Does AKC Chairman Merriam tell it like it is?

Well, sort of yes and no

What is the man saying?

On AKC stationery, headed "Chairman's Report" and type-signed "David C. Merriam, Chairman of the Board of Directors, The American Kennel Club" the following was faxed to about 17 media the afternoon of August 11 by the AKC's press section. That was the Monday of the AKC board's monthly meeting.

"The history of AKC is replete with examples of how AKC has acted with autocratic authority and when it has withdrawn from governing an important aspect of the sport. In its early days (1897), the Board expelled the Bull Terrier Club of America because it dared to criticize some delegate activity and for not acting like gentlemen.

"The club's constitution and bylaws place great authority with the delegates and the Board. Member clubs may be heard through their delegates. Mere breeders and exhibitors (the foundation of our sport) are afforded no official entry into the governing body. We are a club of clubs, not a club of individuals.⁽¹⁾

"Although it may be strange to say, the governing of our sport by AKC does not depend entirely upon the constitution and bylaws. It does depend very largely upon the people who form its leadership.

"Leadership which is more concerned with fashioning correct solutions to current problems while adhering to our traditions is different from that which acts simply because it has the power to act. It is the difference between authoritarian control and leadership which seeks to lead and co-ordinate [sic] the multiple facets of our sport.

"This latter kind of leadership is not easy in a sport as far ranging as ours. We found that out when we addressed the emergency medical care issue at shows. What seemed to be a reasonable requirement at shows in some areas was not practical at shows in other areas. A single policy intended to cover all situations soon is denigrated by exceptions which try to do justice to particular situations.

"It is important that AKC's leadership is fully grounded in the traditions and the purpose of our sport. The litmus test of any of our actions and decisions is whether they further the best interests of purebred dogs and the time honored evolution of our many activities."

Board's unlicensed, unpublicized Tuesday Rule "licenses" constitution bashing

Merriam's apparent message, in part, refers to the June meeting of delegates when the AKC's board had no choice but to rescind a requirement that ambulances be on all show grounds. That would be prohibitively expensive for smaller shows. Further, in one-ambulance communities it would mean withdrawing protection from an entire community to accommodate an AKC dog show.

Apparently Merriam wrote a four paragraph prelude to his conceding that the delegates can prevail -- on matters which are of no great consequence to the board majority.

The flip side of that condescension was the same-meeting structured defeat of an apparently innocent invitation. The proposal was to hold a delegate meeting in Houston -- or some city other than New York. That was a threat to Westminster's rule.

Merriam is, inescapably and currently, Westminster's man.

There seems no other way to read the chairman. Without quoting it he has, possibly inescapably, endorsed the Tuesday Rule.⁽²⁾ Hasn't Merriam publicly opined, above, that the AKC's board is not necessarily bound by the AKC's constitution and bylaws -- and conceded that the board has acted accordingly in the recent past?⁽³⁾

This is the same David Merriam who, in December, told the delegates he didn't believe the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of free speech applies to the AKC. That was in a context of possible "official" treason punishment for delegates known to be talking with ABC's World News Tonight.

The AKC's chairman can hardly be accused of being a strict constitutionalist.

1. Chairman Merriam failed to acknowledge that approximately five out of every six clubs sponsoring AKC "activities" are excluded from any representation in that body,

2. The Tuesday Rule was neither proposed nor endorsed -- only named by a recently displaced board member. The term refers to a prevailing assumption that on "Board-Tuesdays" it is acceptable and legal for the directors to enact legislation contravening their corporation's constitution. That for deeds agreed to on Mondays in unofficial "executive" sessions.

Sour grapes from an outsider? Hardly. The term was used, semi-publicly, for years before its phrase-coining director fell victim to Westminster-strategized displacement.

3. The New York State Constitution also guarantees freedom of speech. Since the corporate AKC is a creature of the State of New York, it seemingly follows that the whole of that body of law governs its creatures -- including the AKC.

Chairman Merriam, interpreter of constitutions great and small, sees such in manners which best serve the handful of people who enthroned him. He did write, in the above quoted "official" press release: "...the governing of our sport by AKC does not depend entirely upon the constitution and bylaws."

If unencumbered by the restrictions of federal, state and corporation constitutions, under what authority does the AKC's board govern a $50 million enterprise? Merriam cannot be claiming, or is he, authority and leadership by divine right?