Johannesburg, South Africa
11th July, 2011
The President opened the meeting at 9.40 a.m. She named the participating delegates, at which time it was noted that the Secretary had been advised by CFA that they would not be sending a delegate. There would, consequently, be eight voting members.
The breaks were set with an hour for lunch at 12.30 breaks from 11 to 11.15 in the morning and 2.45 to 3 in the afternoon.
Approval of the Minutes of 2010
Proposed by Mrs Morgan Blythe, seconded by Mrs U’Ren and passed unanimously.
The President referred to a statement she had made at the 2009 meeting. She had quoted a story she had been told regarding two week old kittens being passed amongst the judges at the dinner table. She wanted to make it clear that the dinner had in fact been held at a private home and the kittens were actually three weeks old.
Business arising from Minutes of 2010
Mr Hansson enquired whether anything had been put in place to avoid the situation which had arisen the previous year when one of the members had not paid the annual due at the correct time. He was told that there was a proposal from the Executive dealing with this point.
Proposals
Mrs Morgan Blythe asked if some more simple matters could be dealt with before going to the proposals but the President did not think it was necessary.
a) Proposals from the WCC Executive
Proposal 1. Change to Article 5 of the Constitution:
5. Officers: Administration
(1) The affairs of the organisation shall be administered by an Executive Board to be made up as follows:
a) President
b) Vice-President
c) Secretary
d) Treasurer (positions c and d may be combined)
The President shall be elected on odd years. The Vice-President shall be elected on even years. The Secretary and Treasurer or Secretary/Treasurer shall be appointed in the same year as the Vice President.
(2) All officers shall be elected from among the delegates of the memberorganisations or shall be subject to appointment of suitably qualified persons by the delegates.
(3)Term of office: each officer shall be elected or appointed for a period of two years or until the AGM of the year in which the original term expires.
This proposal was intended to regularize a situation which was already in practice.
Mrs Fisher asked if the Executive’s proposals were to be dealt with individually or as a whole. On being told they would be treated individually she proposed to accept Proposal No. 1. This was seconded by Mr Hansson. Mrs Morgan Bythe asked what the Executive body actually discussed since she thought that the equality of all the member bodies was important. She asked whether a report on the telephone meetings could be circulated. The Secretary replied that they were concerned only with the day-to-day matters. As to whether it was necessary to have an executive was another matter. Mr Reijers thought WCC already had such an executive as the relevant officers were elected according to the Constitution; he thought this was simply a proposal to give a joint name to the officers. The President said that the telephone meetings were held over Skype and rarely lasted more than an hour. One of the items which had been discussed was the offer from WCF concerning Dubai and whether it would be too expensive for a WCC meeting. They had also discussed the possibility of a PayPal account, the terminology in the proposed Royal Canin book, the geneticists proposed by Royal Canin, one of whom was Heather Roberts, as well as the possibility of an electronic meeting of all members. After some discussion Mr Reijers said that he thought if there was a matter about which the members needed to be informed, this would be done, but there might be an occasion when a decision had to be reached and for that it was necessary to have an executive. The Secretary said that she was willing to send out minutes if that was needed but pointed out that anything of importance had always been sent out to all the members. Mr Reijers also suggested that the report of the Secretary could be changed to become the report of the Executive and this would then cover what took place in the preceding year.
The proposal was accepted with one abstention.
Proposal 2
Change to Article 7 (3) of the Constitution
The current annual membership fee shall be paid within three months of receipt of an invoice by the 31st March each year. Non-payment of this fee shall preclude voting rights and official attendance at the Annual General or any other meeting, electronic or physical.
Mrs Fisher moved to accept the proposal. Mr Reijers was against its acceptance as FIFe had a similar proposal but with a cut off date of 31st January rather than 31st March. He felt this gave more flexibility since meetings could be held at any time of the year and could also be either in February or March. The proposal was seconded by Mrs U’Ren.
The President suggested that both proposals be discussed together. She was concerned about the financial years of the various members. The discussion established that an invoice would still be sent as it had in previous years and in the event of any member having difficulties in actually transferring money, the executive would have discretion to make other arrangements.
The President called for a vote on the Executive’s proposal which resulted in a tie so the proposal was not passed.
