Minutes of the Business Meeting 24th April, 2017

Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Mr Eric Reijers (President of WCC and in the Chair)
Mrs. Cheryle U’Ren (Vice-President of WCC and delegate of CCCA)
Mrs. Penelope Bydlinski (WCC Secretary/Tresurer)
Mrs. Sandi Gemmell (Delegate of ACF)
Mr Robbie Walker (Adviser to ACF)
Ms. Rachel Anger (Delegate of CFA)
Mr Mark Hannon (Adviser to CFA)
Ms. Annette Sjødin (Delegate of FIFe)
Mr Leo van de Haterd (Adviser to FIFe)
Mrs. Betty Shingleton (Delegate of GCCF)
Mrs. Chris Lowe (Delegate of NZCF)
Mr Jan van Rooyen (Delegate of SACC)
Ms Alex Chisholm (Delegate of TICA)
Mrs. Anneliese Hackmann (Delegate of WCF)
Mrs Julian Schuller (Adviser to WCF)

In attendance:
Ms. Laureline Malineau and Ms Emmanuelle Louvet (Royal Canin Representatives), Ms Lorraine Shelton (TICA), Ms Lesley Morgan (AU), Mr Luo (CCCA China), Ms Quing Li (CCCA China), Mrs Jan Jewson (AU) and Ms Karen Lawrence (CFA)

1. The President opened the meeting at 9.00 a.m. He welcomed all the delegates and expressed everybody’s concern over the TiCA President, Fate Mays, who had been taken ill the previous day. Everybody’s thoughts were with him and wished him a speedy recovery. He welcomed Alex Chisholm who was the substitute delegate for TICA.

Mark Hannon reported that Fate’s sister was in the hotel and had seen him the previous evening. He had had a stroke but it was not serious. He would be in intensive care for a few days. As he lived only a short distance from Vegas, it was anticipated his sister would drive him home in due course.

2. The delegates presented themselves by name and association as stated above.

3. Approval of Agenda

Mrs U’Ren moved the acceptance of the Agenda, seconded by Mrs Hackmann and Ms Sjødin and agreed unanimously.

4. Establishment of Breaks

The morning break was agreed for 10.30 a.m. and the afternoon break was left flexible, depending on the time of the lunch break. It was also noted that Mrs Lowe had to leave at 3 p.m.

5. Approval of the Minutes of the meeting in 2016

The Minutes had been circulated and agreed by e-mail. There were two sets of Minutes, those of the Business Meeting that would be published on the web site and also those of the Executive Meeting that would not be published. Mrs Lowe moved to accept the Minutes, seconded by Mr van Rooyen and agreed unanimously. The Secretary passed round the hard copy for signatures.

6. Matters arising from Minutes of 2015

The Secretary said that one thing that had arisen was that Mr Crow, the GCCF delegate had suggested that a list of items that had been agreed at Meetings since 1995 but which were not matters for the Constitution or the By-Laws, should be created. This had been done and circulated to all the Members with the Agenda. The President thanked the Secretary for this work. He went on to say that it was not always possible for the Members to uphold these decisions, giving as an example the decision to respect each other’s show dates.

Mr Hannon referred to the proposed new web site that was very exciting and beneficial to all. He thanked the Secretary and the Webmaster.

7. Elections

Election of a President for a period of two years.

The President gave the chair to the Vice-President who then called for nominations from the floor. Ms Anger nominated Eric Reijers, seconded by Ms Sjødin. There were no other nominations. Mr Reijers confirmed that he accepted the nomination saying that even though the Secretary did most of the work, in common with most of the delegates he had a lot to do for his own organization and the position of President did take up some time. However, he felt it was a pleasant job and he thought the last few years had gone very harmoniously. A paper vote was called for as this did give an opportunity for a Member to abstain if they so wished.

There was a discussion about whether the votes should be on paper or by a show of hands. As there was the possibility to vote against or to abstain, it was noted that all voting should be anonymous and the vote was therefore decided to be on paper.

Whilst the votes were being counted the President read out the Report of the Executive that had been circulated and is attached to these Minutes as .

The result of the election was that Mr Reijers was duly elected as President for two years.

8. Proposals

The Secretary presented the proposals from the Executive Committee which read:

It is proposed that the following amendments/additions be made to the Constitution (addition in bold italics):
No. 1 Article 7.3

The physical Annual General Meetings of the WCC (the Business meeting) will be held in conjunction with an Open Meeting, a seminar and preferably ashow run by the host member organisation. Where a Seminar and Open Meeting are combined, the host Member shall liaise with the WCC Executive on its format and content.

The Executive does not wish to dictate to the host with regard to what it would like to bring to the Seminar but feels that it may be able to bring its experience to assist the host body. The Open Meeting is a vital part of the WCC weekend and is usually combined with a seminar. It is therefore important that due focus should be given to the WCC itself as well as to subjects of interest to the cat fancy generally.

