There are a number of concerns about the vote which took place in November, 1999 for a new Constitution and By-Laws for the Samoyed Association of Canada. Members had concerns prior to the ballot due to election irregularities during the February 1999 election of officers, as well as other problems within the club during the last 2 years (the executive not following our Constitution and By-Laws). And although the vote on the Constitution took place in November 1999, members were not allowed to know the result of this vote until well into March, 2000.

 Because our club's C&BL allows us to make amendments only every 3 years, the executive of the club decided to try to rush the changes through (as per the CKC memo to all clubs dated April 28, 1999 regarding required changes to club constitutions). Our next date to make these changes would not be until 2002, a year after the deadline for making these changes. Members phoned the CKC to inquire whether an extension to the deadline might be granted, considering our circumstances. They were told that an official request from the Club would be required, but that it would not be a problem.

 Because a Club Constitution is an important and rather large undertaking for a club and should not be rushed, the exec was informed that an extension would be available if requested so that we could do this right and not rushed. Everything must be done by mail since this is a National Club, so it takes time for any discussion on changes or suggestions etc.

 Our executive ignored my information and continued to tell club members that we had to change our Constitution in the next few months or our CKC club recognition would be forfeited.

 Rather than make a few changes to our present Constitution to conform with the new CKC requirements, the executive of the club wrote a completely new Constitution (and by-laws) from start to finish.

 It is my understanding that if this is done, the old Constitution/By-laws must be repealed by a ¾ majority vote (according to our present Constitution). Or if the present Articles are changed or amended, this also requires a ¾ majority (of eligible voters). This was understood by our executive and our members as evidenced by the President's message in our bulletin up until the February 2000 issue.

 A number of members decided not to vote at all, since a no vote in this case or abstention would be the same, because of the ¾  majority requirement for amendments to our constitution. A ¾ majority would have been a minimum 114 affirmative votes (out of a voting membership of 151 at the time), and none of the new by-laws voted on received more than 50 affirmative votes. Articles I and II of the proposed constitution received 57 and 52 affirmative votes respectively, and the other seven articles were not even voted on (to repeal or change).

 There were a number of objections to the completely re-written Constitution and By-laws, and one of those objections was that this was rushed to a vote without adequate discussion. There were other objections as well, to specific amendments.

 Because they did not receive the required 114 affirmative votes, the SAC Exec have now decided that the By-Laws are not part of the Constitution and don't need the ¾ vote to change. They also have somehow deleted Articles III through IX of the original Constitution and moved them to by-laws so that the new ones they wrote to replace the original Articles III through IX could now be passed as by-laws instead. I know that this is not allowed (and shouldn't be). The Articles of the Constitution must have a 3/4 majority vote in order to be repealed or amended.

 This was not followed, therefore the original nine Articles of our Constitution should remain, and are in conflict with many of the newly written by-laws that the exec. say were passed. This cannot be, and we have asked the CKC to look into this situation for us and deny approval of this completely new Constitution and By-Laws.

The CKC ignored their own requirements and those of the SAC Constitution and by-laws requiring the affirmative vote of 3/4 of the membership (eligible voters) to amend or repeal the original C&BL. They did not reply to the members who had written, faxed and phoned them (February/March/April 2000) but instead sent a letter to the SAC secretary, dated August 23, 2000, stating that the C&BL submitted to the CKC office MEETS the requirements as outlined by the CKC. (From Darlene Scott, Event Coordinator, Event Planning Department, Shows and Trials Division, CKC)

 This is an important document for any Club, and in the past our Club has referred to it extensively. The 1999/2000 executive did not follow our Constitution in a number of areas, and the changes they made to it were partially to allow them to continue with the changes they had already made. When members complained over the last year or so, those members were publicly attacked and humiliated in the Club bulletin, or ignored completely.

 There have been problems within the club over the last several years that members hesitated to bring to the CKC, hoping things could be worked out internally. This is a good club with a long history of working together and member involvement. That has changed over the last little while and many long-time members regret the changes (not for the better).

 The CKC should not have accepted this new Constitution and by-laws and would have given our Club an extension (as per Elio Furlan) to properly make the required changes, with member input.

Also see the Issues/Concerns page.