Mr Hansson proposed that the fee had to be paid before the meeting so that those attending had the right to vote. This was seconded by Mr Reijers.
Mr Reijers pointed out that currently the WCC was in a good position financially because of the Royal Canin sponsorship. However, this might not always be the case and if all members paid only the day before the meeting, it might be difficult to meet the obligations of the WCC. This was the rationale behind the FIFe’s proposal for the fees to be paid by the end of January each year.
Mrs Fisher asked if Mr Hansson would consider a friendly amendment to his proposal to change the words “before the meeting” to “not later than January 31st”
The President called for a vote on this motion; that the fee be paid before the meeting. Mr Reijers pointed out that it was in principle the same as the FIFe proposal and whilst he had no problem with the content, he did have a problem with the procedure.
The proposal was not accepted.
FIFe’s proposal was then dealt with. It read as follows:
It is proposed to amend article 7 point (3) on the Constitution as follows (new wording in bold and italics) :
The current annual membership fee shall be paid within three months of receipt of an invoice not later than the 31st January each year. Non-payment of this fee shall preclude voting rights and official attendance at the Annual General or any other meeting, electronic or physical.
Mr Reijers explained that the executive have always the power to make exceptions so that a deadline of 31st January did not preclude a member from making arrangements to extend this date if necessary.
The motion was seconded by Mrs Fisher and carried unanimously. The meeting then continued with the Executive’s proposals.
Proposal 3.
Amendment to Article 3 (6) of the Constitution:
In the event a member group, federation or affiliate of any WCC body (i.e. FIFe, WCF, CFA, ACF, TICA, NZCF, CCCA, GCCF, SACC) is suspended or expelled from that WCC body …..
Mrs Fished moved to accept, seconded by Mrs Morgan Blythe. The President explained that this was a formality to bring the Article up to date. The proposal was accepted unanimously.
Proposal 4
Addition to the By-Laws
New point 10.
The Secretary shall receive an annual honorarium, the amount of which shall be decided by the delegates at each annual meeting.
This proposal was to formalise what had been agreed at the Annual Meeting of 2010.
Mrs Fisher moved to accept and Mr Reijers seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously.
b) Proposals from FIFe
Proposal 1
It is proposed that the wording of Article 3 (4) of the Constitution be amended as follows:
Admission to membership of the WCC shall be determined by a vote of a simple 75% majority of the member bodies.
FIFe moved to accept and ACF seconded the motion.
Mrs Fisher asked what was broken that needed to be fixed. She also felt that the conditions for membership of the WCC were set out in detail in the Constitution and were far more explicit than anything regarding expulsion; she therefore felt that a simple majority was appropriate. Mr Reijers pointed out that at the time the rules were drawn up, the WCC consisted of five members and it was thought that if three of these founder members were in agreement, it was sufficient. Also at that time the Charter had been the ruling document and it allowed for ‘founder’ members and other members. It had been only the founder members who had the vote on such matters. In the interests of democracy this had now been changed. FIFe felt that a 75% majority was necessary in matters of acceptance, expulsion and change of Constitution. This would mean that 7 members had to be in agreement. Mrs Fisher thought that was exactly why a simple majority would still be sufficient. Mr Hansson agreed with TICA, pointing out how many conditions had to be met by an applicant for membership. Mr Reijers could see the logic in what had been said and withdrew the proposal.
Proposal 2
The following changes to Article 6 of the Constitution - “Conduct and location of Meetings” are proposed:
Points (1) and (2) to remain as written and the following changes to be made thereafter:
(3) All motions to be passed by a simple majority of the members. Each member will be deemed to have one delegate and will have one vote. All amendments to the Constitution shall be passed by a 75% majority of the delegates.
New point (4):
Each member is entitled to representation by one voting delegate and has one vote. A voting delegate can only represent one member. In addition to a voting delegate, each member will be entitled to a second person to act. in an advisory capacity.
Moved by Mr Reijers, seconded by Mrs Morgan Blythe.
