To reset your password, enter your e-mail in the space provided and click on "submit"
If you register and have not been authorized to do so by a WCC Member, your request will be rejected.
Minutes of the Business Meeting 29th July, 2019
Cape Town, South Africa
Mr Eric Reijers (President of WCC and in the Chair)
Mrs Cheryle U’Ren (Vice-President of WCC and delegate of CCCA)
Mrs Penny Bydlinski (Secretary & Treasurer of WCC)
Mrs Sandi Gemmel (Delegate of ACF) and Mr Robbie Walker (Adviser to ACF)
Ms Rachel Anger (Delegate of CFA) and Ms Kathy Calhoun (Adviser to CFA)
Ms Annette Sjødin (Delegate of FIFe) and Mr Leopold van de Haterd (Adviser to FIFe)
Mr John Hansson (Delegate of GCCF) and Mrs Betty Shingleton (Adviser to GCCF)
Mrs Chris Lowe (Delegate of NZCF)
Mrs Ngaio Crawley (Delegate of SACC) and Mr Jan van Rooyen (Adviser to SACC)
Mrs Vickie Fisher (Delegate of TICA)
Mrs Anneliese Hackmann (Delegate of WCF) and Dr Johan Lamprecht (Adviser to WCF)
Ms Laureline Malineau (Royal Canin).
The President welcomed all those present, with special mention of Laureline Malineau who represented our sponsor, Royal Canin. He commented on what a pleasure it was to be back in South Africa. The last time SACC had hosted the meeting had been in 2011 when the venue had been Johannesburg.
Before continuing with the meeting, the President wanted to remember and honour two people who had died in the latter half of the previous year. These were John Blythe, from ACF who had been a President of WCC and had been instrumental in the creation of a Constitution for WCC as well as arranging the co-operation between Royal Canin and WCC, a relationship that continues to the present time and is of great pride and value to the WCC. The second person was Mrs Georgia Morgan, a long time President of TICA who had attended the early meetings of the WCC and had contributed to its early development in a positive manner. He asked those present to stand and observe a minute’s silence in remembrance of these two people.
Following the silence GCCF informed the meeting that Mrs Brenda Wolstenholme had also died in the previous year. Mrs Wolstenholme had attended the first meeting of the WCC in Venice as a representative of the GCCF.
2. Attendance of the Delegates
The Secretary took the roll call of the delegates present as listed above.
3. Approval of Agenda
The President asked for a small change to be made to insert Royal Canin as point 10. As Ms Malineau was present and could address the meeting. This was agreed.
CFA asked for permission to record the proceedings and this was readily granted.
4. Establishment of Breaks
These were established as: Morning coffee break from 11 – 11.30 am Lunch break from 1 – 2 pm Afternoon tea break from 3 – 3.30 pm
5. Approval of the Minutes of the meeting in 2018
ACF moved to accept the Minutes, seconded by CFA and they were approved unanimously. The document was then circulated for signatures.
6. Matters Arising from the Minutes of the Meeting in 2018
The Secretary said that there had been some misunderstanding over the Judge’s travel compensation and he Judge’s fee and the Executive had brought a proposal to clarify that.
There were no further matters arising.
Election of a President for a period of two years.
The Vice-President took the chair and asked for nominations for this position. CFA nominated Eric Reijers and this was seconded by FIFe. Eric agreed to accept the nomination and a paper vote was taken with a unanimous vote in favour. Eric thanked the delegates.
8.1 Proposals from the Executive (attached to these Minutes as ).
CC Business Meeting, 29th July, 2019 Proposasl from the Executive Board
It is proposed that the following amendments/additions be made to the Constitution (addition in bold italics):
No. 1 Article 5.4
Admission to membership of the WCC shall be determined by a vote of a simplequalified majority of the member organisations.
A 75% majority is required for any disciplinary action to be taken and it would seem logical to have the same majority required for admitting new members since this is also a major matter for the Congress.
No. 2 New Article 7.8
Voting: A simple majority shall be 50% of the Members plus one and used for all decisions unless otherwise stated. Where a quaified majority is required, this shall be 75% of the Members.
