In the last 10 days four members of the AKC-CHF Board have resigned. They are, in order of resignation, Tommy Millner, Tom Grabe, Treasurer Stuart Eichmann, and President Wayne Ferguson. All four were reputed to have voted against the AKC proposal to grant AKC a greater role in the running of the Foundation. This proposal, as many of you may recall, passed by the barest of margins, 11-10. Certainly, one would hope that these vacated board seats will not be refilled. A board of 23 plus the 6 new AKC people would be too unwieldy, for starters, for sure! There is some confusion as to when there will be another CHF board meeting, although mid-November is a pretty good bet for something to happen. In the absence of a president, one presumes the first vice president would be in control of “the ship.” That is why Cindy Vogels made a trip to North Carolina on Monday, October 29, to the CHF offices prior to Wayne Ferguson’s resignation. Was she being prescient? Who knows.
It is said that the Executive Committee of the CHF, which, of late, was made up of seven people (the five present officers, the head of the grants committee, and the immediate past president) were in charge of making decisions, financial and otherwise. Some members of that committee claim that in reality, the president and treasurer made the great majority of the decisions by themselves. To further confuse the issue, I understand the present by-laws (which I am told were frequently amended at will) provide at the present time for only five Executive Committee members, since two officers have resigned. Technically, understand that Wayne Ferguson remains on the Executive Committee, since he is now the immediate past president—replacing John Studebaker, who is now former past president! So who is running things? Your guess is as good as mine. If it was the intent of the four resignees to cause confusion and chaos, they succeeded in causing the former but not the latter. Strong and calming heads both inside and outside the operation, I am happy to say, seem to be prevailing. If the resignees’ intent was to make a statement of principle, it’s hard to figure out what that was. The officers resigned “under protest,” whatever that means. Millner and Grabbe did not.
Certainly a common denominator coming out of the mess is a realization that many people who were board members claim not to have known what was going on in the running of the CHF operations. I find that hard to understand, if it is true. Perhaps people should be named to the board in the future who are more operationally inclined. A friend of mine who serves on a number of boards, both for-profit and non-profit, made an interesting distinction to me about the differences in people who serve on boards of corporations. He has found that people who seek out positions on not-for-profits, as opposed to being asked to serve on them, are more interested in the power they gain than in the working operations of the not-for-profit. A point I have made on numerous occasions with regard to both AKC’s Board and the CHF Board, for sure!
Unhappily, I hear rumors of some financial conflicts of interests potentially affecting the situation. I hope they are not true. Whatever does occur and whomever ends up in charge should and must see to it that the transition is a smooth one. These are not the happiest days for CHF, but not according to Connie Vanacore, who “oozes” how great the recent symposium was. She reports of the great accomplishment made by CHF last year. Read her column in this issue. You’d never guess it was the same organization I’m describing… or would you?
As for the Lynch lawsuit, I am told that an agreement has been reached, but as of today, Wednesday, October 31, hasn’t been signed. It may be signed by Friday, November 2. This will cost CHF$59,000. The insurance company will only pay up to $522,000. These figures are all plus or minus, since my sources remain somewhat vague on the exact amounts. What portion is punitive remains confusing, but hopefully none will come out of CHF donor subscriptions. Only time will tell on that subject, if it ever does. By the way, the cost of that famous three-hour-plus phone call among at least 21 people of the CHF board was high—but not higher than the lawyer’s bill brought in when one of the officers insisted the lawyer be in attendance to help him answer questions. One must wonder and wonder, too, who pays that legal bill and from what sources, too. •