The President asked who would finance the second delegate. She went on to say there had never been more than one person seated round the table or, if required, interpreters. Mr van Rooyen asked if this meant that the second person could also take part in discussions. Mrs Lowe said that she assumed it was the intention to cover situations where the delegate had to leave the meeting and the second person could take over their role. Mrs Fisher also wanted to know about the vote. Mr Reijers said the Constitution made it quite clear that each member had only one vote. He pointed out that in the past more than one person had attended and taken part in the meetings. He quoted CFA, TICA, WCF and FIFe as examples of this. Mr Hansson could see the value of this as there could be occasions when matters to be dealt with could be better expressed by another member of the delegation. He wanted it to be clear, as the Constitution stated, that only one vote was involved and the costs were borne by the individual member who was attending.
The proposal was put to the vote and carried with one abstention.
At this point the President officially thanked SACC for the hard work that had made this year’s meeting what she described as a ‘class event’. She thanked them for everything and felt sure she spoke for all the WCC members. This was acknowledged with applause from both delegates and observers. Mr Hansson then added that although everybody thanked SACC, they also hated them as it would be a hard act to follow.
Matters for discussion:
a) From NZCF
Mrs Lowe said that these were matters which had arisen at their committee level. Regarding the first point, how best to retain or increase membership, the NZCF was a very small organisation and they were hoping by discussing this point, they might learn how other organisations were dealing with this problem.
Mrs Fisher said this was an issue that all organisations had to deal with. Around the world there were different kinds of fancies; there was the established fancy and the ones who would like to become established. She was also aware that there were a lot of people who did not know a cat fancy existed. She suggested that priority had to be given to promoting the cat fancy by letting people know that pedigree animals existed and to try and put the same value on them as that put on dogs. There were opportunities for promoting cats through the pet expos.
Mr Hansson said that GCCF had started a campaign the previous year. Targeting youngsters was good for a time only. He pointed out that cats were not as entertaining as dogs and when there was a TV coverage it always covered the most outrageous and ‘twee’ side of the fancy which made it hard for people to take it seriously. He thought there was a need to promote the serious aspect of the fancy including health issues. He also thought people were themselves becoming more conscious of that side.
Mr Reijers thought it hard to answer this question on behalf of FIFe as its members were world wide with every country had its own situation. Speaking for his own country, he could give an answer; he thought the hobby was in decline but he had recently spoken to the President of the FFE and understood that the dog fancy had the same problems, largely due to legislation. The decline was not dramatic and whilst in the Czech Republic there were fewer members than previously, they were still issuing the same amount of pedigrees. He did not believe that the cat fancy was a hobby for the young nor that they were a group to be targeted; they already had things they wanted to do at weekends. Of course there were always some people who came in through their parents but the vast majority were those of an older generation. Addressing the point of making the hobby more interesting, he observed that some years ago there were 1000 cats at a show and the judging took place behind closed doors; people had been happy to sit and wait to know their results without ever even hearing from a judge. Today it is quite different, there is open judging and an effort is made to make the shows entertaining for the exhibitors. He did not know how much effect the existence of competition in the shape of a WCF club was having on the New Zealand organisation. This was relatively new to them whereas such competition had always been the case in Europe.
Mr van Rooyen said that the formation of a WCF club in South Africa had, in the beginning, been of concern to SACC, but they had decided to just carry on and wait and see and that was the best decision they had made. They also had the idea of having a specialty breed ring at their shows, starting with Russians. They contacted the breeders who then got their pet and kitten owners to show. Since then the number of Russians on the shows had increased. They also had quite a few people who showed neuters. They had trouble with their registrations but had decided that they would not accept some breeds, such as Bambino. There had also been people who believed that certain colours could not be mated together but they had now started talking to the rest of the world and these attitudes had changed. The main thing was that they were trying to make their shows much more fun.
The President said that in the USA agility had been a big spectator draw. It had attracted newspapers and TV stations. This had appealed also to people with household pets.
Mrs U’Ren said that their membership was increasing and she had noticed that people were turning more to organisations with credibility, having reliable registrations. They also had regular seminars involving judges. Exhibitors particularly wanted to hear about the newer varieties and breeds.