There were no speakers on this proposal and Ms Anger moved for its acceptance, seconded by Ms Sjødin and accepted.

The secretary introduced the next proposal, commenting that although it had not been put into the Constitution, it was already in place.

No. 2 Additional Article 8.8:
A bank account in the name of the World Cat Congress shall be maintained and the signatories shall be those of the Secretary/Treasurer and two other suitable persons to be decided by the Executive.

This was suggested three years ago and never taken further. It is a necessary addition in order to regularize the maintenance of the bank account.

Mrs Gemmell moved to accept, seconded by Ms Anger and was accepted unanimously.

No. 3 Additional Article 6.4
Correspondence from one member body to one or to all the other member bodies must go through the Congress’s Secretary except in the case of routine requests for clarification of a registration.

This procedure is necessary to ensure that all members have the same information at the proper time and are all aware of any possible differences between member bodies. It would also mean that WCC itself would be aware of any matters in which it might be able to mediate. We are here to promote ‘better understanding and co-operation’ and this can only be achieved if we are all aware of any contentious situations.

Mrs Gemmell pointed out that there might be other matters for which one Member might approach another Member and it would be only if something became an issue that the Secretary would need to be involved. The President agreed and suggested that the last five words be omitted. He added that this would be more practical as the Secretary had the most recent e-mail addresses The proposal would then read:
Correspondence from one member body to one or to all the other member bodies must go through the Congress’s Secretary except in the case of routine requests.

Mrs Lowe moved to accept the amended proposal, seconded by Ms Sjødin and carried unanimously.

The President thanked the Members.

The President gave the floor to Mrs Hackmann to present WCF’s proposals and Mrs Schuller spoke on her behalf.

The first part of the proposal read as follows:

1. A member wishing to resign from the Congress must send notice of its resignation to the Secretary three months prior to the end of the financial year.
Mr van Rooyen pointed out that there was no indication as to where this should go into the Constitution. Ms Anger questioned why a specific date had to be set. She asked if, in the event of a Member wishing to resign at an earlier date, would they be forced to stay? The President also pointed out that in Article 5.6 of the Constitution it states that “A member organization may, at any time, resign from the WCC by delivering a written notice of resignation signed by two officers authorized to act on behalf of the member organization.” He added that he remembered when this point was discussed at the time the Constitution was being formulated and it was agreed that it should be left to the member organization. Mrs Hackmann was asked why she wished to change this and said she would withdraw the proposal.

Going on to the second proposal which read:

2. A member may be expelled from the Congress for the following reasons:

a. In the event of non-payment of the membership fee for (example: 6 month) and after two reminders have been sent.

b. For a breach of the Constitution and/or Rules of WCC or for bringing the Congress into ill repute.

Mrs Schuller observed that a specific time – for example the 6 months cited – could not be put into the Constitution.

In either case a three quarter majority of the attending members is required.

There is nothing in the Constitution at present to allow for either of these situations and in the light of recent happenings in our own organization, we feel this omission should be rectified.

Referring to the three quarter majority, the President observed that although that majority was required for expulsion, it was not required for admission to membership and he thought this should be rectified in the future. He then referred to Article 8.3, which stated “The current annual membership fee shall be paid 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.” He understood that WCF wanted to make an addition as to what would happen if the fees were not paid and Mrs Hackmann agreed.

Mr van Rooyen said that there would have to be a process involved and was this something that would be ratified at the next meeting, or would the Secretary simply inform the Members that the Member had been expelled because of non-payment of fees. The President replied that all members would have to vote on it either electronically or at a meeting. The Secretary said that she presumed that if a member had not paid after two reminders, she would write to all members asking if the member should be expelled. Mrs Gemmell asked whether if after two reminders had been sent and no payment had been received after the 31st March, the Member should be informed of the removal of votingrights and attendance at a meeting. She thought that a member might pay at the last minute and be shocked to be refused admission to a meeting. The President agreed and taking South Africa as an example, pointed out that the government could impose a restriction on transferring money out of the country. Mr van Rooyen would then ask the Secretary if he could pay the membership fee at the meeting. The Secretary would of course consult with the Vice-President an himself and they would agree that this could be done. He reflected that he personally did not like an expulsion for financial reasons. He felt that there could be circumstances, and cited the New Zealand earthquakes as an example, in which he thought the Members could support each other. Ms Anger stated that she was glad this point had been raised; she felt it was a very serious and final matter to expel a Member. She would like to see a sub-committee set up to define reasons why a Member body could be expelled. It was a discussion point and she thought the Members should be careful not to ‘shoot themselves in the foot.’

