After attending the Samoyed Club of America’s annual meeting, participating in votes and after following the updates of the communication service, I have been very disappointed in the progress being made by our board. As an American Government teacher/Special Education teacher, I’ve been encouraging my students to stand up for those things they believe in because it is a part of good citizenship and because we need to never fear our beliefs. This has prompted me to send the following letter to the SCA BOG.
Several board members have responded. Those friends to whom I’ve sent this have suggested that I submit this to the SCA Bulletin for publication. Unfortunately, there is a motion on the floor and this may be already voted on by the time the Bulletin is sent out in April.
The option of sending it directly to the lists also crossed my mind but I feel as though that could get really messy for whoever runs those lists. So, my next thought was a blog.
Feel free to respond as you wish and feel free to use this site as a means of discussing the issues we have. This is NOT a blog about whether you are for or against the creation of the Illustrated Standard. That vote has passed. This blog IS about procedures that are or are not being followed and what exactly did voting yes mean?
Board members who responded are invited to post their responses if they choose to do so.
If you would like to post, here are the rules:
1. There will be no personal attacks. It is important that all discussion remain professional and civil. No positive outcome will occur if we attack.
2. SCA Members only may respond.
3. Remain on topic.
4. Claims must be substantiated with factual data.
The moderator retains the right to delete any posts which do not follow the ground rules stated above.
Below is a link to the letter I sent in its entirety.
Tundraicesamoyeds's Blog 
I agree!
By: Lori on February 22, 2010
at 10:45 pm
Excellent letter and sums up what I know to be true. I am very disappointed in the board members who are disregarding the vote of the membership.
By: Mary Carlson on February 24, 2010
at 3:22 pm
I was not at the last AGM; I was at the one before. I thought it was all sorted out then and was staggered to see all the work put in by the nominated Committe slung to one side and for the matter to be taken back to square one.
There seem to be a faction who think that staying in the last century is the way forward!
By: Hazel Fitzgibbon on February 24, 2010
at 4:10 pm
I can see value in trying to determine the exact status of the Gertrude Adams Illustrated Standard, and I see value in the SCA continuing to publish that in its current form. My understanding is that Gertrude Adams did hold the copyright so that her publication would remain unchanged. That said, the membership DID vote to pursue a new IS, and that vote should be honored, and progress should be made. I envision a future date when the new IS will be presented to all new members and be available to all potential and current Samoyed judges and anyone else who wishes a copy, along with, as a separate publication, the Gertrude Adams Illustrated Standard. This issue need not divide our membership unless individual members wish to sow discord; I believe we can all work together.
By: Lori C-C on February 25, 2010
at 12:21 pm
Thank you Glorijean, this was a much needed blog.
By: Audrey Lycan on February 25, 2010
at 1:49 pm
I believe that the Gertrude Adam’s IS should be kept as a historical document, and we could even send both out together if we wanted to. I am not in favor of combining the two. A new artist may have objections, and I can’t see that the continuity would be kept in a new publication to include drawings of a different nature. I am excited to get a committee working on the project, as I know it will take a long time. We need to have people committed to see it through to the end. I am thankful to the SCA members who are making their feelings known that the vote was taken and this is the way we should proceed. Thanks GJ for this opportunity to get the word out!!
By: Kathy Mackai on February 25, 2010
at 2:00 pm
As the person who seconded Motion 10-014, let me say that it is intended as a first step toward creating a new IS and I will explain how.
You already know GJ, that I interpreted the question “Does the SCA membership want to pursue a new IS?” differently than you. I thought it was poorly worded. It did not say that voting ‘yes’ meant we would follow the committee’s recommendations so it left the responses open to a variety of interpretations. You and I viewing this vote differently is an example of the ambiguity it has created. I do not think that a ‘yes’ vote meant that the members wanted to pursue a new IS to the exclusion of the current IS.
Although some members ‘yes’ votes may have meant they wanted to pursue a new IS to the exclusion of the current IS, I know from speaking with other members that it was not everyone’s intent. Much of the SCA membership still wants to combine the two.
Therefore, I feel that more research into the copyright owner is the first logical step toward our new IS. This research has not been followed to it’s completion. It was determined that Gertrude Adams copyrighted her work because she did not want it altered but that is as far as the research went.
Until we are able to speak with whoever owns the copyright (if anyone) we will not know whether or not we can incorporate the current IS. We will not know if we can retain most of our current IS or need to create a completely new IS. This is basic information we need so an artist will know where to start.
