Judge’s Maintenance/Breed Fee – Withdrawn!
120 – June, 2010
by Dr. Bob G. Smith
Anyway you spell “ridiculous” it conveys the same message. That had been the response that many breeders, handlers, judges, and local kennel club members have expressed concerning the recently imposed Judges Maintenance/Breed Fee. On May 11, 2010 the Board of Directors of the American Kennel Club voted to adopt an annual fee for all conformation judges effective January 1, 2011. The Board’s action was based on a staff proposal to implement an annual Conformation judge’s maintenance fee phased in over two years. Delegate judges, AKC Board member judges, and Junior Showmanship “only” judges were exempt from the levy. No mention of all the other categories of judges: Performance, Field, Hunt, Working, etc. According to AKC published reports, the justification for the annual fee was to reduce a Judging Operations subsidy from the Events Department—in other words: to reduce the costs of the Judges Operations Department. The following quote from the May 11, 2010 Minutes of the AKC Board of Directors meeting explained the AKC staff’s justification for levying the fee:
“Fees assessed clubs and exhibitors had previously reduced the subsidy by almost 30% to approximately ten million dollars each year. Approximately 2.3 million dollars of that subsidy relates to the Conformation Judging Operations area. The Board considered a staff proposal to institute an annual judges’ fee, which would be phased in over two years, to reduce this Judging Operations subsidy by 20% in 2011 and 30% in 2012, while preserving the same level of service to the Sport.”
According to an email to all judges from John Wade, Director of Judging Operations, describing the Board’s newly passed AKC policy, Conformation judges were to be charged an annual maintenance fee of $50 and a $10 per breed per year fee; however in the first year (2011) the per-breed fee will be reduced to $5. During 2012, the annual maintenance fee of $50 was to be the same, but the fee per-breed per year would be raised to $10. The $25 fee per breed application was to remain unchanged each year.
However, on May 18, Chairman of the AKC Board of Directors, Ron Menaker, issued the following letter:
Dear Constituents:
Today the American Kennel Club faces unprecedented financial challenges. These challenges not only impact us in the present, but also raise critical questions about our future.
There was a time when the American Kennel Club’s robust registration revenue provided the opportunity for the sport to flourish and the ability to do more for dogs grew unabated. However, the past few years have witnessed a marked downward spiral in registrations, leaving the memories of yesterday in the wake of the harsh realities of today. Therefore, it has been necessary to embark on a number of new initiatives in the quest for additional revenue. At the same time, there has been a constant tightening of all expenses in ways that, thus far, have not impacted our preeminent position in the world of dogs.
Our ability to maintain a reasonable operating budget has come from alternative revenue sources, as well as some previously enacted revenue initiatives that have required exhibitors, clubs, and registered handlers to accept increased or new fees. In addition, there have been significant staff and expense reductions at AKC. When revenues fell below projections, staff made the necessary cuts to avoid an operating loss. While purebred dog organizations in other countries face serious threats to their very existence, we have been able to maintain the high level of our services to the sport, launch new programs, continue our important philanthropic contributions, and protect a financial reserve that helps ensure our future. Yet the decline in revenue continues.
Our judges are crucial to our sport. They not only officiate at our events; they are thought leaders, mentors, and breed experts who help bring the next generation of the fancy to maturation. Now it is time for judges to join the other constituencies of the AKC – clubs, breeders, exhibitors, and registered handlers – to make a financial contribution to help maintain the quality of the sport we all love so much.
With this in mind, at its May 2010 meeting the AKC Board voted, without an opposing vote, to enact a fee for conformation judges. The need for that fee is undeniable. The feedback from the judging community on the necessity for the fee has been very supportive. However, the feedback on the methodology for application of the fee has met with universal disapproval. Healthy debate is critical to the viability of a strong and vibrant organization. The Board values the opinions of the judging community and appreciates the many constructive suggestions offered concerning the fee structure methodology.
With the input of the judging community in mind, the Board today has taken the following actions:
- The previously approved fee structure has been withdrawn by the Board and new fee structures will be considered. The concept of judges’ fees remains intact.
- The Board has instructed AKC staff to revisit the alternatives discussed over the past year in addition to the other suggestions made recently by several judges to arrive at several equitable methods for consideration.
- The Board has instructed AKC staff to meet again with representatives of judges organizations for input on these methodologies before any final decision is made.
It is imperative that all of us come together to face our challenges with the same passion, sportsmanship, and determination that is the hallmark of the great competitive spirit of the fancy. When we have come together in this manner in the past, we have accomplished great things. For the good of the sport we all love so much, we must now move forward together.
Ronald H. Menaker
Chairman of the Board
According to Chairman Menaker’s letter, more input will be sought from “representatives of judges’ organizations….before any final decision is made.” From this statement, it appears that limited input was received from anyone other than AKC staff. To this writer, this “seeking of input” is a great step in the right direction. The AKC Board and its Chair, in my opinion, are to be commended for withdrawing this judges’ fee concept and seeking input from those most affected: conformation judges. Representatives of judges’ organizations are to meet with AKC staff in mid-summer to discuss steps to take. Those organizations will include the Dog Judges Association of America, American Dog Judges, Inc., and the Senior Conformation Judges Association—the three leading US organizations representing Conformation Judges. The input from these groups will be invaluable in formulating a solution to the problem discussed by Chairman Menaker in his letter printed above.
The AKC Board of Directors, it’s Chairman, and AKC staff are also commended by this writer for “listening” to the “… other suggestions made recently by several judges to arrive at several equitable methods for consideration.” The “ground-level, front-line participants” have a better view and often clearer understanding of the impact such a Board policy would have on the “rank and file.” Understandably, the “rank/file” may not understand the BIG picture of the financial status of our parent organization, AKC; however, that picture could have been better clarified by a Public Relations campaign designed to educate the constituents before this PR “nightmare” exploded in AKC’s face. In this writer’s opinion, the PR Department at AKC now must be “actively” putting out fires instead of “proactively” educating the AKC clients.
“Healthy debate is critical to the viability of a strong and vibrant organization”
At the “grass-roots” level and through many social networking internet sites and judges’ e-list postings, numerous local show chairs had expressed their concerns that this fee would potentially be passed down the line by judges to the show-giving clubs which are already struggling with reduced entries, increased site costs, and judges’ fees. More than 3,000 fanciers joined a Facebook Group, “I Am Opposed to the Judges Maintenance/Breed Fee,” and many used this forum to express their opposition to the fee. The FB Group members included judges, breeders, exhibitors, professional handlers, junior showmen, show chair, club members, and dog owners. The reader is encouraged to read some of the posts from members of this group—passionate, concerned, and often “gut-wrenching” expressions of opposition.
With the increased fee per entry imposed by AKC a few years ago, and fees for breed applications and a maintenance fees for judges potentially being passed on to clubs, the “dog game” is being priced out of the market, according to many sources. Some show chairs were afraid that more and more clubs will be closing down this aspect of their club activities.
One poster to the Facebook Group stated: “This would be (sic) the death of dog shows as we know them.” This writer is not sure about the “death;” however, the concept of a Judges Maintenance/Breed fee has made some “ree-dik-u-lush-ly” ill.
Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=1203
Posted by Comments are closed
