Santa Ana Kennel Club photos by Eugene Zaphiris
First of all, let me say how unhappy I am that this AKC-“AKC-CHF” situation has gone on for as long as it has. Rumors of discontent reached my ears several years ago, and while I did not write about it, many of the concerned individuals on both sides of the fence (who are personal friends of mine) spoke to me about the alleged problems. Therefore, I cannot say I was surprised to hear about the eventual blow-up.
Historically, while I was not present “at the creation” (see John Mandeville’s article in this issue), I was involved when CHF wanted to establish a pet insurance company. Indeed, I introduced them to the people involved when AKC originally turned down the idea lo those many years ago. By the way, CHF then handled those people and that idea on a par with the way they seem to operate now. Then it was Hritzo et. al. I cooled on my personal feelings as a result of the then leader’s attitude, but was subsequently asked at Chicago to pay for a breakfast they had sponsored (I hope I have my time periods straight). Which I personally and privately did and received not a even a letter of thanks. This did not help in re-establishing my feelings for CHF, as I had stepped in financially before it became “fashionable” to support CHF at all.
Through the years the obvious merits of the organization began to shine through, and despite the apparent power plays of so many of the people involved (were they involved for the cause or as a way to gain recognition for themselves within the Fancy?). I would go through spurts of support and spurts of standing on the sidelines. Then close friends truly gained a foothold and I thought progress was in the wind. Both financially, personally, and “in kind” through the newspaper, our support was reinforced, and this continued though the Debbie Lynch lawsuit. I was never Ms. Lynch’s greatest fan, for a multitude of reasons; however, I never knew certain of her employees treated her as shabbily as they apparently did.
In any event, when the court ruled against CHF, that’s when my disillusionment with the governing aspects of CHF began. (Then when the appeal was denied too, I had hoped for an end to the suit, which has not come.) I stopped totally contributing, and then stories about questionable management of CHF reached me. I confronted several of the people directly, to no avail. Throughout this period and even before it, Denny Kodner wrote some very valid and direct criticisms of CHF, to the consternation of many on its Board. It certainly looks as though she was right.
One board member in particular periodically told me of their misgivings about the governance of CHF. How board members were being added to assure majority votes; how board members were added for other reasons, too. I knew nothing directly about the finances other than that AKC was not happy with what they were getting information-wise.
In May 2005, after the Lynch decision, I wrote of the need for AKC’s Board to get re-involved with CHF’s Board and to get more representation and retake what they originally began. From 2005 to 2007, I kept hearing stories. Well, they are all public knowledge now. Nothing is new or unexpected. What was unexpected was AKC’s lenient attitude towards CHF. What is unexpected is the CHF denial that there were any problems with AKC at all. Me, I would have moved in on this Foundation years ago!
What the future holds I don’t know, insofar as AKC and AKC-CHF are concerned. The Foundation is too valuable and positive a tool to be permitted to go under. On the other hand, it can’t be permitted to operate without some sort of legitimate accountability. What it has provided AKC thus far hardly falls into that area. More to come about this, for sure! I would strongly suggest you read John Mandeville’s column in this issue, which begins on page 14 for further information on this subject. •