Following the morning break the President recognised Mrs Julian Schuller who wished to address the meeting. Mrs Schuller spoke of being a ‘camp follower’ of WCC; she believed this was the ninth meeting she had attended. The meetings were memorable for the hospitality of the host nations, including the present one, and she thanked South Africa who had excelled in the last few days. . She believed in the ideals on which WCC had been founded and pointed out that the longest journey started with a single step. It was not about all being the same, as diversity was a healthy road. She hoped the organisation would progress in its efforts to protect the animal we all love. She was very proud of Australia’s contribution and felt it important that smaller fancies should be represented. It was an honour for her to present a small token of her appreciation and she handed the President a wooden gavel and ‘plate’ for use at future meetings. This was met with applause
Returning to the agenda, Mrs Lowe presented item no. 2 of the NZCF’s points for discussion. This concerned harmful genetic conditions in cats, particularly where there was a DNA test available. She would like to know what other organisations did with this information. Mrs Fisher said that generally these things were left to the breed organisations but she would be interested to hear what other organisations did.
Mr Hansson explained that the GCCF had a genetics committee that looked into any breed before it came up for recognition and which identified anything that it was necessary to be aware of. They were about to introduce a policy in breeds with a known genetic defect where once a test becomes readily available, the cats would be tested. There were a lot of new tests coming up and GCCF was working closely with these. The problem was to get those people who pretend it doesn’t happen to them to take notice. The bottom line was that the cat should be ‘fit for purpose’, it should be a pet and not something that would involve huge vet bills at a young age. A cat was entitled to a reasonable lifespan.
Mr Reijers said he would be happy to send the FIFe rulings on this to Mrs Lowe. He was a little confused as to whether genetic abnormalities or genetic conditions were being discussed; he felt it depended what was being talked about. To some people a Rex is a genetic abnormality, just as a tail-less cat. FIFe had very strict rules for genetic diseases whereby every country member must have programmes in place for cats at risk. He quoted from the FIFe Breeding and Registration Rules:
Cats in breeds which bear a risk of genetic disease and which satisfy the following criteria:
– the disease is fatal or causes chronic distress
– the disease occurs in a significant proportion of the breed
– a reliable test is available, and the disease could be eliminated
should be tested for such diseases.
He explained that the reason for that was quite simple. In the majority of EU counties if a cat was sold and died within, say 6 months, the breeder was responsible for the veterinary costs for the cat and this was the same in many countries and could cost the breeder a lot of money. He felt that where there were tests available it was obvious that they should be used as the health of the cat was paramount and breeders should ensure the future generations; he did not advocate disposing of cats which carried harmful genes but thought they should be bred with care. Another matter which gave him concern was that at the recent FIFe General Assembly yet more rules were accepted and the registration rules were in danger of becoming a veterinary document. The Norwegian Forest Cat must be tested for the GSD IV, the cat’s microchip number must be written on the test report and the test can only be done by an authorized laboratory or veterinarian and carriers could not be mated to carriers. The same had been accepted for Gangliodosis as in Korats and the other variation in Burmese. The Health & Welfare Commission had brought a proposal that in all breeds all breeders should make bucal swabs for their cats and keep these in safe storage. It is not allowed to breed with deaf cats, neither can they be shown. It is also not allowed to breed with cats with an umbilical hernia. Male cats, being used at stud, need a veterinary certificate of entirety stating that they have two testicles which are properly descended into the scrotal sac. Checks for heart diseases in Maine Coon, Ragdoll, British and Sphynx must be carried out. Persian, Exotic, Maine Coon, Norwegian, Abyssinian, Bengal, Devon and Somali require X-ray for Patella luxation. Abys, Bengals, Ocicats, Russians, Somalis, Balinese, Oriental, Seychellois and Siamese require opthalmic examinations. These proposals were accepted with large majorities after the statistics on the numbers of cats dying in different countries had been presented. The members realized that our hobby depends upon responsibility to do whatever we can for the health of our cats.
Mr van Rooyen said that at the moment very little testing was available in South Africa and those that were available were quite expensive. SACC members would certainly carry out more genetic tests when these became readily available. If you sell a cat, you remain responsible for that cat until it dies.
The President said that she had worked very hard with the genetics and testing programmes with a reputable university. She was concerned with the fact that several of the different tests for HCM in Maine Coons were not proven to be very reliable.