Clarification of terms with regard to voting.
No. 3 Article 8.5
All WCC delegates shall have the same travel costs to attend the meeting.
For those delegates who receive travel compensation for possible Judging engagements in connection with the WCC or the weekends immediately preceding or after such meetings, this compensation will be deducted from the amount they may receive from WCC as travel compensation. If the host organisation chooses to pay a Judging fee, such fee shall be deemed to belong to the judge in question and has nothing to do with the travel compensation. In principle no travel compensation will be given if the meeting takes place on the continent of residence of the WCC delegate concerned, but the distance involved from the delegates residence to the meeting venue will be taken into account.
To provide clarification between travel compensation paid by the host member to an officiating judge as opposed to a judges fee , which may be applicable in some organisations.
No. 4 Article 7.4
All motions to be passed by a simple majority of the member organisations. All amendments to the Constitution shall be passed by a 75%qualified majority of the member organisations.
No. 4 Article 10.1
Should any member organisation contravene the substance or intent of this constitution and/or the WCC By-laws, its membership of the WCC may be:
a) suspended for a specified period, or b) expelled
by a 75%qualified majority vote of the members to that effect, the member organisation in dispute having no voting rights in the decision.
No. 5 – Article 11. Dissolution
In the event of the dissolution or winding up of the WCC by agreement of 75%in a qualified majority vote of the member organisations, following payment of all outstanding debts, any funds remaining in the account will be distributed in equal parts to the financial member organisations.
To ensure consistency of terminology within the Constitution.
No. 1 concerning Article 5.4 and changing the amount of votes required from a simple to a qualified majority. This was explained by the Secretary as bringing it into line with the agreement that had been made that all membership matters should require a qualified majority. CFA asked if an abstention counted as a ‘no’ vote but was told that it didn’t.
FIFe pointed out that TICA had raised a point the previous year about whether this was meant to be “members present” or the total membership. The President felt that was not relevant as under the Constitution, there was no possibility of giving a proxy. TICA then explained that the issue was the number of votes needed to accept the proposal. If it was the number of Members or whether it was the number of delegates in attendance as that could vary.
This led to a long discussion with suggestions as to whether to amend the proposal to “Members present” or to include a sentence to the effect that “all Members to be consulted.” There were pro’s and con’s to both suggestions. ACF suggested accepting the proposal as it stood and, if it was felt necessary, coming with an amendment the following year. GCCF felt it should be settled at the current meeting when everybody was present. The President had a problem with the fact that the ‘qualified majority’ concerning expulsion of a member had been in the Constitution for a long time and that point had never before been raised. It was also felt that the likelihood of such a situation arising was rather remote and could be dealt with, in the event of it arising. The President wanted it clear that considering the compensation for travel, which the Constitution sets out, it was made easier for the delegates to attend, he did not find it logical that a member should expect to vote if they did not come to the meeting. The discussions having not reached any solution, it was decided to postpone the first two proposals until after the break when the delegates would have time to think further about it.
3. Concerning the re-wording of Article 8.5. The Secretary explained that this was brought as a consequence of the misunderstandings concerning the judge’s travel allowance, which had been expressed at the previous meeting. It would clarify the difference between the judge’s travel allowance and a judge’s fee. The President pointed out that only four of the Members had a ‘judge’s fee’ and they were CFA, FIFe, TICA and WCF.
ACF moved to accept and FIFe seconded the motion, which was accepted unanimously.
As the next two proposals concerned the qualified and simple majority, they were also postponed until after the break.
8.2 Proposals from WCF (attached to these Minutes as ).
WCF explained that as web sites were not always up to date, it was felt it was a courtesy to the Members to inform them through the WCC Secretary if any new breeds were accepted. It was not necessary to have this is any formal rules so they would like them added to the document “Decisions taken at WCC meetings since 1995.” It would also mean that if another Member were also working on the same breed, they could communicate with each other. The charcoal Bengal was cited as an example. The President queried whether they meant not only new breeds but also new varieties of an existing breed as not all Members recognised all the varieties. WCF said that was why the final wording was left open to the meeting to decide. The term ‘variety’ would normally cover all colours and patterns.