The President handed the chair to the Vice-President whilst he checked on something. Mrs Schuller said that it was not possible to change anything in a Constitutional proposal at a meeting and the proposal would have to go to a future meeting in an amended form. The Vice-President asked if therefore that proposal lapsed, The President interjected that there was nothing in the WCC rules to preclude a slight change to a proposal so long as it did not change the meaning of that proposal. The Vice-President asked if WCF wished to withdraw the proposal but was told that they did not wish to withdraw it but needed more clarification particularly on the point of where it would be included in the Constitution.

Ms Sjødin did not see any reason why WCC should be any different from any other organization where if the membership is not paid the party concerned ceases to be a member. If there were problems such as the President had cited, people could also communicate so that was not a problem. Mrs Lowe thought this would be a formality and there should be a procedure in the Constitution. Mrs Schuller replied that WCF thought there should be a specific procedure, which should be clearly stated in the Constitution.

Mrs Shingleton asked if there had been any problems on this issue previously, to which the President responded that there had never been any problems because there were only nine Members. He went on to say that he agreed that all the Members would have in their own rules the procedure for non-payment. Mrs Lowe suggested that the proposal be amended to read, “may be expelled.” The Vice-Chairman suggested substituting “expelled” by “suspended.”

The President reminded the meeting that this proposal would mean that 8.3 of the Constitution would have to go. They would have to decide what they wanted. The Secretary said that speaking personally she did not see this as a real issue. There had been an occasion in the past when a membership fee had not been paid on time and it transpired that the e-mail with the Account had not been received. It was resolved without any problems. She thought that this would be the case in a scenario such as the President had described. She added that $340 was a very small sum and it would be assessed on an individual basis. The WCC was a small group and she didn’t think it correct to be so ‘cut and dried’ on a financial basis. The President could see both sides of the argument. Mr van Rooyen asked if WCF would withdraw this proposal and accept Rachel’s suggestion for a sub-committee, even if it were to be headed by WCF and bring a more detailed proposal the following year. The President pointed out that this would mean also a re-wording of Article 8.3. Mrs Schuller said that WCF were happy to withdraw point a) and have a sub- committee to look into amending the proposal. Mrs Gemmell enquired as to whether a sub- committee was to be formed at the current meeting. Mrs Lowe, Ms Anger and Ms Sjødin would be willing to form a sub-committee to assist Mrs Hackmann and Mrs Gemmell was also willing to help.

Moving on to point b) Ms Sjødin said that this was already covered in Article 10.1. The President read out the Article that stated the Member concerned could be “suspended” rather than expelled. Ms Sjødin said that she thought the sub-committee should also look into this part of the proposal to be in line with the other part. The President then asked if this sub-committee would also look into the amount of votes required for the acceptance of full members. It should be in line with the required majority for the suspension or expulsion of a Member, The Secretary clarified that in effect the sub-committee would be looking at both of WCF’s proposals as well as Article 5.4 of the Constitution, that is to say the amount of votes required for both membership and expulsion of WCC.

9. Report on RC Encyclopaedia by Laureline Malineau

Ms Malineau reported that the Encyclopaedia was almost finished with only a few pages left to complete. Everybody had seen how it would look although as there was no projector in the room, she could not show it on screen. A few missing things were clarified. Every delegate would be given one copy at the Convention. The book was about 500 pages and quite heavy. She also needed to know how many of the books would be required and it was agreed that each federation would have one box that contained ten copies. Royal Canin would cover the cost of transport. There was much appreciation for this very generous offer. She described the contents of the book but she would send the full information to the Secretary to be circulated to the Members.

Ms Malineau then spoke about the forthcoming Convention in Montpellier. This would take place on the 20th, 21st and 22nd June in La Grande Motte at the Congress Centre. The delegates would be in the Mercure Hotel, which is about a five minutes walk from the Convention Centre. The Secretary had sent a list of the delegates with their times of arrival and departure, which she would like them to check as a taxi would be sent to pick them up and also to take them to the airport. She had prepared a presentation, which contained the invitation and this would be sent to the Secretary for distribution. The Secretary undertook to check the times and to insert mobile numbers and inform RC.

Ms Malineau then spoke of the Agenda. There would be a welcome coffee at 2 p.m. in the Convention Centre. The Introduction, which she would be doing, together with the President of Royal Canin and some other colleagues was to be at 2.30 pm. At 3 pm each delegate would be introduced individually, behind them on the platform would be a screen with their name, photo and function together with some short information on their organization. The next item would be a presentation by Mr Reijers followed by a break. After the break Leslie Lyons would give a presentation about genetic tests for cats. The day should conclude at around 5.30 pm. In the evening there would be a casual dinner on the beach, probably with cocktails giving people the opportunity to get to know each other.

