they are not eligible to hear another case until the following calendar year. A lead officer is appointed from among the three chosen to keep the hearing moving smoothly and efficiently. The resolution board will appoint a time to hold a hearing, not exceeding two months from the date of the complaint received at the AKC. The hearing should be conducted by Zoom in order to allow all involved the opportunity to participate. It is onerous and impossible to expect to have meetings in person, since these situations may involve people scattered across the nation.
It is up to the hearing officers to sort the situation out and make a decision as to the best course of action. Both sides must adhere to the decision, whether they agree or not. There is to be no punitive action on behalf of the club against a complainant. If a club’s officers and/or board decide they will not adhere to the decision of the resolution board, there must be consequences. This can range from a warning or fine to the loss of AKC privileges such as holding a National Specialty or participating in an AKC sponsored event such as “Meet the Breeds.” In the absolute worst-case scenario, a club could face expulsion as an AKC member club until it resolves issues within the organization. Or, if not a member club, lose their designation as the primary breed club. This opens the possibility of a more accountable breed club being formed. At the very least, the thought of these extreme consequences occurring should strongly encourage officers and boards to be accountable to their members. Regarding consequences, it would be advisable that AKC provide some guidance to the hearing board, or consequences can be decided solely by AKC with advice from the hearing board. There must be some sort of consequence if a club refuses to remedy the action they have been found guilty of. If there are none, then a resolution board is a useless exercise.
This system for resolving issues within a club can be applied to any type of organization that is associated with AKC, whether all-breed or performance. Unfortunately, it is likely that a form of resolution board as described, that simplifies the complaint process for fanciers, is likely to be resisted by the AKC, its Board, and maybe some of the Delegate Body or clubs. The issues described above are the tip of the iceberg. Spend time speaking with breeders and exhibitors about AKC affiliated clubs and you will find there are many more issues to be remedied. Clubs that are accountable to their membership, with their accountability enforced by both the AKC and the fancy, affects our sport in the most positive way!
In the not too distant future, let’s resolve these issues. Let’s have breed clubs hold influence and impact in the sport of dogs because they are considered impeccable and steadfast in their dealings with members, always with honesty and accountability. Let’s encourage large numbers of breeders to belong proudly to their breeds’ parent clubs. Let’s expect breed clubs to welcome all newcomers. It’s been said by many, “Breed clubs are unnecessary today.” Let’s make breed clubs clearly necessary for the betterment of the breed and promoting the breed in the best possible light. Let’s not think breed clubs are a remnant whose sole existence is to control the Breed Standard and hold National and Regional Specialties. If we don’t begin to resolve this very sticky issue of rogue clubs, eventually we won’t need to worry. With all the other pressures that breeders face, maybe they will just opt to stop. Let’s make sure this never happens! Times change, so let’s change with the times… to survive.