Mrs U’Ren said that in a report she had submitted to the WCC she had spelt out the situation with regard to the DNA testing required in the state of Victoria, where she lives. It is government legislation which all organisations in that state must follow with regard to heritable defects. They had a protocol for this testing and the swabs must be obtained by a veterinarian or a veterinary assistant. The results of the test were recorded in the registration data base. The organisation had no option but to follow these directions. The HCM testing for the Maine Coons had not proved to be totally reliable but they were very strict on the PKD testing, which was not exclusive to Persians.
Mrs Hackmann said that they had very similar rules as there were very big problems in Germany and they had to have strict rules.
Mrs Morgan Blythe pointed out that in Australia each body did its own registrations so there was not one answer regarding recording information. In Tasmania, where she lived, it was voluntary but the data base was capable of recording the information. ACF was recommendatory only and could only make rules when 75% of the membership voted in favour of a particular motion, which would then become a by-law.
Mr Reijers added that although FIFe had minimum rules, the members were able to enforce stricter ones if they wished and this was often the case. FIFe tried to be ahead of the legislators which is why, for instance, Scottish Folds had not been recognized because it is certain that the EU authorities will forbid them. In the same way FIFe limited the wild generations in Bengals. Already the time is coming when cats with F1 to F4 generations will not be allowed to be imported.
Mrs Lowe would prepare a report for her members and she was grateful for the input that she had received and also for the offer of the FIFe rules from Mr Reiiers.
The President said she had a dear friend who bred Scottish Folds some of which had lived to eighteen, nineteen and twenty years old and which were still jumping around; this she maintained was because of ‘smart’ breeding. She also said that outcrosses were necessary and this could necessitate having a large number of cats, which was not always possible for those living in restricted areas.
Mr Reijers speaking on behalf of his federation said that he was not in favour of banning any breed but that there was a limit to everything. He spoke of the gorgeous Scottish Folds he had judged and of how shocked he had been when he had found totally stiff tails on these cats. He found that the Scottish Fold breeders were not willing to allow themselves to come under scrutiny, even when they had a healthy cat, because they knew there were problems. He agreed with what the President had said and felt that people wishing to breed Folds should have a licence to prove that they knew what they were dealing with.
The President spoke further of the results of the PKD scare when many cats in the United States were euthanised when in fact, with sensible breeding policies, this would not have been necessary. She underlined the need for seminars to educate the breeders.
Mrs Lowe introduced the NZCF’s third point for discussion. This concerned the situation when judges moved from one country to another. It had come about because a New Zealand judge had suddenly appeared on the list of another country without any reference to the NZCF. NZCF were concerned as there were some unfortunate circumstances surrounding this person. They asked if some protocol should be in place for this. There was some discussion about the situation if a person was already banned in one organisation and Mr van Rooyen had an instance where somebody had been banned by them and was later a student judge in another organisation. Mrs Fisher said that she could send Mrs Lowe a link to the training programme in TICA; this would give the criteria for a person to become a judge within that organisation.
Mr Hansson spoke of the various criteria in different organisations and thought it was a difficult question to answer. He cited examples and pointed out that with GCCF judges the information as to what they were qualified to judge was on the web site.
Mr Reijers drew the meeting’s attention to the WCC By-laws which clearly stated that where an individual member is suspended or expelled, the other members were to be informed. He fully understood that Mrs Lowe could not be more explicit concerning the case she mentioned. He knew that each organisation had its own rules on this matter. If a judge from another organisation wanted to become a FIFe judge, this would be discussed individually. FIFe had once in the last twenty years accepted a judge on the basis of a theoretical examination but, he stressed, that would never happen again. Any incoming judge would have to take the examination for the category concerned. He believed that TICA also accepted qualifications from other organisations and cited an example. He added that it was not for the WCC to put such rules in place as it was up to the individual members to decide on these matters.
The President said that a member receiving an application from a judge qualified in another WCC organisation, should ask for a reference but where no actual ban was in place, as in the case of NZCF, this would make no difference. Mrs Lowe said that the point was NZCF did not know that the person had even applied to another oganisation, the first they knew was when her name was seen on the web site of the other organisation. Mrs U’Ren thought that the organisation to which the person had applied to go on the judge’s panel should, if only as a matter of courtesy, have approached the NZCF. Mrs Morgan Blythe considered it a matter of having respect for the other WCC members in such a case. Mr Reijers said that he did believe everybody was entitled to a second chance, however, if he were to be approached by a judge from another WCC member wishing to become a FIFe judge, he would first ask them for references and would also make his own enquiries with the WCC member in question. Mr Hansson felt that everybody had the human right to belong to which organisation they chose but with regard to giving a reference he thought that unless they had taken disciplinary action against that person they were not able to give an unbiased opinion. He referred to the criteria for an overseas judge wishing to function at a GCCF show, which information the judge signed as being correct. He questioned the right to go further.
