Immediately after the Palm Springs shows, Gene and I drove to L.A. to visit with Gloria and Nat Reese. Nat, per usual, was dressed to perfection (when wasn't he?) His fashion statement was very Beverly Hills, and why not — he was a Beverly Hills “boy” through and through. Totally a self-made man of unimaginable proportions, he lived the good life and enjoyed it to the very end. As he poured me a “Goose” (with some difficulty, I must admit), I knew in my heart, as did his dear and beloved wife, Gloria, this was to be the last drink we were ever to share together. Gene and I adored him, and leaving their home realizing we would probably never see him alive again was one of the most poignant times in our 35-year partnership. And let me tell you, Nat and Gloria were an integral part of our relationship, for sure. Nat and Gloria always seemed to be a part of our lives as much as we were a part of theirs. I'll just tell one Nat story with regard to the light of his life, Gloria. He'd say to me, “I could never judge, Gloria looks only at the dogs and makes her decisions, rightly or wrongly, on how she evaluates the worthiness of the exhibit. Me, I would only look at the other end of the leash. “ Me too, that's for sure! We loved the Reese family. Allison, too soon taken from her parents, Richard and Sherrie, the grandchildren and more. Gloria, what more can I say? You know how we feel!
Well, the elections for the Board are soon to occur. Who to support, if anyone? One thing's for sure, all the candidates love dogs and are experienced in dogs. How to make a determination without turning the election into a total popularity contest is the problem. Of the six people running, one is a longtime personal friend. Well, does that mean we always agree or that I automatically support her? I don't think so. I will attempt to treat Cindy as dispassionately as the rest of the people running.
Let's start with the “DOG NEWS Questionnaire.” Reading through the answers to the 26 questions that were asked (which, by the way, are on the DOG NEWS Web site until March 12), I reacted positively or negatively to certain answers. When the answers left me cold or everyone agreed, I had no reaction. Reading through them, a check meant I strongly agreed, while an “X” indicated total disagreement. Alphabetically, I reacted only six times to Carmen's answers and checked those six times positively. No “X” at all, but his answers garnered my least reaction. I reacted nine times to Judy Hart's answers, with only two checks in agreement and seven “X's” in disagreement! With Patty Haines and Patty Strand, I reacted eight times with five checks or yeses and three “X's.” Ken Marden, 11 times (the most reactive)! With three checks and eight no's or “X's!” Cindy Vogels, I had nine reactions, five yeses and four major “X’s.”
Next I looked at their personal resumes. All the dog backgrounds were clearly outstanding. Did I see anything that would have warranted any one of them to serve on the board of any corporation other than a dog-oriented one—in other words, what business know-how did they have to warrant such a vote? Well, maybe Carmen, and maybe Cindy because of my own personal knowledge of her background, which background she never went into in detail. The others, a big NO! On the other hand, both Patty’s and Ken have years of AKC board experience, which are major plusses.
So, how does one distinguish and decide for whom to vote? I have no personal agenda, insofar as who is or who is not elected. Unlike certain delegates not running for this year's board and are looking to the next election when the term limit fiasco opens the doors to a free-for-all. My thoughts are about who can both best serve the corporation and who can offer expertise in areas that are presently missing. Using these criteria, I would have to eliminate Judy Hart, who I know not at all and whose performance as head of last year's nominating committee was more than questionable. Additionally, her stated business background offers nothing new in the form of expertise to the board.
As for the next five, I probably disagreed most with Ken philosophically—always have, and I guess I always will. His major plus is in the performance area, which is totally lacking on the board today. Forget lacking, it is non-existent. If you believe that this sector of the sport deserves and needs representation, you must vote for Ken. Next comes the new kid on the block, Cindy. Totally independent is she, and anyone who thinks they have her vote on any issue is off-track. She'll do what she believes. Does she have the background and temperament to sit on the board of a $70 million corporation? That's up to you to determine. I think so, but that's just me.
Now the other two ladies. Both have experience and know-how in totally diverse fields. Both interact totally differently. Both have great plusses and some negatives. Both have been effective past board members. Candidly, I don't think there is any great love between the two of them, but I would think there has to be some sort of mutual respect. Push comes to shove, they both have been effective and good board members.
Now comes probably the most controversial of all the nominees, and probably the most all-around qualified. I write, of course, about Carmen Battaglia. Give him a job to do, and he does it and more. His work ethic and overall success with CAR as well as his ability to introduce new progressive ideas cannot be denied. What can also not be denied is his ability to tick off both his fellow board members and sections of the delegate body and the fancy, too. Notwithstanding the baggage he carries, I make him a very effective working board member.
I'm not too sure how to wind this up except to write that I have no problem with the three sitting board members being re-elected. If fresh blood is your thing, and I could be so moved, Cindy is an excellent alternative. That being the case, which of the three would I drop? Maybe two. Perhaps I would vote for Ken, Carmen and Cindy. Hold that thought, how about the two “P” ladies and Cindy. Then what happens to Carmen and Ken? Confused, uncertain, unsure—that's me. What do you think? •