On the Wednesday the participants were to be split into two groups but the delegates would remain together. One group would remain in the Congress Centre where there would be presentations by Royal Canin experts on the Basics of Cat Nutrition and also on The Nutritional Route to the best skin and Coat of the Cat. After a break there would be a presentation on internet and how it can help the cattery. The other group would visit the Royal Canin Campus and see the laboratory, the cattery and the factory. This was something that people usually enjoyed. The day would end at about 5 pm.

In the evening there would be the gala dinner, which would be at Mas St Gabriel, a short distance from La Motte. This would be semi-formal and there would be music for those who liked to dance. There would be buses available so guests could go back to the hotel when they wished.

On the Thursday there would be a little later start at 9.30 am in the Convention Centre. There would be a presentation by Royal Canin experts on skin and coat. After the break there will be a lecture by Sarah Heath, who is a specialist on cat behavior, and will speak about the welfare of show cats. After lunch at 1.30 pm there would be a further lecture by Leslie Lyons on ‘The Future of Genetics’ that will lead to the Conclusion of the Convention that she and her colleagues would do. At 4m we will go to Mas St Gabriel to have some typical food from the area and they will explain a little about the history. Mas St Gabriel is in the Carmargue, which is a very nice area of France, known for the Flamingos, the Bulls and the white Horses. The stop there is to give a break on the long drive to Le Beaux de Provence. There will be time to look at the old mediaeval town. The Encyclopaedia launch will be at 7.30 pm at the Carriere below the town. There we shall see pictures from the Encyclopaedia before going to dinner. There will also be the normal show in the Carriere where pictures of famous paintings are projected on the walls of the rocks. This will not be late as there is the long drive back to the hotel.

The following day on the 23rd. is the launch of the Encyclopaedia at the Royal Canin Campus. This would be an opportunity for the staff of RC to talk with the delegates and learn something more about the cat fancy. Eric to give a small introduction on a show in the morning with two sessions. Lunch in the RC cafeteria where to meet other members of RC. Introduction by Marketing Director and then Laureline would introduce the Encyclopaedia.

She needed information about delegates for the introduction and also the badges. Needed to decide on which statistics to be given on the slides.

There will also be a web site, which she would give us the link with all information. Jan van Rooyen asked for particulars if other people wanted to attend. RC would cover the costs of food and only the travel and hotel would be the responsibility of the participant.

There was discussion about dress and other details. Laureline said for several years WCC had welcomed her and now she had the opportunity to return their hospitality.

Everybody was looking forward to this event.

The President said that he had arranged with Ms Malineau that the three statistics on the Member’s slide should be the year of foundation, area of activities and the number of shows annually.

The coffee break was at 10.30.

Following the break, the meeting then went into Executive Session and the visitors left the room. The meeting re-convened at 1.15 p.m. following the lunch break.

10. Matters for Discussion

a) ACF

Presented by Mrs Gemmell which read as follows:

Standardised Nomenclature
There has been discussion since 2002 regarding standardized nomenclature for breeds. To date there does not seem to be any progress towards this agreed outcome.

The President pointed out that this was one of the items in document on ‘Decisions taken at WCC Meetings since 1995’. Some time ago FIFe had changed the name of Javanese to that of Oriental Longhair in an effort to conform with other organisations. This had not been the case with the colour-point Siberians that the FIFe members had voted to recognise as Neva Masquerade. He agreed that it was a noble aim but it was not an easy matter since each Member body had recognized and each organisation was different with different histories. Mrs Gemmell agreed but thought that if an organization was importing or developing a new breed, it should keep the name it had been originally given rather than inventing something new. The President agreed and referred to the Mi-Kong Bobtail, which he thought was only registered by WCF, was being bred by a couple in the Czech Republic and registered as unrecognized shorthair but with the code for Mi-Kong Bobtail behind it and the breeders were happy to have the name of the breed on the pedigree. Ms Chisholm said that the Toy Bobs were coming up in TICA, but these were a different breed.

Ms Anger thought there should be some sensitivity about it. They had a Bombay, which had had championship status since 1976, and now there was a Bombay in another association, which was a completely different cat in appearance and breeding. It was a minority breed but it had been in existence for a long time and she thought the other breed should have been given a different name.

Mrs Gemmell repeated that it would be better if there was conformity, not only in the name of a breed but also of a pattern as it was very confusing when one organization gave it one name and another organization gave the same thing a different name. Whilst the President agreed, he pointed out the decision makers in the various bodies were not sitting in the WCC meeting and their decisions were made by their members. It was a similar situation with the standards for instance who had the copyright on the standards, most of which it had probably been taken originally from GCCF or CFA.

Mrs Gemmell said that ACF was only suggesting that from this point forward the members would try and stick with the name that was originally given rather than creating a new name. The Secretary pointed out that there was also the situation where the same variety was being developed in different bodies who did not know of the existence of the other; they would each give it a name and in that case, which one was the correct one? Mrs Gemmell thought that the only way was to share information where possible. The Secretary asked if it would help if one of the bodies was aware that something new was being developed, they let her know and she would circulate it to the other members. The President said that whilst it would help, it was not something that could be forced on the Member’s own members. As there were no further speakers on this matter Mrs Gemmell then moved on.