The President spoke of a case in the United States where an individual had 26 counts of animal welfare in a particular state; there was nothing anyone could do until those matters had been settled. TICA had also been informed.
TICA’s item for discussion was then tabled by Mrs Fisher. She had discovered that TICA had allowed a cat’s registered name to be changed when that cat was imported into their registry. They have now instructed their registry to cease doing that whilst a change of rule was pending. She asked the meeting if any other member was allowing changes to the registered name of a cat and, if so under what circumstances. Mr Reijers explained that he had had a lot of correspondence on this matter and he quoted two cases where the names of the cats had changed dramatically. He also had seen that the full registration number of the cat was not on the registration document. FIFe has strict rules about respecting the original pedigree of a cat and FIFe members are not allowed to change anything in the registered name. FIFe accepted the fact that in the United States the name of the importing cattery might be appended to the registered name of the cat. However, in the instance that had arisen the name had been changed so much as to be unrecognizable. He realized that the WCC could make no ruling as it was up to the member concerned.
However, FIFe could inform its members to advise their breeder members that this change of name can happen when a cat is exported to a TICA member.
Mr van Rooyen said that in SACC it was permitted to change the name of a cat within the first month after registration if the cat was originally registered in SACC and then it was discovered that the initial sex of the cat was incorrect, but after that time no change could be made. For imported cats, except for the addition of a SACC cattery name as a suffix the rest of the name cannot be changed from the organisation of origin.
The President said that in CFA the suffix could be added.
Mrs U’Ren said that on an import the original number of the cat was retained and in their own organisation, once a cat was registered that name could not be changed.
Mrs Hackmann said that in WCF it was forbidden to change the name.
Mrs Morgan Blythe said that, unequivocally, ACF would not allow changing of imported cats’ names.
Mrs Lowe said that in NZCF it was forbidden to change any name. Speaking with the President she quoted a case where the cat’s prefix had been changed and the original number had not been retained. Mr Reijers said that he understood that CFA would give a new number to a cat going into their registry because their numbers included information as to breed and variety but he had seen pedigrees where the original number was also noted on the document. He pointed out how lucky the English speaking members were in that they had only to deal with these matters in their own language. It was a different matter within Europe where not only the language but the authography differed, for example in one country he might be known as Eric Reijers whilst in another he could be Reijers Eric – this could lead to complications with cat’s names where the prefix became the suffix and so on, which is why the practice of adding a breeder’s cattery name is not allowed in FIFe.
Election of a President
The President said she was retiring and looked forward to being an onlooker and allowing somebody else to do the work. She asked for nominations. Mrs Morgan Blythe said that ACF nominated Mr Eric Reijers. In the WCC’s sixteen years there had been one President from Europe, one from Australia and one from the United States She suggested it was time to continue the cycle.
There were no other nominations and the President noted that this would mean two members of the executive were from the same organisation. Mr Hansson asked if Mr Reijers was prepared to stand and Mr Reijers said that he was but explained his reasons which were nothing to do with the Presidency being with FIFe as had there been somebody else willing to do it, that would be fine, but because he had a good contact with the Secretary and felt if there was anything she needed to know, this would not be a problem. The WCC did not take up a lot of a time in a week, otherwise he would not be standing. Regarding two representatives from one organisation, he remarked that in the beginning the President had been Alva Uddin with Don Williams as Vice-President, the secretary was not on the board at that time. He had been there with Alva and had been Vice-President for many years and this was not a problem. The Secretary pointed out also that she, as Secretary, had no vote.