After discussion on the wording of No. 1 it was re-worded as follows:
“All WCC Members should advise each other, via the WCC Secretary, when new breeds or varieties are accepted or recognised for registration, experimental, preliminary, championship or other status.”
There was then further discussion regarding different factors. In FIFe there were breeders working on developing new varieties or breeds and registering those cats. However, for such a new breed or variety to be accepted as ‘experimental’ the rules stated there must be a breed Council, which needed a certain amount of breeders to allow it to be set up. Only with a Breed Council, would they be accepted by FIFe on an experimental basis.
The President also drew attention to the situation in some countries where there was extreme pressure from Governments in Europe on all sorts of breeds. They were talking about forbidding all brachycephalic breeds and we are talking about British, Ragdoll, Persian, Burmese, Selkirk, Devon Rex in which they were saying two thirds of the head should be head and one-third nose. They were also talking about forbidding all naked cats, cats that don’t have whiskers etc. Recently in Holland they visited a breeder who was not registered, whereas to be a breeder in Holland one has to be registered and have a permit. She was selling something like naked Munchkins with folded ears. Although they hadn’t confiscated the kittens, she was told she was not allowed to sell them nor was she allowed to breed. These rules also extended to dogs.
FIFe has told its breeders to go to their national governments and show them the FIFe rules because those rules list the things which are not allowed in FIFe and that are the same things that the Governments do not want. If the cat fancies show they are regulating themselves, the Government would be more inclined to leave them alone. There were a lot of challenges to be met in the future.
The Secretary then referred to the proposal remarking that if something goes in to the By-Laws, they are not enforceable as they are matters over which WCC has no authority. They are put there as things that are advisable only. She therefore thought that the word “should” was acceptable. The President agreed, as there were other things in that document which could not be, or had not been, complied with.
Referring to the words “or other status” in its proposal, WCF said it would be nice to know if one of the other bodies were monitoring or knew something about the breed or variety concerned. If the Members were unable to pass on information, that was acceptable, it was really only to be aware of what was going on elsewhere with other Members so that it could inform its own deliberations.
The NZCF delegate had written instructions from her Executive and she read them out to the meeting as follows:
The NZ Cat Fancy (NZCF) does not support the three point proposals from the WCF. With regard to No. 1, While NZCF supports the idea in principle, this wording is too prescriptive.
They then set out their full process for the acceptance of a new breed. This involved getting full information on the background of the breed and if accepted by the Breed Standards Advisory Council, it would be assigned a code and a standard. This then had to be approved by the Executive Committee and if successful the breed would then be granted Preliminary status but at this point the breed name and breed number may change before approval for full recognition may be granted.
Whilst they saw that there were advantages in sharing information (such as preventing duplication of experimental breeding programmes and prevention of a programme entering into health problems that may already be known in another country) they felt that a more readily and manageable way must be possible to achieve the principle this remit sets out to achieve. The NZCF felt it needed more time to work out a worthwhile process. They also wondered what the purpose of garnering this information was. They had suggested a few potential advantages but the remit comes with no purpose or intent to which the information may be put. They would not, for example, like to see the work of their BSAC simply duplicated by WCC (or vice versa).
Re Point 2:
New Zealand was adopting EMS codes where it could, but to be required to use a new breed code proposed by another country may not be practical. If all country's codes were identical this would likely work, and they would support the proposal in that case.
Re Point 3:
Again, there was no rationale as to the purpose of this. It simply was presented as 'an order on member clubs to supply'. Was the WCC keen to establish a library of all member organisation/country's breed standards? If so, to what purpose/purposes will they be put? Until they were presented with a rationale that convinced them of the benefits of this, they could not support this proposal.
The President then referred to the WCC web site where there was a breed comparison based on information that all Members had sent in. There were some problems with this but that could be addressed separately. There was a statement on the FIFe web site regarding not recognising breeds resulting from genetic anomalies, or words to that effect, the same statement was also on the WCC web site.
