I have read the Performance Event thread with interest and have a few comments on the Misconduct Process:
My experience with the process is as follows. I have served as a member on several misconduct hearings. (Some of them resulted in recommendations of suspensions, others did not.) I have advised numerous clubs on how to conduct a misconduct hearing. I have not served as a witness or participant in any misconduct hearing.
Now, my comments - complaints:
First, I think that much of the process is made up by the AKC as it goes, and is not documented.
Several years ago, the Rocky Mountain club declined the entries of a handler in the Amateur on the grounds that the handler had received money for the training of dogs. At the time, I advised the club that the chances of prevailing were 50/50 because of the lack of hard documentary proof. However, the club was convinced in the merit of the claims and decided on a 9-0 vote of the officers/directors to proceed. I am not arguing about the outcome, but about the process.
The club submitted a one inch packet to the AKC. Included in the packet was the deposition of one witness who saw money pass hands from one person to the subject of the inquiry. That packet was submitted to the AKC.
The subject of the inquiry responded with another packet to the AKC. The club requested a copy of that packet. The AKC refused to provide the club with a copy of the packet.
Several months later, the club received a letter from the AKC stating that the club would need to accept the entries of the subject unless the club had additional grounds for refusal.
I called the president of Performance Events to ask for an explanation. I was informed by the president that the Club did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the standard for civil cases is perponderance of the evidence, and the standard for criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, I asked the president
1) Why the AKC would apply the criminal standard to a civil case?; and
2) Where in any of the published literature, the AKC states that it will apply a criminal standard to a misconduct hearing?
He said I would need to speak with the AKC lawyers
I also asked again whether the club could receive a copy of the subject's submission to the AKC. He said talk to the lawyers
I called the lawyers in New York. They refused to answer any questions.
I wrote a letter to the President asking for a written explanation of their decision. I received no response.
My experience with the process is as follows. I have served as a member on several misconduct hearings. (Some of them resulted in recommendations of suspensions, others did not.) I have advised numerous clubs on how to conduct a misconduct hearing. I have not served as a witness or participant in any misconduct hearing.
Now, my comments - complaints:
First, I think that much of the process is made up by the AKC as it goes, and is not documented.
Several years ago, the Rocky Mountain club declined the entries of a handler in the Amateur on the grounds that the handler had received money for the training of dogs. At the time, I advised the club that the chances of prevailing were 50/50 because of the lack of hard documentary proof. However, the club was convinced in the merit of the claims and decided on a 9-0 vote of the officers/directors to proceed. I am not arguing about the outcome, but about the process.
The club submitted a one inch packet to the AKC. Included in the packet was the deposition of one witness who saw money pass hands from one person to the subject of the inquiry. That packet was submitted to the AKC.
The subject of the inquiry responded with another packet to the AKC. The club requested a copy of that packet. The AKC refused to provide the club with a copy of the packet.
Several months later, the club received a letter from the AKC stating that the club would need to accept the entries of the subject unless the club had additional grounds for refusal.
I called the president of Performance Events to ask for an explanation. I was informed by the president that the Club did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the standard for civil cases is perponderance of the evidence, and the standard for criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, I asked the president
1) Why the AKC would apply the criminal standard to a civil case?; and
2) Where in any of the published literature, the AKC states that it will apply a criminal standard to a misconduct hearing?
He said I would need to speak with the AKC lawyers
I also asked again whether the club could receive a copy of the subject's submission to the AKC. He said talk to the lawyers
I called the lawyers in New York. They refused to answer any questions.
I wrote a letter to the President asking for a written explanation of their decision. I received no response.