Mrs Fisher said that as she was aware that Mr Reijers had criticized the leadership of the World Cat Congress in recent years, she asked what could be expected of his leadership and what would be his vision for the next two years. Firstly, Mr Reijers said he would like to consider the possibility that there would be an alternate member sitting each year as Chair of the meeting and not necessarily the President. He did not know if that required a change of the Constitution, a proposal would have to be brought. He thought they were all sitting there as the World Cat Congress although he acknowledged a representative was needed. Further we need to continue with what had been started in the current year, i.e. the comparison of current breeds and to get more articles on the web site.
Something had been done and there had been more exchange of ideas in the current year than previously. If he was sitting as President, then he would expect to be listening to what the members wanted to do. He would not be the delegate of course as FIFe had always had a separate delegate. He hoped that the members would let it be known what their wishes were so that the Executive knew what was needed. Mr Hansson seconded the nomination.
Before the vote took place, Mr Reijers told the meeting that two years previously in Arnhem something very serious had happened in his life, serious in as much as it had affected his finances and his private life. It was a nightmare from the past that came up during the two days of the Congress. It was one of the worst periods of his life. He agreed that he was outspoken and the previous year he had seen that people were not familiar with the Constitution and he felt that at the one time of the year when the delegates met, they should be honest with one another.
The result of the vote was 5 in favour and three abstentions, Mr Reijers was therefore elected as President for the next two years.
Financial Matters
The treasurer referred to the accounts which had been circulated prior to the meeting and welcomed any questions on these; she commented that the Congress was in a good position. The bank balance at 29th June was AU$ 58,530.10. with no outstanding payments due except those which would be claimed after the current meeting. Mr Hansson commented that it was possible that with so much money in the bank, our sponsor might not wish to continue sponsoring. The Treasurer said that she thought the amount concerned was insignificant to the sponsors and they had never questioned anything. She also pointed out that WCC normally had large expenses for the seminar and rooms of the annual weekend; this year had been considerably less and the seminar had cost the WCC nothing.
Referring to the cost of the web site where a lot more information was in the process of being published, the Treasurer said that the webmaster was giving a very competitive price for the work and was charging as and when it occurred. It was, however, another reason that WCC needed to have money in the bank. She pointed out that publishing the breed comparisons created a lot of work for the webmaster as well as for herself.
In the course of publishing these individual documents a lot of anomalies had arisen and it had taken a lot of time to sort these out. The current price of Euro 30.00 a page was, she thought, very reasonable.
Mrs Fisher moved to accept the financial report and Mrs Morgan Blythe seconded. The report was unanimously accepted.
The meeting then broke for lunch and re-convened at 13.30.
The first item under financial matters was to establish the amount of the honorarium of the Secretary/Treasurer. Mrs U’Ren moved that the present rate of AU$2400 a year be retained. This was seconded by Mrs Fisher and carried unanimously.
The second item was to establish the fixed amount which each member would pay towards its delegate’s expenses. Mr Reijers moved that it remain the same as before, that was Euro 500.
The Treasurer pointed out that it was really a problem that the Congress was working with three currencies. The fixed amount was established in Euros, the amount paid to an officiating judge was in American dollars and the annual fee and Secretary’s remuneration was in Australian dollars; she really wished this could be made into one currency.
Mrs Morgan Blythe moved that the fixed amount be in Australian dollars and equivalent to Euro 500, this was seconded and agreed unanimously.
The third item was the remuneration of a judge officiating at a show held in conjunction with the WCC weekend. This was at US$ 500 but could be in the currency of the host country. Mrs U’Ren suggested that everything should be in Australian dollars but the President pointed out that the WCC did not pay the judges fees. Mr van Rooyen moved to retain the same amount paid in the currency of the host country, this was seconded by Mr Reijers and carried unanimously.
Before leaving financial matters Mr Reijers referred to Article 7.5 of the Constitution that stated that judges functioning either at the weekend before or the weekend after the WCC meeting should receive the compensation of $500. Ms DelaBar, Mrs Bydlinski and Mr Hansson were judging in this way without compensation. He realized that nothing could be done about this as the clubs concerned had not known the rule but he wanted it noted that this was a breach of the Constitution. He would therefore like the meeting to agree that these engagements could be carried out without payment and he moved for that. This was seconded by Mr Hansson and carried.
The last item to establish was the membership fee which was currently AU$ 340. Mrs Morgan Blythe moved that it remain the same, Mr Reijers seconded and this was carried unanimously.