ACF Point 3
Mrs Gemmell said that the ACF had received an offer from a Convention organization in Western Australia. They were very interested in hosting the WCC Annual Meeting in 2020 in Perth. It would be in conjunction with the ACF National Show, which takes place on the second weekend in June. The President said this would be gratefully accepted. The Secretary added that being on the west coast of Australia meant it was much more accessible. The date would be the 13/14th June 2020. The President asked if everybody was in favour and being assured of that, he thanked ACF for the offer, which was gratefully accepted.

The President enquired about ACF Point 2 but was told it had been resolved. Mr van Rooyen enquired about the use of the FIFe EMS codes by another organization. The President explained that GCCF called it GEMS and it was geared to their needs. The FIFe Vice-Treasurer holds a generic list incorporating all the codes used by other organisations. The FIFe also has codes for breeds that were not recognized as they were being bred by their members and it is necessary for registration purposes.

b) FIFe

Ms Sjødin presented the subject which concerned changing the name of a breed. The delegates had all had the documentation provided by the Swedish FiFe member. This included a letter to TICA asking for an explanation as to how a breed could be changed; this appeared to them to be a falsification of a pedigree. They had not received a reply. Ms Sjødin tabled a further document that was the original registration of the cat in the GCCF before it had been registered in TICA. The substance was that an application had been made for a FIFE pedigree on the basis of its TICA pedigree and it was then discovered that the cat was originally registered as a Siamese from Siamese parents. On the TICA pedigree the cat’s breed had been changed to Thai as well as that of its Dam and two of its forbears, so in total the breed of four cats had been changed to Thai. Mrs Sjødin stressed respect for the original pedigree and asked if it were possible to change a breed in this manner.

Ms Chisholm wondered who had been contacted in TICA but she would certainly take the matter further. She said that the Siamese in TICA were a recognized outcross for the Thai, but that didn’t explain why the breed had been changed on particular cats; she did not know why but would investigate. Ms Sjødin informed her that the letter had been sent to the TICA President with copy to the Registrations Officer. She added that SVERAK considered this to be very important as it concerned respecting a pedigree.

The President suggested that Ms Chisholm should look into the matter and go on from there. He said that one of the concerns the year before in Fife when the Thai had come up for recognition was that it would be a matter of the old type Siamese as opposed to the Siamese being shown today. There were other breeds with old and current type and recently there had been a suggestion that there should be two types of Norwegian. These things were very detrimental to the cat fancy. Mr van Rooyen said that in SACC they had similar problem with two breeds, these were the colourpoint Siberian, which SACC had recognized as the Neva Masquerade and the American Burmese. They registered them according to their own names in SACC. The president said that this was not changing the breed. He went on to say that there was often an emotional response when a new variety was up for recognition with one party wanting to retain some aspect and another party being against it.

The matter was left with the agreement that Ms Chisholm would look into the matter and report back either to the WCC Secretary or to FIFe.


Mrs Lowe spoke of updates on Lymphoproliferative Disease in British and Associated breeds, which had been isolated by Massey University in NZ. A DNA test was available at a very reasonable price. She would continue to provide updates on this condition.

Speaking on the second item for discussion Mrs Lowe emphasized that NZCF was very small in comparison to the other Member bodies. NZCF would like to know how complaints were dealt with by the other bodies, whether they dealt with them internally, whether they out-sourced them or whether they encouraged people to go to a tribunal. Ms Anger said that CFA did not generally handle contractual complaints, however when a certain threshold was reached it would go into their “detrimental” pot and they would take it under advisement with regard to being detrimental. Where it was a claim for compensation on a sick animal for example, the complainant would be advised to go to a small claims court. Ms Chisholm said that TICA did the same and also reminded people that they were a registering body not a legislative one. Mr Hannon added that CFA kept a file and where there were a number of complaints against the same person, they would get involved. Mrs Shingleton said that GCCF had a disciplinary procedure, but apart from that they also had fixed penalties which worked very well. Only if they received a prima fascia case would it go to the next level, which is the Disciplinary Committee and if upheld, would finally go to the board. Mrs Gemmell said that generally member bodies did not get involved and in some cases would advise people to go to their local tribunal. The President observed that NZCF was dealing directly with individual breeders, which is not the case in FIFe as such matters were dealt with by the National member. FIFe would deal with complaints against Judges. Also against show organisers provided they were submitted by either a national member and within two months of the event. He advised the Members to be very careful in cases of a dispute between a buyer and a seller of a cat as the organization has no right to interfere and the parties involved would have to resolve it through the Courts. Mr van Rooyen said that if they received a complaint, it had first to be established that the complainant had unsuccessfully tried to resolve it with the other party without success. They would then contact the other party. Based on the information obtained, they would either advise a small claims court or would take the matter further themselves by appointing a Disciplinary Committee to investigate the matter. Robbie Walker spoke for a member body of ACF and said that it did have a Disciplinary process in place but it only dealt with breaches of its own rules, which if that were the case, they would look into the matter. Mrs U’Ren said that in the case of CCCA their member bodies had their own rules and procedures that their members must follow. She added that in the State of Victoria it was mandatory to keep a complaints register that had to be submitted to the Victorian Government if required. Where a matter could not be resolved internally, they advised those concerned to go to the Consumer Protection Board.

