ARC MEMBER COMMUNICATIONS

Thanks for your reply (regarding a previous personal email – this one was sent to BOD). I am glad that you agree that board members should abstain when there is a conflict of interest or when the motion personally affects them. Examples of motions for which abstaining is justified include but are not limited to: a motion for financial reimbursement to a board member (or a board member's family member); a motion to approve a board member's (or a board member's family member's) ARC Sweepstakes Judging Application; a motion to approve a board member (or a board member's family member) for an ARC Sweepstakes Judging assignment; a motion to approve a board member (or a board member's family) for an ARC Regional Judging assignment; a motion to select a board member (or a board member's family member) as a Top Twenty Judge, etc. During my tenure on the Board, I saw several of these conflicts and the affected board members abstained.

Clearly, there are circumstances where a board member should abstain. However, by not recognizing an "abstain" as a participation vote, the current ARC Board is interpreting the "abstain" to be the same as "not responding" or "did not vote". Unfortunately, by not allowing an abstain vote to count toward the 75% minimum participation rule, then board members are basically being deprived of their option to abstain. Because a board member will not know how many "abstain-worthy" motions he or she will encounter during a six-month voting period, and because a board member will not know in advance if they will experience any unexpected illnesses, job conflicts, etc., that would result in an unexpected increase in missed votes, a prudent board member would be very reluctant to abstain and "use up" one of their 25% limit of did-not-votes (i.e., abstains and did-not-votes). It's analogous to saving money for an unexpected emergency. Most of us (at least of my "older" generation) were raised to have 6-months of living expenses in our savings accounts so that we could pay our bills if we lost our jobs. It was considered foolish to spend all of our income each month and not save some for later. But I digress....

I agree that abstaining frivolously is poor job performance. But how do you propose that the merits of an abstain be evaluated? Should the ARC establish a jury to determine if an abstain is acceptable? No, I think that would be difficult to administer. Basically, I think the ARC Board needs to recognize that sometime abstaining is the appropriate response and that board members deserve to have this option count toward their 75% participation. Even when a person abstains, they have an opinion/position which they could present during discussion. What if you were close to the 75% threshold and two motions came up that presented a conflict of interest which would place you under 75%, would you abstain?

Please publish letter and response in ARK newsletter, and ARC website. I would also like a response on this site. Thank you.

Juan Griego

BOARD RESPONSE

Dear Juan,

The Board appreciates your interest and concerns. When the By-Laws are silent on a topic, Robert’s Rules of Order says an abstention is a “did not vote”. This was confirmed by ARC's Parliamentarian as well as by Michael Liosis, AKC Director of Club Relations (see his 11/19/08 letter printed on ARC web site).

The ARC Board of Directors