Past Motions

Motions that have been voted on by the Board of Directors in the past month will be posted to this page by approximately the last day of each month. Feedback on any motion should be directed to executive.secretary@asca.org for distribution to the Board..
 
As rule changes are approved, the Executive Secretary will make those changes to the rulebooks posted on the website, with the effective date noted, in order for the membership to see what changes will be in effect in the upcoming competitive season.
 
Please refer to past Secretary’s Reports for information on motions older than 30 days.

Members,
 
The following motion has been voted on this month by the ASCA Board. Results are below.
 

BD.17.191 Changes to 6.14 Breed Standard

Approve: Busquets, Creelman, DeChant, Gray, King, Roberts, Silveira

Oppose: Gibson, Vest

Abstain: 0

Motion carries.

Comment from Creelman: The breed standard and the Working description should be in each rulebook.

Letter of Dissent from Gibson: Most stockdog breeds have a working description as part of their breed standard or as a separate document, as we have. I have no problem with a working description. I have no problem with it being published in the Aussie Times. I do have a problem with how it is used to cause divisions within our Club, and the timing of this particular motion seems political to me. The divisiveness needs to stop, and I do not want to be a part of any political statement.

Letter of Dissent from Vest: This motion should have been labeled correctly as the Working Description. And as such does not merit the same treatment as the Australian Shepherd Breed Standard. The Working Description was created as a punitive document to punish the Australian Shepherds that did not work as some in the breed thought that they should. This document provided a method by which Judges could penalize dogs that do not work in the same “style” as described in the Working Standard. This document created a divide in ASCA that obviously will never be healed … since once again the Working Standard is brought up as the only standard by which Australian Shepherds are to work. The history of the Australian Shepherd documents that other working breeds were used to create the dogs that we have today. Yet, the only dogs penalized for their bloodlines are the working dogs. Is it the goal of the Makers of this motion to carry on the derisiveness that we have seen in ASCA in the past few months by once again resurfacing the Working Standard?

Motion by Roberts

Second by Gray

I move to add the Working Description to the policy for the publication of the Breed Standard in the Aussie Times.

Current wording:

6.14 Breed Standard

The ASCA Breed Standard shall be published in every other issue of the Aussie Times within the first 50 pages of the publication.

A prominent icon which links to the ASCA Standard shall be presented on the home page of ASCA.org

Proposed wording:

6.14 Breed Standard and Working Description

The ASCA Breed Standard shall be published in every other issue of the Aussie Times within the first 50 pages of the publication.

The ASCA Working Description shall be published in the Aussie Times in alternate issues.

A prominent icon which links to the ASCA Standard shall be presented on the home page of ASCA.org

Comment: Both the Breed Standard and the Working Description are of equal importance and both should be published.

Parties affected: AT Editor

Effective date: When passed.

Members,

The following motion has been voted on this month by the ASCA Board. Results are below.

BD.17.195 Eliminate Section 18 Introduction to the ASCA Stockdog Program

Approve: Busquets, DeChant, Gray, King, Roberts

Oppose: Creelman, Gibson, Silveira, Vest

Abstain: 0

Motion carries.

Comment from Busquets: I agree in spirit with the intention the authors of this section had. ASCA needs to attract new people to ASCA, encourage everyone to put their dogs on stock, and be inclusive. However, I disagree with several aspects of this section and educational materials are inadequate. I think that we need to start from scratch.

Letter of Dissent from Creelman: The Introduction to Stock should not be eliminated. It should be sent back to the SDC to be revised and rewritten to be agreeable to that committee and the BOD. The purpose of Section 18 is to bring new members into the stock program. The program in place should remain while procedures and rules are revised.

Letter of Dissent from Gibson: ASCA needs to actively attract new people to its programs, but especially to its Stockdog program. I do think the current Introduction to the ASCA Stockdog event could be strengthened, and I look forward to seeing the improvements suggested by the SDC; however, the current event is a good step in the right direction, and I would rather see it stay in place until the SDC completes its revisions.

Letter of Dissent from Vest: The comments that supports this motion are not reflected by fact. Accusations that stock would be mistreated and handlers placed at risk are an excuse to end the Intro to Stock.

 

Motion by Roberts

Second by Gray

I move to eliminate Section 18 Introduction to the ASCA Stockdog Program as it exists from the Stockdog Rulebook and renumber accordingly.

 

Comment: The Introduction to the ASCA Stockdog Program, as presently written, needs to be revised to ensure the safety of humans and animals and to be made into a document all Affiliates and users of the ASCA Stockdog program, present and future.

 

Parties affected: Affiliates, members, non-members.

 

Effective date: When passed. *Revised 11/15 to include the following: Note: Any Intro to Stock event in the sanctioning cycle now or until the Vote is delivered to the board may be sanctioned and held. On that date, if passed, no further Intro to Stock events will be sanctioned.

Members,

The following motion has been voted on this month by the ASCA Board. Results are below.

BD.17.196 Directive to Stockdog Committee

Approve: Busquets, Creelman, DeChant, Gibson, Gray, King, Roberts, Silveira

Oppose: Vest

Abstain: 0

Motion carries.

Comment from Busquets: Since I’m voting to eliminate Section 18 Introduction to the ASCA Stockdog Program, I think this motion places ASCA on a logical, stepwise path to promote the Australian Shepherd breed, introduce new people to ASCA, and encourage competitors in other sports to give working stock a try.

Comment from Creelman: SDC can revise the program already in place to make it agreeable to both the committee and the BOD. Additions can be made and rules for safety concerns put in place. A date to be submitted to the BOD needs to be in place.

Comment from Gibson: I believe this is a broad directive which is actually asking the SDC to work on three different, although related, tasks. I think the phrase “no sanctioning necessary” was unnecessary; I think the SDC can decide for themselves whether sanctioning is helpful or not as they proceed with their work.

Letter of Dissent from Vest: This directive to the SDC will do nothing to bring in newcomers to the program.  It was our intent to try and bring in dogs and handlers from the other venues.  This directive will not accomplish that goal. And, sorry to say … but the majority of folks who enter stockdog trials will never own stock … therefore promoting our dogs as “ranch hands” will disenfranchise many in the SD program. That is a reality. The days of family farms/ranches are long over. Regarding the claim that the current ITS was harmful to stock, that is a false narrative. But I can tell you what harmful to stock is … turning a green dog loose in a 200 x 100 arena and hoping for success. It saddens me that the ITS was not given a chance to be successful.

 

Motion by Roberts

Second by Gray

I move to direct the SDC to develop a structured format to focus on 1) bringing new people into the Stockdog Trialing program, 2) produce material that promotes the working Aussie as a ranch hand, 3) help people be successful in SD Trials via training tools, resources, etc., and 4) formalize training clinics prior to a trial or show which helps new people at trialing and new people moving up in a Division. No sanctioning necessary. The SDC will have until the spring board meeting to bring their documents to the board for review.

*Revised 11/15 to change “Judging” to “training” in third line and add “or show” in the fourth line.

 

Comment: Affiliate Clubs who need help in organizing and running a stockdog clinic will have a tool to use to accomplish their goals. Having a written guide for promoting the Aussie as a ranch hand, helping people be successful trailing in ASCA will encourage people to come to ASCA and stay here.

 

Parties affected: Anyone interested in learning how to work stock and succeed in ASCA’s Stockdog Trialing program.

 

Effective date: When passed.

Members,

The following motion has been voted on this month by the ASCA Board. Results are below.

BD.17.197 ASCMembers.io Group as Official ASCA Communication Tool

Approve: Busquets, Creelman, DeChant, Gray, King, Roberts

Oppose: Gibson, Silveira, Vest

Abstain: 0

Motion carries.

Comment from Busquets: I always thought that this list should remain as ASCA’s communication tool with the use of moderators. Since moderators will be in place, I agree to use ASCMembers.io group.

Comment from Creelman: As the official tool for ASCA it must be owned by ASCA and be moderated to maintain civil conversation and professionalism

Letter of Dissent from Gibson: I do not mind adding ASCMembers as described in this motion as an official communication tool for ASCA. I do mind the political vindictiveness of trying to shut down the other group. I believe this motion was premature since Linda and Jean did not define “lightly moderated atmosphere” or delineate what guidelines would be used to moderate the group. I also think Linda and Jean should have clarified how ASCMembers’ ASCA membership will be verified. This topic and the question of moderation should have been presented to the Board and the ASCMember group before this motion was made.

Letter of Dissent from Vest: The makers of this motion did not present a moderation plan to ensure that discussion will remain civil and meet the guidelines set for other ASCA social media sites.

 

Motion by Gray

Second by Roberts

I move to assign the ASCMembers io.group as an official communication tool between the ASCA’s Board and its membership and will serve as a place for members to discuss issues pertaining to all things ASCA in a lightly moderated atmosphere. The group will be owned by the (ASCA) Office Manager with Frank Butera and Joyce Charron as the administrators.

 

Comment: The former ASCA-L is now the ASCMembers.io group and it is where members are comfortable. All archives from the ASCA-L have been transferred over to the .io group so members can go back and research 20 +/- years of ASCA discussion.

ASCA only needs one discussion group. To have more will confuse members as to where they need to be and it is a duplication of effort.

 

Parties affected: ASCA membership who are on the internet.

 

Effective date: When passed

Members,

The following motion has been voted on this month by the ASCA Board. Results are below.

BD.17.199 Rescind BD.17.186 ASCADiscussionGroup on Groups.io

Approve: Busquets, DeChant, Gray, King, Roberts

Oppose: Creelman, Gibson, Silveira, Vest

Abstain: 0

Motion carries.

Comment from Busquets: It is redundant to have two lists.

Letter of Dissent from Creelman: There have been several positive comments made by new members about this group. Some people may feel more comfortable on one group or the other. I don’t see a problem having two groups.

Letter of Dissent from Gibson: The rationale for this motion, “duplication of effort,” is an inaccurate statement since ASCADiscussion Group is ASCA’s group, and any other “effort” is done on a voluntary basis. An honest comment would have been, “We promised Frank and our friends on the old ASCA-L/ASCMembers group that we would rescind this, so we are.” The politics here is unfortunate. I will be disappointed if this group is shut down, but it will not be the first time in ASCA history that a Board has rescinded things put into place by a previous Board. That is simply the nature of our club, for better or for worse. We just celebrated 60 years, so I think we will be okay. I think the silver lining is that we are finally having discussions about the need for moderation to keep our debates civil and both this group and ASCMembers are in a more user-friendly format than the old Yahoo list … both good changes.

 

Motion by Gray

Second by Roberts

I move to rescind BD.17.186 ASCADiscussionGroup on Groups.io

 

Comment: Duplication of effort

 

Parties affected: ASCA membership who are on the internet.

 

Effective date: When passed.

 

BD.17.186 ASCADiscussionGroup on Groups.io

Motion by Gibson to have Ray Fryar launch ASCADiscussionGroup Groups.io as an official communication tool of the Australian Shepherd Club of America. The ASCA Business Office will be the owner of this lightly moderated group. Second by Wesen.

Members,
 
The following motion has been voted on this month by the ASCA Board. Results are below.
 

CO.17.02 Changes to Non-Regular Breeder Judge Requirements

Approve: Silveira

Oppose: Busquets, Creelman, DeChant, Gibson, Gray, King, Roberts, Vest

Abstain: 0

Motion fails.

Comment from Busquets: I’ve given this a lot of thought. I believe that the requirements need revision and I appreciate the hard work that the committee put into this. However, the particular problems that the motion attempts to address could potentially be mitigated through other means. I also think that we need to focus on education requirements, materials, and opportunities first. The education requirements may slow down the process under which judges move from one level to another while simultaneously preparing them better.

Comment from Creelman: There are far too many changes. ASCA needs new judges and adding multiple changes is not inviting. Paragraph C has many things that need to be eliminated or changed. There are several situations where these changes are knee-jerk ideas and not in the best interest of ASCA members. Enforcing many of these is not practical.

Comment from DeChant: While I would like all Breeder Judges to be ASCA Members, I do not think we should require it. I would like to see Education be developed for Breeder Judges before working on this. Rather than increase the requirements to enter the program, I would favor higher requirements to move to the other levels. I like clarifying that each applicant must have 5 Champions.

Comment from Vest: There are portions of this motion that I support … such as more than one person using the same dog to become a Conf Judge … but overall, it still needs work.

Motion by DeChant

I move to approve the Motion below passed by the Conformation Committee.

Motion by Debbie Martin

Second by Mary Hellmeister

After several weeks of discussion with committee members, along with input from the membership, we are updating the requirements for applying to become a non-regular breeder judge incorporating the changes as suggested and highlighted under the New Wording.

I, Debbie Martin, move to approve the following change to Appendix II, Section One of the Breeder Judge requirements, Requirements and Procedures for becoming an ASCA Approved Breeder Judge, Non-Regular Breeder Judge Requirements.

Current Wording:

APPENDIX II: Judge Requirements

SECTI ON ONE: Breeder Judge Requirements

REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR BECOMING AN ASCA APPROVED BREEDER JUDGE:

Within the ASCA Approved Breeder Judge Program, there are four (4) levels of expertise, which are as follows:

NON-REGULAR – Allowed to judge only Non-Regular classes at ASCA Sanctioned Conformation shows. May not judge at a National Specialty.

PROVISIONAL – Allowed to judge all Non-Regular and Regular classes at ASCA Sanctioned Conformation shows. May not judge at a National Specialty.

APPROVED – Allowed to judge all Non-Regular and Regular classes at ASCA Sanctioned Conformation shows. Allowed to judge Non-Regular classes at a National Specialty

SENIOR – Allowed to judge all Non-Regular and Regular classes at ASCA Sanctioned Conformation shows. Allowed to judge all Non-Regular and Regular classes (Intact and Altered Conformation) at a National Specialty.

At all levels of the Breeder Judge program it is the responsibility of the applicant to maintain their records and to submit applications for increased levels of approval at the appropriate time. The requirements stated are minimum requirements only and may be exceeded by the applicant if so desired.

*****If five or more years have lapsed from the date of the judge’s last ASCA conformation judging assignment, the judge is then required to re-take the judges’ test to demonstrate current knowledge of the Breed Standard and ASCA Conformation Show Rules and Regulations. A score of 100% is required to resume status as an ASCA Approved Breeder Judge. No additional requirements will need to be met. A re-applying judge may take the test twice without penalty. Failure after the second attempt would result in a six month waiting period. A failure after the third attempt would result in a denial of the judge’s reinstatement.*****

NON-REGULAR BREEDER JUDGE REQUIREMENTS

Before applying for Non-Regular Breeder Judge status, the following requirements must be met:

A.      Must be a full adult member of ASCA in good standing for a minimum of eight (8) years.

B.      Must be at least twenty-six (26) years of age and must be a member of the sponsoring affiliate club for a minimum of two (2) years before applying to become a non-regular judge. (Effective June 2016)

C.      Must have bred five (5) ASCA Champions of Record or be a breeder of three (3) and handled two (2) ASCA Champions of Record to their title (The applicant must have placed all points and majors on each Champion.).

D.      Must have a thorough knowledge of the ASCA Australian Shepherd Breed Standard.

E.       Must have a thorough knowledge of the ASCA Approved Conformation Show Rules and Regulations.

F.       Must have evidence of a strong background and involvement in ASCA and its programs developed for the Australian Shepherd, such as membership and participation in Affiliate clubs, and putting on ASCA events such as Show Secretary, Steward, Scorekeeper, Timekeeping, etc.

G.      Must have served as a steward in the conformation ring at five (5) or more ASCA sanctioned events. Must have served as a Show Secretary at three (3) or more ASCA sanctioned events.

H.      Must be willing to abide by the ASCA Conformation Judges Code of Ethics.

THESE ARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLYING AND EACH APPLICANT WILL BE EVALUATED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS BEFORE ACCEPTANCE INTO THE PR OGRAM. APPLICANT MAY EXCEED THESE REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR BENEFIT.

PROCEDURE

Steps in applying for Non-Regular Breeder Judge:

A.      Obtain an application and Affiliate sponsorship form from the ASCA Business Office.

B.      Both the application and the Affiliate sponsorship form must be completed and returned to the ASCA Business Office by the sponsoring Affiliate Club.

C.      Upon receipt of the application and the Affiliate sponsorship form, the ASCA Business Office will verify the documentation is correct and minimum requirements have been met.

D.      When the Office determines the minimum requirements have been met they will send the applicant a judge’s test. This test must be completed and returned to the ASCA Business Office within two (2) months. A score of 100% is required to pass. An applicant may attempt the test twice without penalty. Failure after the second attempt would result in a six (6) month waiting period. A failure after the third attempt would result in denial of his/her Breeder Judge Application. The office will also send out, with the Judges test a one page statement with the following to be signed and filled out by the Judge applicant and returned with the Judges test to the office; I ____________(the applicant) understand that I am forbidden from accepting assignments or any offer of future assignments at the non-regular level until I receive notification in writing from the ASCA Business Office via email, USPS or FAX of my appointment to Non-Regular Judge Status and I have been assigned a Judges number in writing. I will inform any club that attempts to hire me prematurely, that I am unable to Judge for their club. Failure to follow this rule will incur an additional forty-five (45) day penalty extension before I can be approved. Signed: ______. (the applicant).

E.       Upon passing the judges’ test, the applicant’s name will be published in the Aussie Times for comments from the membership. The membership will have forty-five (45) days to respond. The ASCA Business Office will forward the application, sponsorship form; judges’ test results and comments from the membership to the ASCA Board of Directors. The e ASCA Board of Directors will approve or deny the applicant within sixty (60) days.

F.       Any properly documented negative comments will be investigated by the ASCA Board of Directors. If this investigation indicates there is probable cause that the applicant should not be approved, the application will be denied. If denied, the applicant will be given an explanation as to the reasons for the denial and may include suggestions or tasks that will help the applicant to be successful in a second application process. If denied, the applicant will have thirty (30) days to appeal the decision. If an appeal has been submitted, the Board will respond within thirty (30) days. If an applicant has been denied approval at the non-regular level, the applicant may reapply after a waiting period of two (2) years and after having satisfied any additional tasks assigned by the ASCA Board of Directors.

G.      If the application is approved, the applicant will receive notification in writing from the ASCA Business Office of appointment to Non-Regular Judge and, at that time, will be an ASCA Non-Regular Breeder Judge. The applicant may then accept non-regular level judging assignments. Upon approval, the applicant’s name, address and telephone number will be published in the next issue of the Aussie Times and will be added to the ASCA Approved Judges List as a Breeder Judge with the notation of “NR” beside their name.

Proposed Wording:

APPENDIX II: Judge Requirements

SECTION ONE: Breeder Judge Requirements

REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR BECOMING AN ASCA APPROVED BREEDER JUDGE:

Within the ASCA Approved Breeder Judge Program, there are four (4) levels of expertise, which are as follows:

NON-REGULAR – Allowed to judge only Non-Regular classes at ASCA Sanctioned Conformation shows. May not judge at a National Specialty.

PROVISIONAL – Allowed to judge all Non-Regular and Regular classes at ASCA Sanctioned Conformation shows. May not judge at a National Specialty.

APPROVED – Allowed to judge all Non-Regular and Regular classes at ASCA Sanctioned Conformation shows. Allowed to judge Non-Regular classes at a National Specialty

SENIOR – Allowed to judge all Non-Regular and Regular classes at ASCA Sanctioned Conformation shows. Allowed to judge all Non-Regular and Regular classes (Intact and Altered Conformation) at a National Specialty.

At all levels of the Breeder Judge program it is the responsibility of the applicant to maintain their records and to submit applications for increased levels of approval at the appropriate time. The requirements stated are minimum requirements only and may be exceeded by the applicant if so desired.

*****If five or more years have lapsed from the date of the judge’s last ASCA conformation judging assignment, the judge is then required to re-take the judges’ test to demonstrate current knowledge of the Breed Standard and ASCA Conformation Show Rules and Regulations.  A score of 100% is required to resume status as an ASCA Approved Breeder Judge. No additional requirements will need to be met.  A re-applying judge may take the test twice without penalty.  Failure after the second attempt would result in a twelve (12) month waiting period.  A failure after the third attempt would result in a denial of the judge’s reinstatement.*****

NON-REGULAR BREEDER JUDGE REQUIREMENTS

Before applying for Non-Regular Breeder Judge status, the following requirements must be met:

A.      Must be a full adult member of ASCA in good standing for at least eight (8) years.

B.      Must be at least twenty-six (26) years of age and must be a member of the sponsoring affiliate club for a minimum of two (2) years before applying to become a non-regular judge. (Effective June 2016)

C.      Must have bred five (5) ASCA Champions of Record or be a breeder of three (3) and handled two (2) additional ASCA Champions of Record to their title for a total of five (5) individual Champions of Record (The applicant must have placed all points including majors on each Champion.).  Litter owners and Co-breeders may not use the same dog for credit towards their individual breeder judge requirements. Additionally, a dog may be used for either the “Champion bred” or the “Champion handled” requirement, but not both.
These stipulations apply only to Breeder Judge qualifications.

D.      Must have a thorough knowledge of the ASCA Australian Shepherd Breed Standard.

E.       Must have a thorough knowledge of the ASCA Approved Conformation Show Rules and Regulations.

F.       Must have evidence of a strong background and involvement in ASCA and its programs developed for the Australian Shepherd, such as membership and participation in Affiliate clubs, and putting on ASCA events such as Show Secretary, Steward, Scorekeeper, Timekeeping, etc.

G.      Must have served as a steward in the conformation ring at five (5) or more ASCA sanctioned events. Must have served as a Show Secretary at five (5) or more ASCA sanctioned events. Maximum number of combination of Show Secretary and steward is two (2) per show weekend.

H.      Must be willing to abide by the ASCA Conformation Judges Code of Ethics.

THESE ARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLYING AND EACH APPLICANT WILL BE EVALUATED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS BEFORE ACCEPTANCE INTO THE PROGRAM. APPLICANT MAY EXCEED THESE REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR BENEFIT.

PROCEDURE

Steps in applying for Non-Regular Breeder Judge:

A.      Obtain an application and Affiliate sponsorship form from the ASCA Business Office.

B.      Both the application and the Affiliate sponsorship form must be completed and returned to the ASCA Business Office by the sponsoring Affiliate Club.

C.      Upon receipt of the application and the Affiliate sponsorship form, the ASCA Business Office will verify the documentation is correct and minimum requirements have been met.

D.      When the Office determines the minimum requirements have been met they will send the applicant a judge’s test.  This test must be completed and returned to the ASCA Business Office within two (2) months. A score of 100% is required to pass. An applicant may attempt the test twice without penalty. Failure after the second attempt would result in a twelve (12) month waiting period.  A failure after the third attempt would result in denial of his/her Breeder Judge Application. The office will also send out, with the Judges test a one page statement with the following to be signed and filled out by the Judge applicant and returned with the Judges test to the office; I ____________(the applicant) understand that  I am forbidden from accepting assignments or any offer of future assignments at the non-regular level until I receive notification in writing from the ASCA Business Office via email, USPS or FAX of my appointment to Non-Regular Judge Status and I have been assigned a Judges number in writing. I will inform any club that attempts to hire me prematurely, that I am unable to Judge for their club. Failure to follow this rule will incur an additional forty-five (45) day penalty extension before I can be approved. Signed: ______. (the applicant).

E.       Upon passing the judges’ test, the applicant’s name will be published in the Aussie Times for comments from the membership. The membership will have forty-five (45) days to respond. The ASCA Business Office will forward the application, sponsorship form; judges’ test results and comments from the membership to the ASCA Board of Directors. The ASCA Board of Directors will approve or deny the applicant within sixty (60) days.

F.       Any properly documented negative comments will be investigated by the ASCA Board of Directors. If this investigation indicates there is probable cause that the applicant should not be approved, the application will be denied. If denied, the applicant will be given an explanation as to the reasons for the denial and may include suggestions or tasks that will help the applicant to be successful in a second application process. If denied, the applicant will have thirty (30) days to appeal the decision. If an appeal has been submitted, the Board will respond within thirty (30) days. If an applicant has been denied approval at the non-regular level, the applicant may reapply after a waiting period of two (2) years and after having satisfied any additional tasks assigned by the ASCA Board of Directors.

G.      If the application is approved, the applicant will receive notification in writing from the ASCA Business Office of appointment to Non-Regular Judge and, at that time, will be an ASCA Non-Regular Breeder Judge. The applicant may then accept non-regular level judging assignments. Upon approval, the applicant’s name, address and telephone number will be published in the next issue of the Aussie Times and will be added to the ASCA Approved Judges List as a Breeder Judge with the notation of “NR” beside their name.

H.      An approved ASCA Breeder Judge at any level must maintain full membership in ASCA.

Rationale: The requirements for becoming an ASCA approved Breeder Judge have been unchanged for a many years. With the advent of multiple show weekends, it has been suggested by the membership that it would be beneficial to the program to bring the requirements up to date and in line with the changes created by multiple show weekends.

Parties affected:

·         This is the first step to updating the requirements that have not been changed in a long time.

Some of the resistance from members of the Aussie community and in this committee may be caused by personal agendas. They may be in process of applying or almost ready to apply and these changes will impede what they want. More time is always better to understand judging and pr0cedures.

·         The motion in no way impedes the cooperation between breeder and co-breeder.

What the motion does ask is that the same dog not be used by both breeder and co breeder for the judge application process ONLY. Additionally the same dog may not be used for the Bred Champion and the Handled Champion. It must be 5 separate dogs. We already say that if an applicant is using the 5 Bred Champions, that it is a total of 5. This makes the total equal for the requirement. This in no way affects HOF for breeders and Co-Breeders.

·         We have increased the show secretary duties to 5 from 3. And also limited to 2 per weekend.

This allows a person to also show during a show weekend. We also believe it will give an applicant a chance to see additional judges in action in how they handle their ring and judging procedures. This is also to alleviate any hardship on an applicant to do a whole weekend of shows.

·         Failure after the second attempt of the open book written test would result in a twelve (12) month waiting period.

By increasing the wait time between the 2nd and 3rd attempt, we feel this would allow the applicant additional time to study the rules, requirements and procedures in depth and pass with 100% on the 3rd attempt. We want our judge applicant to succeed!

·         An approved ASCA Breeder Judge at any level must maintain full membership in ASCA.

First and foremost ASCA is a membership organization and a registry second. We already require an applicant to be a member in full standing for 8 years prior to applying. This only affects ASCA breeder judges. If a person has financial concerns, then that person can appeal to the BOD’s for exemption. We did not include inclusive or consecutive in the motion as the board has been discussing this issue. We feel once the board approves one or the other, then it becomes an administrative change to the procedure.

·         Education

Education is very important. We have many resources already listed on the website. We intend to complete online modules.  A sub- committee will begin working on these.  And as completed and approved they will be added to the website to help educate our judges and our judge applicants.

Effective Date: The motion should be effective upon approval by the Board. This is an administrative change.

Results of the committee vote:

Approve:

​7

Oppose:

​5

Letter of Dissent from Dorothy Montano: I vote No. Most organizations, these days use Evidence Based Practices to drive the decisions that are made. I began looking for “evidence” of judge applicants moving up through the ranks too quickly. I went to the Aussie Times, where applicants must be published for any phase of the application process. I was thinking I would find page after page of people listed per Aussie times as applying, moving up, etc. I found a smattering of applicants in the process-Some only applied to become Jrs Judges, some Non-regular, some provisional and so on. Applicants who were published as applying to “move up” in Jan, were Published as approved by July. Not to quickly in my estimation. The 45 day publication in the Aussie Times gives the membership at large the opportunity to dissent if they feel the applicant would be a detriment to the breed. Then the BOD investigates to ascertain if this complain has any merit. While most people will mumble and grumble, when it comes time to putting pen to paper, they do not complete the process. I would love to see the “evidence” of multiple people co-breeding so they could obtain the pre-requisites for becoming a judge. The office should be able to provide those numbers-real evidence- that this is as widespread as rumored/implied. Not allowing co-breeders on a litter will not be of any benefit to the breed.  We all have reasons that we co-breed litters, and it is not for someone to say that this is wrong or should be penalized. Show me the “evidence” that this is hurting ASCA. Show me how raising a litter on my premises, makes me a better Judge. They sleep and eat the first 3 weeks, you chase after them and clean up poop the next 3 weeks. The critical times are proper socialization of young pups and “puppy Evaluations” and that is done week 7-9. The first 6 weeks just proves that puppies are fun, but also a great deal of hard work. I have done co-breedings and we met weekly to discuss puppies, made final decisions and were “partners” in the endeavor from the beginning. It makes no difference who had the puppies and where they lived their first couple of months. “With the advent of multiple show weekends, it has been suggested by the membership that it might be beneficial to the program to take a look at the requirements and tighten them up”. Ok, what part of the membership was polled? What process was used? I would like to see the results. “Suggestions by the membership” could encompass 2 people or 1000 people and if the perception is that only a few people are pushing for an agenda, then it is not evidence based. Basing a decision because the rules have been “unchanged in years” is not based on any evidence that the system is broken. IMO the only things that need to be changed because they have been “unchanged” in a while are one’s underwear and one’s car oil. As Always JMO.

Letter of Dissent from Erin Sumler: I vote no. I vote this way because I don’t think these measures will have the effect we want. We need continued education and adding assignments to better prepare our judges to move up.

Letter of Dissent from Ray Schafer: I’m voting NO. I’ve had numerous conversations with membership since the first draft of this motion was submitted. Almost every member I’ve visited with has had issues with this motion, except one, who is already a breeder judge.
Regarding Non-Regular Breeder Judge Requirements
Paragraph C.
I’m not interested in being a part of discouraging co-breeding. Individuals who chose to co-breed do so for various reasons, mostly for educational opportunities or families who work together under the same kennel names.
There are other/better ways to determine the legitimacy of an applicant.
The continuous membership with no regard to health issues or Acts of God is unacceptable.
Additionally, nothing about the eight year membership requirement has been clarified regarding cumulative or consecutive years of membership.
After discussing this with the membership, most actively involved in Conformation, I am compelled to vote no.

Letter of Dissent from Betty Jaco: My vote is NO on the motion. My comments below.
“Must have bred five (5) ASCA Champions of Record or be a breeder of three (3) and handled two (2) additional ASCA Champions of Record to their title for a total of five (5) individual Champions of Record. (The applicant must have placed all points including majors on each Champion.) Litter owners and Co-breeders may not use the same dog for credit towards their individual breeder judge requirements. Additionally, a dog may be used for either the “Champion bred” or the “Champion handled” requirement, but not both. These stipulations apply only to Breeder Judge qualifications.”
I am against this section of the motion.
*Putting a stop to many people claiming awards for a single dog/litter. <<I went thru the most recent nationals catalogue to see how many people are listed on a dog… I found “a few” with 4 and 5 owners listed… IMO this is wrong, but this is not a topic for the CC it is a business /registry decision… possibly with the input from the CC it could be changed. (Most had 1, 2 or 3) >>
*Changing the requirements to one person/one dog will of course take a longer time in the breeding realm of things and will possibly require more litters bred.
“Must have served as a steward in the conformation ring at five (5) or more ASCA sanctioned events. Must have served as a Show Secretary at five (5) or more ASCA sanctioned events. Maximum number of combination of Show Secretary and steward is two (2) per show weekend.”
I am against this section of the motion.
*Increase this to eight (8) or more events with eight (8) or more Show Sec and eight (8) or more ring stew assignments. Will show affiliate commitment and willingness to learn the duties of Show Sec/Ring Steward and all that is involved in running a show.
“A score of 100% is required to pass. An applicant may attempt the test twice without penalty. Failure after the second attempt would result in a twelve (12) month waiting period.”
I am against this section of the motion.
*Making an applicant wait a longer period of time after the second failed test doesn’t provide any benefit. Leave it at six (6) mos. but require two (2) or more of each. SS / RS requirements with an educational component.
“An approved ASCA Breeder Judge at any level must maintain full membership in ASCA.”
I am against this section of the motion.
*Do we require membership in ASCA for other program judges? or our AKC, UKC, etc… judges? I don’t see that there is any benefit having judges be members. Better to have a test or educational requirements taken or completed yearly with scenarios via video or discussion on topics, what ifs, this happened in my ring, etc. that come up within the judging program or during judging events.
“Must be at least twenty-six (26 years of age and must be a member of the sponsoring affiliate club for a minimum of two (2) years before applying to become a non-regular judge.”
*Altho this is not being discussed… I don’t agree with this. I would like to see a minimum of eight (8) year commitment to an affiliate before applying to become a non-regular judge.
“A failure after the third attempt would result in denial of his/her Breeder Judge Application.”
*Altho this is not being discussed… I don’t agree with this. I would like to see a 12 month wait period with some educational components to complete.

Comment from Mary Hellmeister: I think the requirements needed to be updated to reflect the changed environment.

Comment from Kathy Peycke: The changes are needed.

Comment from Holly Anderson Clift: After all the discussion I have considered all the facts.

Comment from Liz Gibson: I feel this is the first step to improve our judge requirements. This motion has been well thought out and thoroughly discussed. I feel part of the problem has been that folks do not understand that these requirements were created over 20 years ago with very little change since then. I also feel that personal agendas may have contributed to the No votes. I also feel that increasing the number of assignments at each level will be beneficial to our ASCA Breeder Judge program.
Yes we need education. We already have some on the website. We have a great list of resources listed on the website for those that really want to educate themselves. Education will be brought in as part of move up requirements and should be continued beyond reaching the Senior level.
Education is a project the CC will work on to include as part of the requirements for all levels.
This motion in no way impedes breeders and co-breeders working together.
It does clarify how a dog may be used for an individual judge application only. This change in no way impacts HOF or merit credit.
By increasing the wait time between the second and third attempt of the written test will allow the applicant more time to ensure that they pass the test and hopefully it will eliminate any more denials.
The increase in show secretary/ring steward duties will allow a judge applicant to observe how different judges run their ring and how each judge handles his/her books. By limiting the time to 2 shows per weekend still allows a person to show and makes a judge applicant put more effort into the process of how a show works and all it entails.
I also feel since ASCA is first and foremost a Membership club and a registry second, that out ASCA Breeder Judges should be required to maintain a full membership.

Comment from Myrjam Langen: I’m fine with all.

Comment from Debbie Martin: This motion appropriately allows co-breeders to meet breeder judge application requirements without using the same dog for the same requirements.
It also creates a 12 month opportunity for judge applicants struggling to pass the test to better prepare for their third attempt.
ASCA is a membership organization, not simply a registry. As such, I feel it is important for our Judges to maintain membership after becoming a judge, as they did prior to becoming a judge.