Mrs Lowe then referred to their third item, which had concerned out-sourcing of registrations. She said that whilst they had a good programme, they were rapidly running out of space and might be looking to out-source, NZCF had wondered if any other body did this.

Regarding their fourth item on Zoo stock, Mrs Lowe believed the cats were from Australia and had discussed the matter with Robbie Walker, who was the ACF Registrar, and had been able to resolve the matter. The situation concerning various symbols on international pedigrees was discussed and some points clarified.

Concerning the fourth item from NZCF, which was Social Media issues, Mrs Lowe said that they had problems with members forwarding information on winning cats to judges who would be officiating at forthcoming shows. Whilst acknowledging that it was not possible to control this, NZCF wondered what the other bodies’ views were on this matter. Ms Anger said that they tried to discourage it, particularly announcing their wins from the first day of a two-day show. She went on to say that if an exhibitor sent her a photo of a cat which had won the previous weekend and which she would be judging the next weekend, she would write back and say looking forward to seeing you next weekend and be sure to mark your cats absent. She said the exhibitor concerned then did do this. To her it was an educational matter. Mr van Rooyen spoke about criticism of something the organization had supposedly done, being put on social media. He wondered how to act in such a situation. Mrs U’Ren said that some of the CCCA member clubs had added to their By-Laws what could or could not be put on social media and the members were obliged to observe these restrictions. She observed that it had made a big difference to what people posted on social media. Ms Anger said the people needed to be very careful of what they posted as if it were later found to be incorrect, it could be bad for the person who posted it. The President speaking about the same problem in FiFe said that he thought the CFA Code of Ethics was extremely good, especially with regard to judges. SVERAK had rules regarding the behavior of exhibitors, which allowed it to take action if it was infringed. as did other FIFe Members. Mrs Shingleton said that GCCF also had a Code of Conduct for both judges and exhibitors. Speaking as a judge, Mr Reijers referred to the anonymity of cats at a show and that when a cat’s name, titles and a photograph were published previously on Facebook, it became a matter of trusting the judges to ignore that information and take the best cat in the ring in the day. He added that judges did recognise a really beautiful cat that they had seen before so complete anonymity was impossible.

d) 2021 anniversary of First Crystal Palace Cat Show

The President gave the floor to Mrs Shingleton, who reported that plans were already being discussed and money was being put aside for 2021. It would be held in conjunction with their Supreme Show but the date had not yet been set. As yet there were no details of the programme but they would keep WCC informed as they went along. The Chairman, Steve Crow was forming a small group to work on this project, although she pointed out that by 2021 they would have a different Chairman. She had spoken to the lady from the CFA Museum, who had been very positive. Also John Smithson from New Zealand had a lot to contribute on history etc. Ms Anger said that Karen Lawrence from the CFA Foundation had asked her to say they would be happy to help in any way they could. The Supreme was usually held in October but it was not yet decided. The Secretary asked if there would be a large area available at the National Exhibition Centre (NEC) that was in Birmingham. She was thinking of the participation of the CFA Museum and John Smithson and the possibility of making a large exhibition; she also suggested including cat art. The President commented that Birmingham and the NEC was a beautiful venue with good plane connections world-wide. It would also be nice to have ‘cat’ music. There was still some time before this event but input would be appreciated.


Mrs U’Ren said it was purely a matter for discussion and she would like to hear the views, particularly of judges, as it was a matter of concern to some of the Australian judges. It concerned the head type and ear set on Siamese and Orientals in various parts of the world. CCCA had in its standard “an equilateral triangle,” this had been brought in to avoid having a very narrow head. What they were now seeing on a number of imported cats, particularly from Europe, cats with large ears extending outside the wedge. They were particularly concerned about some of these cats as kittens with huge ears and heads bent over. They were also finding spinal problems with some of those cats; it was not possible to stretch them out. She felt it was a welfare issue, which is why it was causing such concern. They were bringing this up within their own member clubs and would like to know how other judges thought about it.