The BOG understands that the SCA membership wants to pursue a new IS. Research of the current IS copyright is not intended to trump the members’ vote to pursue with the new IS – it means the exact opposite – the research is part of the creation of the new IS. And other new IS discussions have been going on between the BOGgers such as what qualifications IS committee members should have and SCA members have been giving input and are welcome to continue doing so. No complete answers have yet been formed to disseminate to all the members.
And just to be clear, I personally want a new IS and support making any updates to our training material that can help judges to better understand our breed. I would readily archive our current IS and create an entirely new IS. But I am in the minority in this thought. I honestly feel that I am serving the desires of many members who want to incorporate the two and this research is the first step in that direction.
That’s my two cents. It represents my personal views; I am not speaking for other Board members of the SCA.
Thanks for creating this form GJ. I’ll be interested to read everyone’s responses. I hope that perhaps this can open discussion as to what we want our new IS to contain.
By: Beth Riley on February 25, 2010
at 5:37 pm
Thank you Beth for your thoughts and reasoning behind your interpretation.
My next comments are directed to the entire bog, not directed at anyone person on the bog…just thinking out loud.
What I find a bit confusing is, why is the bog deciding what the next step should be in developing a new IS? It is my belief that the bog should be forming a committee to determine the next step, not the bog.
Another concern I have is the $3000 the bog wants to spend to search for the copywrites to the old IS. Does the bog realize that is over HALF the amounted needed to retain the illustrator as presented by the IS Feasibility Committee, should be that be the Illustrator of choice?
Did it occur to anyone that perhaps the reason WHY Gertrude did not leave the rights to the club is, she does not WANT the SCA to own her IS? It is my understanding that Gertrude was at the time of her IS, she was having ‘issues’ with the club and therefore did not leave the copywrites to the SCA.
Therefore I raise the question of why spend $3000 to use a document that was not intended to be owned by the SCA?
Just a few of my thoughts.
By: Lori on February 26, 2010
at 3:24 am
Thank you all for your wonderful posts! Its good for us to discuss this openly.
Since Lori brought up the formation of the committee, I’d like to comment. As I stated in the letter, I just want to re-emphasize the point that because of the nature of this issue and the division of the club and the perceived lack of trust from all angles.
I strongly recommend that the President appoint and the BOG approve a committee whose make up is at least half IS Feasibility Committee members, especially the Chair, as they are well versed in the issue and have put considerable time and effort on the behalf of the SCA and the Board and because they come from a broad spectrum of perspectives. The other half of this committee should be persons who are knowledgeable of the standard, the physics of movement, the range of acceptable types (coat, head, body etc) and who works well with others.
By: Tundra Ice Samoyeds on February 26, 2010
at 3:43 am
Pointing out that some members of the SCA Board are not listening to the members wishes is an act of courage. Congratulations GJ.
In a membership-wide vote, the majority of those who cared enough to vote said Yes to the question,,,,,,, “Does the membership want a NEW Illustrated Standard? Yes or No.”
This is a very clear and simple question. It seems clear to me that the majority of SCA’s members want a new Illustrated standard, not a bastardized version of the old one. We have the publishing rights to the Old one and can continue to print it and make it available to those who want it.
The wording of the question was proposed by Herrmann and Barbe in Motion 09-098 and approved by the Board in 09-098A.
The copyright of the Old Illustrated Standard is irrelevant – has no bearing on the matter as the membership has voted for a NEW Illustrated Standard.
I believe any new illustrated standard must have each of the drawings to be included approved individually by the members and that no photos should be used at all.
By: Jeanne Nonhof on February 27, 2010
at 1:32 am
Yes, to a new Illustrated Standard, this was how I voted!
By: Katherine K. Metter on March 5, 2010
at 3:50 pm
Your letter was to the point and unfortunately so true. The club members have voiced their wishes and now the board needs to honor the membership that elected them. I liked Kathy’s idea of the G. Adams standard being kept as a historical document and maybe both being sent out. I hope this board isn’t copyting our present government and think that they know what is best for us.
By: Katherine K. Metter on March 5, 2010
at 3:48 pm
this is the best letter i have read…i felt the same feelings as Glorijean…i felt and feel violated by our board and some of the member of it.
thank you for this letter…it should be published.
By: judy on March 6, 2010
at 3:36 pm