TICA proposed an amended wording as follows: “All WCC Members should, as a matter of courtesy, advise each other through the WCC Secretary, when new breeds or varieties are accepted or recognised in some official capacity by its organisation.”
CFA would like it clear that the term ‘variety’ included colour and patterns.
WCF agreed to take the two points separately and point 1. Was then voted on and was accepted with 7 in favour to 1 against and 1 abstention.
Moving to Point 2. of the proposal. In discussion it was pointed out by SACC that a Member could not necessarily agree to a code proposed by the original Member as it might not fit in with its own coding system. Therefore, it was not possible to vote on this part. WCF felt that the first organisation to recognise the breed or variety should have the courtesy of giving it a code. This could introduce difficulties in registration within different Members, which did not have similar types of code. WCF suggested to amend the proposal with the words ”should be afforded the opportunity…..” This would only apply to those Members using the EMS code and would not be an obligation.
The President asked if every WCC Member used codes of three letters. It was confirmed that was not the case and even WCF members had the choice of whether to use the EMS code or not.
TICA could not see a need for the second part as assuming the first part was adhered to, all Members would have a breed standard etc. and the code would appear with that.
The FIFe delegate clarified that the EMS code had originated with FIFe and it is used with a principle. However, that principle is not followed by, for instance, WCF so FIFe is absolutely against the proposal from WCF. Other bodies such as GCCF use the EMS code but observe the principle and there is no problem. FIFe has never been approached by WCF to co-operate on the use of the EMS code. The President added that the decision regarding a breed code was taken by the General Assembly and that was probably the case for all Members. The Lykoi had been assigned a breed code for registration purposes and the reason the code was not LYK was because that meant ‘corpse’ in some languages, so it had been changed to LKO. GCCF had a different coding but that was the decision of each Member.
ACF agreed with TICA that item 2 was not necessary. GCCF also thought it to be surplus to requirements.
Point 2 was put to the vote and was rejected with 8 votes against and 1 abstention.
No 3. ACF thought that the WCC Secretary did get all the information anyway in order to put on the Breed Comparison pages but the standards did not appear on the WCC site, although people could go to the individual web sites to get them. The President asked what the purpose of this proposal was and WCF replied to have a central information bank available to all members.
It was established that every Member had their breed standards and rules on their own web sites. CFA felt that as the first proposal had been amended before passing and the second proposal had failed, no action needed to be taken on the third proposal.
The Secretary said that we should speak later on about the new items on the WCC web site but within the new “Members” section, which the Members had asked to have, there is a facility in which documents could be shared between members as well as e-mails and it could be useful to have the standards available within that section rather than having to go to various web sites. The President pointed out the risk that the standards had not been updated. FIFe instructed its members to go to its web site so links would be more reliable.
WCF then withdrew the proposal.
The meeting adjourned for the coffee break at 10.55 and would re-convene at 11.30 when the postponed Executive proposals would be on the Agenda.
Postponed Executive Proposals
As there were no remarks from the delegates, the Secretary referred to ACF’s suggestion that the proposals could be accepted as they stood and if a Member wanted to bring an amendment at the next meeting, it could do so. She added that she thought the likelihood of four members being unable to attend a meeting was extremely slight and even in that event, it would have been known some days in advance and some alternative arrangements could be put in place. That would be up to the Members.
FIFe and ACF supported the suggestion and Proposals 1 was put to the vote and accepted by 7 in favour to 2 against.
Proposal 2. SACC pointed out a typo that the Secretary would correct. The same principle applied as to Proposal 1. Proposal 2 was put to the vote and accepted unanimously.
Proposal 4. The Secretary said it was the same situation as the previous and was purely semantics. Proposal 4 was put to the vote and accepted unanimously.
Proposal 5 was again only a matter of semantics and was put to the vote and accepted unanimously.
Those in attendance were then asked to leave to that the meeting could go into Executive Session.
The Business meeting re-convened at 12.40 and those in attendance returned to the meeting.
