CKCS Club statement and K9 Magazine rebuttal

KENNEL CLUB STATEMENT ON THE CKCSC SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING

On 5th October 2008 the CKCSC held a Special General Meeting and Margaret Carter was removed from its committee. Following the SGM, the Kennel Club press office issued a statement concerning the SGM, only on request, and the CKCSC has been asked to comment.

The SGM was called on the written requisition of 234 members who were concerned by Margaret Carter’s breach of confidentiality and her conduct as a committee member, not for her attitude to health matters.

The Club is in accord with Margaret Carter’s aims and efforts on health issues. The committee and club members have supported her work during the time that she served on the Health sub-committee and acknowledge her contributions to the various health projects with which she was involved. The Club also acknowledges the considerable practical support and assistance given by other committee and Club members for such projects, without which little progress could have been made. This was part of the overall effort by committee members who manage the Club in each sphere of its many activities. The list of Club health initiatives during the past 20 years stands as a record of our endeavours and indicates that we always have enjoyed the support of the Kennel Club whose aims on health matters are identical to our own.

Margaret Carter’s aims were not in dispute. The SGM was called because of her perceived indiscretion during the interview that she gave for the BBC film ‘Pedigree Dogs Exposed’. Members disagreed with her course of action. As a member of the Club’s Health sub-committee, Margaret Carter was privy to information that had been given to the Club for health research on the basis of an undertaking that it would remain confidential. Margaret Carter has stated that she did not divulge any information on a dog that was not already in the public domain and that information given to her on that dog was not given in confidence. During the interview for the BBC programme she said:
Most of the top breeders – the people who show, will know - do know. I believe that if something is not done it will be too late to do anything and if going public is the way to make people stop and think what they are doing, then that is what I will do.
Whether or not, information on the dog was known by some breeders, it was not in the public domain. Members at the SGM took the view that Margaret Carter contravened the CKCSC Code of Ethics, requiring its members not to:
furnish information including pedigrees and photographs of dogs not owned by them without prior written consent of the owner.
She had an obligation of confidentiality by virtue of her position on the Health Sub-committee and the express undertaking given by the Club. This obligation is familiar to lawyers, accountants, doctors, vets and the like, none of whom would consider making public comment on matters concerning their clients affairs without their prior consent, even when information may already be in the public domain. Members at the SGM took the view that there had been a breach of confidence and for which she was removed from the committee.

Of separate concern was Margaret Carter’s failure to comply with normal committee practice. She told fellow committee members that she would be giving an interview for the film but declined to indicate what she intended to say. In the absence of this information she was asked not to participate. She declined this request but did, however, give assurance that she would speak as a private individual, not as a committee member or health representative of the Club. In the event, this was not the case. At a meeting of regional clubs, held to discuss the previous CAWC meeting on health issues, she again declined to withdraw from the interview, having been requested to do so by all those present.

Two simple, but important aspects appear to have been overlooked in the many views and opinions expressed about the SGM. Firstly, there is the expectation that all committee members will act as one unit. If they do not, the collective authority and effectiveness of the committee is undermined. If a committee member, on a matter of principle, intends to depart from the collective wishes or decisions of the committee, they should consider their position. Secondly, with a position of responsibility there is an obligation of confidentiality.

The Kennel Club statement on the Club SGM is as follows:
‘The Kennel Club is concerned about the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club’s decision to remove breeder, Margaret carter, from its committee.

Mrs Carter appeared to speak for those very aims that the Kennel Club and the Cavalier King Charles Club itself supports, which is reflected in the vast amount of effort that the breed club has put into ensuring that the health of the breed is progressed. Mrs Carter’s intentions appeared to be honourable and her will to ensure that the health of the breed is maintained, through responsible breeding practices, is one that the Kennel Club fully supports’

The Kennel Club statement then reiterated as follows:

‘These aims are also ones that the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club endorses and this is reflected in the vast amount of effort that the breed club has put into ensuring that health of the breed is progressed’

(This part of the statement was omitted by K9 Magazine)
The CKCSC committee and members were likewise concerned about the circumstances that had led to the position where an SGM was considered necessary and for a committee member to be removed. This was the first occasion in Club history when such events had taken place. There is no doubt that Margaret Carter did indeed speak for the aims of the Kennel Club and CKCSC and her intentions were honourable. However, these were not the issues considered at the SGM.

During preparations for the SGM, the Club constantly consulted the Kennel Club, which gave extensive advice and support. There is much correspondence between the KC and the Club on procedural issues. An SGM could not be avoided and the Club was determined that it would be conducted in a fair and orderly manner, and in accordance with Club and Kennel Club rules and regulations. For the extensive assistance provided by the Kennel Club, the Club is extremely grateful. Following the KC statement, Caroline Kisko has given assurances that the Cavalier Club continues to have the full support of the Kennel Club.

CKCSC
13th October 2008

Click to expand...

Cavalier King Charles Club Accuses K9 Magazine of Misleading Readers
Posted By Ryan O'Meara Date: 14/10

It has come to our attention today that the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club has publicly accused K9 Magazine of ‘omitting’ information in our recent coverage of their shameful decision to expel Margaret Carter from their committee.