The President replied that there had been a similar discussion the previous year in Bangkok. He had brought to FIFe the concerns from all WCC member over where the Siamese breed was going and they were beginning to see more balanced cats at the shows, He added that the problem had started with the judges who had put up these cats because of their large ears. Whilst the breed should have large ears, they should stand and not hang. With regard to the spinal problems, he had seen just as much in classic Siamese. What really concerned him was that when you lifted these cats with extreme ears, they grabbed to keep on their feet. He thought the balance in the Eustachian tubes was interrupted, although he could not prove that. He found also the eyes that went with those ears also had a different set and they no longer had the correct expression, he said the only thing to be done, and he did it all the time, was to question the judges as to why they had nominated such a cat when the standard says the ears should continue the lines of the wedge.

He added that there were these big breeds, which were considered to be extremely healthy, these so-called natural breeds – he pointed out in passing that it was people, not the cats who arranged matings etc., so not really a natural breed at all – but some of them had a life span of five or six years, which was not normal; the same situation existed with the large dog breeds. With the Siamese, he believed that the problem lay in the fact that thousands of cats had resulted from the same very small number of original cats.

Mrs U’Ren asked for the views of others around the table. Ms Anger said she penalized ears that were not within the wedge shape. Ms Chisholm agreed, referring to ‘aeroplane’ ears. If the eyes were also wrong, she would disqualify. The President spoke of some eyes where it was impossible to see the colour as they were just slits and in FIFe there were 15 points for colour. Mrs Gemmell said that in ACF the head was described as an “equilateral triangle and anything not falling within that triangle would be penalized. The President said unfortunately the FIFe standard did not have the term ‘triangle’ in it. He said that many of the breeders did not like these ears themselves, but they bred them because the judges put them up. He did not think the standard needed changing but rather the judges. Mrs Gemmell thought that sometimes the wording was not clear enough in the standards.

The meeting adjourned for the afternoon break as Mrs Lowe had to leave early and the group photograph needed to be taken. It re-convened at 3.15 p.m.

11 Matters Arising at Open Meeting

One of the items brought up had been about cats not allowed to be shown. The President said it was a serious development. Whilst the system of law in the United States was different and this subject had not yet arisen, in Europe it was a different matter. In Belgium it was no longer possible to show Bengals, as the authorities did not consider them to be a domestic animal but rather a wild cat. Recently in Israel a situation had arisen, which was not quite as bad as had been originally believed but nevertheless needed addressing. He wanted to appeal to TICA asking about the situation it had in place, whereby no Bengal could be shown if it had F1 within five generations. Ms Chisholm concurred. The President said FiFe also had rules, but not every organization was serious about this point and a breeder importing from an independent organization could get a Bengal with an Asian Leopard cat in the third or fourth generation and such cats were considered to be wild. There werealsosomeStatesinAmericawiththesameproblem.AlloverEuropea hearing certificate was required for a white cat. Some breeds were affected; the Bambino that was recognized only for registration by TICA was generally banned. Ms Chisholm said they would not be going anywhere with TICA either but by allowing registration, they could keep an eye on them. Speaking of the Toybob, currently in the early stages with WCF, Ms Chisholm said it was quite confusing. Apparently the tail-less gene in this breed was the Manx gene, Ms Chisholm said they had both genes. The President said that he personally did not have a problem with the Manx gene as the worst effects happened within the uterus and did not see the light of day, but he was concerned about the apparent size of the Toybob, whereby an adult cat would look like a kitten. Ms Chisholm said that was not the case. It was, however, a cause for concern with Bengals as there was so many of them. Many countries demanded a clean pedigree before allowing them.

Another point was the young breeders and how to encourage them. This point had been discussed fully on other occasions.

A lady in the audience at the Open Meeting had said that many people were now going to rescue centres for a pet rather than buying a purebred cat. There was a lot of anti-breeder advertising and Ms Anger thought that whilst there may be a problem of over-population in some areas, the critics were able to attack because the cat fancy provided a very open face for them to do so. The President said that in his country there was a very different problem as there were hardly any domestic cats left. Programmes to catch and neuter cats and then return them to their normal habitat had caused this situation.

The Secretary observed the need for promoting pedigree cats and the President said this was something for which the meeting should be grateful to Royal Canin who put pictures of the breeds on their food, which meant people actually saw the breeds. As people did not take their cats for a walk as they did their dogs, the public was not aware of the different pedigree cats.

Rescued cats were catered for at most shows, often free cages were provided, so help was given to them by the fancy also.

The President told the meeting about a situation at dog shows in Holland where the Government was suggesting that every judge should have a veterinarian with him to approve his decisions. They felt they had been asking the dog fancy to do something about the health concerns in certain breeds and as nothing had been done, they would interfere with signs of unhealthy conditions in dogs. If this were to come about, it would have a huge impact. This why the fancy should try and keep matters under control itself.

