CFA EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 6/7, 1999 Index to Minutes Secretary’s note: This index is provided only as a courtesy to the readers and is not an official part of the CFA Minutes. The numbers shown for each item in the index are keyed to similar numbers shown in the body of the Minutes: (1) CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES. ...............................................................................4 (2) TREASURER’S REPORT. .................................................................................................4 (3) TAYLOR/BARKLEY REPORT. ........................................................................................9 (4) YEARBOOK FINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE. .........................................................21 (5) DOMESTIC CLUBS. ........................................................................................................23 (6) INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE REPORT AND INTERNATIONAL CLUB APPLICATIONS. ..............................................................................................................24 (7) JUDGING PROGRAM. ....................................................................................................31 (8) ADVANCEMENTS, APPLICANTS, TRAINEES AND RE-LICENSING. ....................36 (9) CENTRAL OFFICE REPORT/ACTION ITEMS, ............................................................38 (10) PRE-NOTICED ACTION ITEMS. ...................................................................................41 (11) CFA INTERNATIONAL SHOW. .....................................................................................47 (12) CLERKING PROGRAM. ..................................................................................................50 (13) PUBLIC RELATIONS. .....................................................................................................52 (14) ANIMAL WELFARE. .......................................................................................................53 (15) LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE. ........................................................................................56 (16) WINN FOUNDATION. .....................................................................................................63 (17) HEALTH COMMITTEE. ..................................................................................................63 (18) REGIONAL QUALIFIER JUDGES. .................................................................................65 (19) YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. .........................................................................66 (20) BREEDS AND STANDARDS. .........................................................................................67 (21) BREED DEFINITION REVISED PROPOSAL. .............................................................190 (22) PROTEST FILING FEE PROPOSAL. ............................................................................193 (23) AWARDS REPORT. .......................................................................................................193 (24) 1999 ANNUAL. ...............................................................................................................194 (25) SHOW SCHEDULING COMMITTEE REPORT. .........................................................194 (26) BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 2000. ...........................................................................195 (27) YEARBOOK REPORT. ..................................................................................................195 (28) LOGO REPORT. .............................................................................................................197 (29) MENTORING COMMITTEE REPORT. ........................................................................198 (30) CAT FANCIERS ASSOCIATION ADOPTED POLICIES. ...........................................198 (31) CFA CAT BOOK. ...........................................................................................................199 (32) RESULTS OF FEEDBACK – NATIONAL REGIONAL SCORING TASK FORCE AND ADDENDUM. ..........................................................................................201 (33) JUDGING WITHOUT TITLES. ......................................................................................201 (34) DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS & RESULTS. ..................................................................201 Secretary’s Note: The Officers and Board of Directors of the Cat Fanciers’ Association, Inc. met on Saturday, February 6th and Sunday, February 7th, 1999 at the Houston Airport Marriott, Houston, Texas. President Don Williams called the meeting to order at 8:00 AM with the following members of the board present: Ms. Sharon Roy (NAR Director) Mrs. Lorna Malinen (NWR Director) Mr. Lonnie Hoover (GSR Director) Mrs. Liz Watson (GLR Director) Mr. George Eigenhauser (SWR Director) Mrs. Linda Berg (MWR Director) Mr. Jim DeBruhl (SOR Director) Mrs. Bess Higuchi (Japan Regional Director) Mr. Don Williams (President) Mrs. Kim Everett (Vice-President) Mrs. Donna Fuller (Treasurer) Ms. Kitty Angell (Secretary) Mr. Stan Barnaby (Director-at-Large) Ms. Pam DelaBar (Director-at-Large) Mrs. Diana Doernberg (Director-at-Large) Ms. Joan Miller (Director-at-Large) Ms. Donna Jean Thompson (Director-at-Large) Mrs. Betty White (Director-at-Large) Mr. Craig Rothermel (Ex-Officio) Also present was Mr. Thomas Dent, CFA Executive Director; Mrs. Carol Krzanowski, Associate Director; Mr. Fred Jacobberger, CFA Legal Counsel; and Ms. Allene Tartaglia, Director Special Projects. President Williams called the meeting to order. Rothermel called for a point of order on the Oriental breed issues, terming them out-of- order. He asked the CFA attorney for a ruling on proposal #1 and proposal #2 on the grounds they were unconstitutional. Jacobberger: According to the constitution we cannot make corrections to our standards for any breed without obtaining within the prior 12 months the approval of 60% of the members voting of the specific breed councils affected. The proposals Craig talked about would affect the standard changes in at least one of the councils where there has not been an approving vote in the prior 12 months. Therefore, those questions would be out of order. DelaBar: So we don’t appear to be picking on the Oriental breed, are there any other questions on breed council ballots that appear to be out of order, since we can consider all of them at this time? Jacobberger: I don’t know; those are the ones that were brought up to me. 2 Doernberg: I just want a point of clarification, Fred. The two proposals you were talking about...the one creating a pointed Oriental division, you are ruling on that based on the fact that it would affect the Colorpoint breed? Jacobberger: Yes, that is a standard change. Doernberg: Well, it’s a standard change to only the Oriental ballot. I am just asking what the basis is for ruling it out of order. You are saying that, based on our prior actions last year, we again ratified that one breed as ‘affected’ by another and that is what you are ruling on. Jacobberger: That has been the position of the board. Doernberg: It is not that it affects a change to the Colorpoint standard. Jacobberger: It affects the Oriental standard. Doernberg: Your ruling is because it affects both breeds because they would be alike, number 2 is a proposal that would have to be agreed to by both of the breed councils. Jacobberger: If it affects the standard that is correct. Doernberg: Now, based on that, we have never had a ruling on that one constitutional amendment that was passed and I’d like to bring that up at this time since this is on the floor. It says, ‘Once a breed is accepted for championship status [this was passed at the last annual], it cannot have its registration status rescinded, placed back in AOV status or moved to Provisional without 2/3rds breed council approval. I’d like to have a ruling as to if one breed would merge with another, does that apply in this constitutional section and would it require a 2/3rds breed council approval, not of the members voting, but 2/3rds of the total breed council? I think it affects this situation as there might be a discussion about these items not being on both ballots and this would affect it. Jacobberger: Very well, I will address it sometime during the meeting. Roy: Does this mean, then, that we cannot then discuss or vote on any other proposals that the board members may have concerning the Colorpoints and Orientals? Jacobberger: No. Rothermel: I just wanted those two proposals ruled on because I do not think they can be considered. Everett: When we actually get to those breeds we can bring up questions as to why it did not appear on the two ballots, since it was in the minutes and all those sorts of things. Make sure we are not saying, ‘That’s it,’ because it’s certainly not it. Eigenhauser: Actually there is one change that has occurred since last October. In June the delegates passed that resolution from the floor giving an advisory opinion as to what is an ‘affected breed.’ In not ruling it out of order we have at least recognized the possibility that ‘affected breed’ is an ambiguous term, that the delegation was entitled to have an opinion as to what that means. I think we’ve never visited the issue as to how much effect we are going to give that vote. Circumstances have changed since last February; there has been a vote by the delegation that ‘affected breed’ means ‘that breed whose standard is being changed.’ I think we need to re-visit that issue and formally vote as a board. Rothermel: I think