Proposed Judges Approval Process Overview
The Board solicited comments from the general public and the AKC Staff on a published proposed Judges Approval Process in October 2014. 750 email responses were received. Dr. Carmen Battaglia coordinated the coding and analysis of those responses and presented those findings to the Board. The Staff of the AKC was also solicited for comments and suggestions, and they were provided in two separate memos. Based upon those comments, their analysis, and the staff memo recommendations, a revised draft of the JAP – version 5.02 – was distributed to the Board and Staff in late December 2014 for additional comments. Version 5.02 incorporated the comments of the respondents and staff and was produced in a red?line format highlighting the source of the changes. Version 5.02 differed significantly from the initial version and the changes reflected the views of a broad cross–section of stakeholders and mirrored to a high degree the analysis performed by Dr. Battaglia.
This newly revised Judges Approval Proposal – Version 6.31 – includes many of the additional recommendations and refinements from Staff, including a restructuring of the Policy to follow a more consistent pattern. Version 6.31 is significantly different from that which was originally published for comment. It includes many of the suggestions received from the public and the staff and includes provisions for “quality and accountability” which was a concern of staff and some respondents.
Major Changes from Original Published Draft
Staff Recommendations on Formatting: Staff made a number of recommendations on the organization of the original document as well as certain “housekeeping” items which they believe would facilitate implementation or clarify wording. To the best of our knowledge the requested changes have been made.
Additional Breed Application Interview: No interview of an additional breed applicant with an Executive Field Representative was included in the original published proposal. As a result of feedback as well as to strengthen and assure compliance with the core preparation requirements the Breed interview will be required for ALL breed applicants regardless of experience level.
Executive Field Representative Participation: The original draft did not include any observation of judge’s performance by an EFR other than procedural observations. Although the vast majority of the comments expressed approval of this reduced role for the EFR’s, there were some responses concerned that such complete removal of the EFR evaluations of a judge’s performance would lead to little accountability or quality control over the approval process. Based on staff input as well as discussion with other Board members an EFR observation and documentation process, named a Judge’s Breed Commentary (JBC), is now included for judge’s during their first two groups of approval. It is the intent of the JBC to serve as a mentoring opportunity where the EFR is a coach and mentor who is involved in their development as a judge. It does not result in a “grade” or a “critique” of the order of placements.
The newly framed JBC provides the staff with the judge’s commentary about the entry judged compared to the EFR’s commentary on the same entry. Staff can then, when appropriate, express their opinion over the approval of additional breeds for the applicant. Such concerns over granting additional breeds should be the exception and not the rule. If an applicant disagrees with the Judges Department’s decision with granting of additional breeds the applicant may appeal to the AKC Board’s Appeals Committee who will make a final recommendation to the AKC Board of Directors.
Additional CEU Opportunities: Many comments were received about the structure of earning the proposed CEU requirements. Specifically, the original proposal has been modified to recognize that additional participation at educational events such as Seminars, Workshops, Specialty Ringside Observations, Apprentice Training, Tutoring and Mentor Sessions and Judging experiences should be recognized. Thus additional experiences of educational participation will earn additional CEU’s. Moreover, Staff’s concerns about the number of CEU’s and their distribution in any particular experience have been addressed.
Permit Assignments Revised: Many comments were received raising concern over the increase of the number of Permit Assignments needed in order to obtain Regular Status. That requirement has been reduced from 6 to 3. Further, the number of breeds that a judge may apply for at any given time is defined by reference to the number of breeds for which the judge is on Permit status. Please recall that the 6 permit assignments was directed at low entry breeds and not breeds in regular status. This Is NOT a relaxing of requirements but brings the move to “regular” status in line with existing policy.
Apprentice Training: The qualifications for a judge to act as a Mentor Judge have been better defined. In addition, a requirement that the apprentice trainee pass the Breed Exam prior to engaging in an Apprentice Training session has been added to assure that the trainee is fully prepared for the experience.
Breeding, Exhibiting and Running Experience: Many comments addressed the need for CEU credit for experienced breeders, exhibitors and performance event participants. They have been added.
Significant non?AKC Judging and Breeding Experience: Judging of the equivalent of a major of a breed at a non?AKC event, either foreign or domestic, has been added as an educational component. The responsibility of providing proper documentation demonstrating the judging is upon the applicant. Similarly, experience as a breeder, exhibitor or judge, which would qualify an applicant for an initial breed approval may be from experiences with a foreign registry if the AKC recognizes that registry. Again the applicant must document all of the experience to be addressed.
Many other changes based upon the comments received have been incorporated in the latest version of the Policy. Not all are detailed here. These refinements and additions to the original draft policy adequately and appropriately address the concerns of the staff and the fancy expressed in the comments received.
Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=76607
Posted by chesliepickett
on Apr 30 2015. Filed under Featured, The Buzz.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed
