Sunday, January 13, 2013

Sunday, January 13, 2013

12:41 PM

Good morning Joe,

I'm not sure if your email was sent to Tony or not, as the email I received only showed my email address on it.  Consequently, I forwarded it to him.  However, he may be at shows this weekend.  In that event, I thought I would take the opportunity to provide to you my response.

Re: Point 1:

Ironically, you sent your email near the end of our telephonic Board meeting Thursday evening .  Among the first items on the agenda were two motions.  The first was to reconsider the original motion appointing the multiple chairs of the JEC.  It passed unanimously (as I recall it was unanimous, anyway.  The minutes will reflect if my recollection is accurate as to the vote count).  The second was to appoint Faye Strauss as the Chair.  That motion also passed (again, my recollection is that the vote was unanimous).

Re: Point 2:

You are correct.  Robert's Rules requires a vote of the Board to adopt amendments to the APM.  I am entrusted, as First VP, with managing recommendations to the Board with regard to APM changes.  I have submitted a number of them for the Board's consideration.  They are in the process of being considered.  Actually, we discussed the timeline at the Board meeting last week and decided to place my recommendations on the agenda for consideration at the Feb. meeting.  Among the things we discussed was Top 20.  The consensus of the Board (and my own personal view as a member of the Top 20 Committee and the Emcee of the Top 20 Conformation event) is that the procedure for selection of Top 20 judges should not be changed.  I believe, as did the Board itself, that the issues last year with judges amounted to an anomaly.  The only action that I will be taking is to invite the Top 20 Coordinator and Top 20 Committee Chairs to work with me in memorializing the existing procedures so that they may be included in the APM.  All committee protocols and procedures should be reduced to writing and incorporated, so that any new committee composition may easily refer to the APM in order to determine the scope of their jurisdiction, authority to advance their mandate, forms used, etc.  That is the process in which I find myself: attempting to update the APM to include a memorialization of each committee's jurisdiction, mandate, and procedures.  It is a time-consuming task.

I assume that the source of the belief among people that I was given carte blanche to unilaterally make APM changes must have come from an ambiguously worded meeting minute; although I haven't looked at the minutes to see where the misunderstanding originated.  It wasn't until I read your email (and another that was sent to me subsequently) that I learned how that language was being interpreted.  It's not the case.  The Board must approve any recommended APM edits, move to amend them, or disapprove them as the case may be.

Thank you for the heads up as to how the matter was being interpreted.  Please feel free to pass my response on to any DPCA member who you may be aware shares the same misunderstanding.

Cordially,

Jeff Helsdon