The Secretary said that it was also possible to use her PayPal account if this would be easier.
Matters Arising from Member’s Reports
Mr Reijers had circulated a report from FIFe that morning. Some other members had e-mailed reports prior to the meeting. Mrs Hackmann said she would send a report after she has sorted out the situation in Russia.
Arising from the New Zealand report was a falsification of pedigrees that had appeared on a web site; these had been FIFe pedigrees with false particulars.
Matters Raised at Open Meeting
The matter of judges’ qualifications had been raised. This led to a long discussion on the various requirements which each organisation required.
There was a great variation and it appeared that in some cases an individual could become an all breed judge within two years where in another organisation it could take twenty years. Judge’s education systems are, in the main, published on the member’s web sites. A case was reported where the individual had not taken an exam with her original member body but had been accepted as a judge with another organisation; this was being investigated.
Mrs Morgan Blythe referred to AI protocols which had been broached at the open meeting. FIFe would require that notification of such a procedure should be sent to the registering club within 10 days. GCCF and FIFe also insisted on a certificate of entirety from the male cat. Mrs Morgan Blythe moved the member bodies of WCC consult their memberships on the matter of AI protocols with particular reference to the paper produced by herself and Mrs Shingleton in 2008. As there was no seconder, this proposal failed.
Reference was made to the so-called ‘designer’ cats. Mr Reijers said that FIFe would not accept any more hairless breeds or those deriving from wild cats. Mr van Rooyen reiterated that SACC had decided not to accept Bambino cats.
WCC Meeting 2012
Mr Reijers proposed that it should take place in Brno, Czech Republic as outlined in his earlier letter to the members. This would take place from 4-7th May and he hoped that all the delegates could arrive on the Wednesday so that a tour could be arranged for the Thursday. He said that all delegates would be able to judge. Regarding the seminar, he asked if any of the delegates would like to volunteer to speak. He hoped to get Heather Lorimer.
It was noted that WCC meetings for the future are:
2013 – GCCF
2014 – ACF in Sydney
2015 – TICA.
Any Other Business
The Secretary reported on the progress on the web site. Getting in the breed comparison information was slow and so far only those breeds beginning with “A” and “B” had been finished. Others were in progress but not complete and she was considering just putting up breeds when she had them rather than concentrating on the alphabetical order. Mrs Fisher wondered if somebody could help with this job as the amount done in one year was not very good. Problems had arisen because of breed names and she found it very difficult to cope with the GCCF’s nomenclature of the Asian varieties. The Bombay was an existing breed which had been developed in the United States and was not the same as the black Asian which was being called a Bombay. Similar problems arose with the Burmilla as this was a different cat within the Asian group. Mr Hansson said that the breeders had the right to choose a name and it was difficult to change it. It was pointed out that, as a result of discussion at a WCC meeting, FIFe had changed a breed’s name some years ago and this had been done in a democratic manner.
The Secretary said also other things had been added to the web site and Mrs Lowe had been organizing the Newsletters at regular intervals. It was agreed that the breed defects should be omitted from the tables. The Secretary also said that she did not think enough people were aware of the WCC web site; she urged the members to draw their members’ attention to the site.
The suggestion of an electronic meeting had been looked into. It was very difficult to arrange such a meeting given the time zones of the various delegates. It was questionable whether more would be achieved than is presently done by use of group e-mails.
Regarding suspensions and the ability to inform other members, Mr Hansson spoke of the GCCF’s suspension list which could be shared.
Mr Reijers reported a problem in Norway where the FIFe club had refused to register a cat because it had been illegally imported into the country but it had then been registered with TICA. Mrs Fisher said this would be looked into.
The meeting closed at 16.45.
Ms Pam DelaBar (President of WCC, and in the chair)
Mrs Lesley Morgan Blythe (Delegate of ACF Inc.)
Mrs Cheryle U’Ren (Delegate of CCC of A)
Mr Eric Reijers (Delegate of FIFe)
Mrs John Hanssonn (Delegate of GCCF)
Mrs Chris Lowe (Delegate of NZCF)
Mr Jan van Rooyen (Delegate of SACC)
Mrs Vickie Fisher (Delegate of TICA)
Mrs Anneliese Hackmannr (Delegate of WCF)