12 WCC Meetings 2018 and 2019

The President said that Mr Sagurski, who had been the FIFe delegate in Bangkok, had said it could be in Germany. Recently it had been found that this would not be possible. They had discussed it and had come up with two possibilities. Ms Sjødin said these were either Italy in April or Sweden in April. They would be negotiating to see which would be the best. Hopefully it would be Italy. The President added that if it were to be Sweden, it would be a World Cat Congress without a show since it was not possible to combine a show in that month. If it were Italy, it would be in a town near Ravenna. He would contact them as soon as possible.

Mr van Rooyen told the meeting he had just heard from Royal Canin in South Africa, that they were willing to sponsor them in 2019 so he planned to have it in Capetown. They would like to do it in conjunction with their Cat of the Year, which is in July or August; it would be either the first weekend in July or the last one or could go to the first weekend of August. They could use all the all-breed judges. Unfortunately, it was a little cold at that time of year.

13 Any Other Business

The President suggested they look at the document ‘Decisions Taken over the Years’ that the Secretary had prepared. Matters such as terminology and harmonizing the names of breeds had been discussed several times. The point about when accepting a new breed the organization of origin should be respected, which was in fact generally being done. The point that there was a need to educate breeders was still relevant.

Regarding Press Releases and the problem of how to circulate them was mentioned; the Secretary said that Reuters and similar press agencies, as well as some cat magazines could be approached.

Anther point was that Member’s affiliates should not be allowed to use a Member’s name in that of their club. There was in fact one club in Australia; The Cat Fanciers Association of New South Wales. A table of disqualifiers in all Organisations had been done and had been on the WCC web site for many years. The Secretary pointed out that it was up to the Member concerned to inform her if anything needed updating. Cats registered by any of the WCC Members should be accepted in any cat show in the world.

The Secretary explained that the “Breed Comparison” table on the web site had been abandoned in the last two years because of the work on the Royal Canin Encyclopaedia, which had been a priority, She would like to complete it as it was something that people looked at. There were not many breeds missing and she would be contacting the Members for any missing breeds.

The fact that it was possible for individuals to produce a registration that appeared to be that of CFA or TICA for example, meant that Registrars had to be careful to only accept registrations, which had really come from those bodies.

The Secretary enquired whether it would be a good idea to have an information pamphlet about WCC. Mrs Schuller said it could be helpful so that the clubs had something to publish in their own Newsletters. The Secretary had meant a more general information leaflet about WCC. It would be handed out at WCC Annual meeting weekends. Speaking further about possible distribution of such a leaflet, Mr Hannon suggested it could be made available for download on the WCC web site, which was thought to be a good idea. Ms Malineau said that if help was needed in lay-out, Royal Canin could assist. This offer was gratefully accepted.

The Secretary referred to the meeting of 2009 when the future and the aims of the WCC had been discussed and the Members had been invited to present their views. Mrs Vickie Fisher, the TICA President at that time had submitted a paper, which had been annexed to the Minutes of that year. The President read it out. Some of the points raised for the future role of WCC were to be included in the new web site. This involved being a sort of ‘clearing house’ for information – not necessarily having the information on the WCC site but providing links to where it could be found.

Ms Sjødin was not sure; she felt people should go to their own organisations for information.

The Secretary reminded the members that the News page on the WCC site was dependent upon information from the members and this was not happening, except from one of the Australian members. She found this a little sad. The President pointed out that each Member had its own channel to fill, including their own web sites and magazines, he thought in some cases where there were few people actually working in the organization, it was not a priority and was just too much to expect.

Ms Anger asked if the News matters should be sent to Mrs Lowe, which was confirmed. She had sent something a couple of years previously, and it had not been published. The Secretary promised to look into it and the President pointed out that if no response came to an e-mail, it should be re-sent as cyber space is not always reliable. The President commented that the new CFA web site was a great improvement and very easy to navigate and find things.

Mr van de Haterd asked if it would be possible in the future to have some sort of microphone system as it had been so difficult to hear people speaking in the current meeting.

14 The President thanked Royal Canin for their support and in particular for the excellent food they had provided during the meetings. He also thanked CFA once more for their hospitality, to which the delegates added their applause.

He then officially closed the meeting at 3.50 pm.

Mr Eric Reijers (President of WCC and in the Chair)
Mrs. Cheryle U’Ren (Vice-President and delegate of CCCA)
Mrs. Sandi Gemmell (Delegate of ACF)
Ms. Rachel Anger (Delegate of CFA)
Ms Annette Sjødin (Delegate of FIFe)
Mrs. Betty Shingleton (Delegate of GCCF) Mrs. Chris Lowe (Delegate of NZCF)
Mr Jan van Rooyen (Delegate of SACC)
Ms. Alex Chisholm (Delegate of TICA)
Mrs. Anneliese Hackmann (Delegate of WCF)