In our report: Kennel Club Hits Out at Cavalier Club; Supports Margaret Carter we published a statement from the Kennel Club supporting Margaret unreservedly. It read as follows:

The Kennel Club is concerned about the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club’s decision to remove breeder, Margaret Carter, from its committee.

Mrs Carter appeared to speak for those very aims that the Kennel Club and the Cavalier King Charles Club itself supports, which is reflected in the vast amount of effort that the breed club has put into ensuring that the health of the breed is progressed. Mrs Carter’s intentions appeared to be honourable and her will to ensure that the health of the breed is maintained, through responsible breeding practices, is one that the Kennel Club fully supports.​

However, the Cavalier club have published an addition to the statement we reported which reads as follows:

‘These aims are also ones that the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club endorses and this is reflected in the vast amount of effort that the breed club has put into ensuring that health of the breed is progressed’
​

The Cavalier Club’s report then goes on to editorialise by adding:

(This part of the statement was omitted by K9 Magazine)​

I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

You can’t omit a statement you were NEVER GIVEN.

We published the Kennel Club statement as was provided to us IN FULL.

So if the KC has elected to furnish the Cavalier Club with this additional information as a result of the request made to them by the Cavalier Club, who initially refused to accept that the Kennel Club had even provided the statement in support of Margaret Carter to K9 Magazine and had to call the Kennel Club in order to confirm that the statement was accurate and represented the view of the Kennel Club as a whole, we can hardly publish or ‘omit’ something if we were never given it in the first place.

So please, Cavalier Club, if it is your desire to keep the focus on your actions having shamefully expelled Margaret from your committee as a result of a blatant, unconcealed act of childish vengeance all because this lady has the backbone, courage and principles you are so sorely lacking, at the very, very least ensure you do not make claims about the reporting of the incident which are completely untrue as it does nothing other than to further confirm the opinion in which your club is now held by the vast majority of right minded dog lovers.

Had K9 Magazine been given the additional information you have been provided, we’d have published it. Plain and simple. We were NOT given it, at any time, and have published the statement as it was sent to us by the Kennel Club.

I appreciate this probably shocked you to read. I appreciate you probably believed the Kennel Club would be backing your vendetta. And I appreciate your world has been crashing down around your ears for a number of months now. But that does not excuse your continuing desire to grasp desperately at small straws, pursuing a course of action which is founded on the politics of personality when your breed is in desperate need of the help and support that is so epitomised by Margaret Carter. Until the day you decide to right your wrong and restore Margaret to your committee, you will forever be tainted and viewed in the light you are currently cast - as a petty, revenge minded group with priorities that are way, way out of kilter with what is actually required to help your breed in troubled times. Margaret Carter was not only an asset to your breed club, she is an asset to the breed itself. You would be wise to acknowledge this.

So here’s the message to the Cavalier Club:
1) Get your facts straight before you make accusations about our reporting
2) Re-appoint Margaret Carter to the committee and at least follow the lead of the Kennel Club in acknowledging just how misguided and badly judged your actions have been
3) Try and invest your attention in to fixing the problems with your breed rather than on spinning your way out of a public relations disaster.

Click to expand...

So here’s the message to the Cavalier Club:
1) Get your facts straight before you make accusations about our reporting
2) Re-appoint Margaret Carter to the committee and at least follow the lead of the Kennel Club in acknowledging just how misguided and badly judged your actions have been
3) Try and invest your attention in to fixing the problems with your breed rather than on spinning your way out of a public relations disaster.

Click to expand...

Dear Mrs Bell

The Kennel Club does have concerns about the CKCS Club's decision to remove Margaret Carter from the committee, as we made clear in our statement (attached). We fully support her quest to improve the health and welfare of the breed.

However, our statement also makes it clear that the Kennel Club supports the good work that the CKCS Club has done over the years, to progress the health and welfare of the breed (you can see more on
www.doggenetichealth.org.uk) and we will continue to support and work closely with them, towards this end.

I do hope this helps.

Best wishes
Heidi Ancell

Further comment following the documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

The Kennel Club is concerned about the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club’s decision to remove breeder, Margaret Carter, from its committee.

Mrs Carter appeared to speak for those very aims that the Kennel Club and the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club itself supports, which is reflected in the vast amount of effort that the breed club has put into ensuring that health of the breed is progressed . Mrs Carter’s intentions appeared to be honourable and her will to ensure that the health of the breed is maintained, through responsible breeding practices, is one that the Kennel Club fully supports.

Click to expand...

The Kennel Club does have concerns about the CKCS Club's decision to remove Margaret Carter from the committee, as we made clear in our statement (attached).

Click to expand...

The CKCSC committee and members were likewise concerned about the circumstances that had led to the position where an SGM was considered necessary and for a committee member to be removed. This was the first occasion in Club history when such events had taken place.

Click to expand...

ETHICS FOR MEMBERS OF THE CKCS CLUB 2008

On the instructions of The Kennel Club, The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club Code of Ethics has been suspended pending a review and acceptance by the Kennel Club.

All Club Members, and prospective members, are reminded that they are required to comply with the new General Code of Ethics, as mandated by the Kennel Club, as identified in Appendix (a) below.

Click to expand...

frecklesmom said:

Posted on CKCS Club Uk website. Hmmm-isn't this interesting

Click to expand...

HollyDolly said:

I have looked on club website but cannot find where it mentions KC suspend code of ethics

Click to expand...