9. Matters for Discussion
NZCF had submitted items for discussion, (attached to these Minutes as )
The NZCF delegate introduced the items and explained about NZCF’s existing requirements to accept a new breed, which were partly taken from GCCF and partly from other organisations. More recently they had to deal with acceptance of imported breeds that had been developed by other organisations and some of their requirements, which were for new breeds developed in their own country under their own system for recognition, no longer seemed appropriate. The judges were also able to familiarise themselves with such new breeds because of the extensive information readily available on the web sites. NZCF was asking how other organisations dealt with this as a guide for their own deliberations with the re-writing of their rules for recognition of a new breed.
In SACC it was easier to get a breed recognised when it was already recognised by two or three other WCC members. ACF were also having a struggle with its requirements for acceptance. Where a breed is developed in Australia their requirements have to be met but breeds imported into Australia are also having to go through very similar rules as the home-bred cats. As a result, they were currently reviewing their requirements.
The President whilst saying it was up to every organisation to decide for itself, he explained that FIFe had introduced stricter rules some eight years previously. FIFe needed to see viability of a breed or variety and as it was an international organisation, it had to see viability on at least five member countries, that was to say that a certain number of those cats were being registered in order to establish whether the gene pool was sufficient. That took a certain time period during which they can write a standard, communicate with the Breed and Registration Commission to get registration and to get the Health & Welfare Commission to investigate whether there are issues with the breed. After that they could get Preliminary Recognition in which time they can get pedigrees and registration and attend shows up to a certain level. After two years Preliminary recognition, they can be fully recognised. In some cases this could be questioned and he cited the case of the Singapura, which had gone through the same process and been given Preliminary recognition but it was not possible to make exceptions because some breeds were completely unknown and FIFe wanted to know that there was a sound basis for the breed.
The CFA delegate said that her Adviser, Cathy Calhoun had been through this process as she bred Lykois. CFA had a similar system and when a breed was recognised by more other organisations, such as the Sphynx, which went first into Miscellaneous classes and then Provisional. Heath problems were then discovered and the breeders had to sort that out before coming back and getting full recognition. It depended on the breed, if it was one of the so-called ‘designer breeds’, they would have to go through the whole programme which required certain numbers and other things and was pretty strict.
The President observed that he had noticed that the Sphynx in the US had whiskers and he was happy to see that. The Governments wanted to see that and were hard against cats without whiskers.
The GCCF delegate acknowledged that each organisation had its own rules. The GCCF’s first requirement was its viability. There was a lot of interest in new breeds simply because they were new. Another difficulty was that some organisations gave a breed a name because of its colours as GCCF itself had called a chocolate Oriental, a Havana. There were several examples of such things. The President agreed and said FIFe had also done that originally, he cited the Turkish Angora, which in Turkey was a housecat. Turkish Van was another matter as the Turkish Army were supposed to shoot those cats with marks on their head. He also mentioned Cornish, enquiring if there were actually Cornish cats.
The NZCF delegate circulated a copy of the report and photographs of the Temple Cat which has preliminary acceptance by NZCF but, she said that the meeting should also be aware that the name Temple Cat could be changed as there is some objection to that name and they may end up being called Shorthaired Birmans. She was asked about the breeding background of those Temple Cats and explained that an Oriental had been used to introduce cinnamon to the Birmans, which is a colour not currently recognised by NZCF. Those cats have full registration and championship status with Catz Inc, (WCF affiliated).
The meeting then adjourned for lunch and would re-convene at 2 pm.
The re-convened meeting continued with NZCF’s second point for discussion.
The NZCF delegate explained that NZCF had a lot of problems with social media, some of which had ended in complaints. Threats and abuse on Facebook and at shows had been reported but until these became a matter of someone’s health or safety, there were no consequences. They had a draft social media Code of Conduct that had not yet been seen by the members. A copy of the draft Code of Conduct could be circulated to the delegates; she thought it contained some good ideas. They had brought it to the WCC to discuss what other Members were doing in this respect.
SACC had similar problems that they were about to address. It seemed that members just went on to social media to bad mouth other members. The other problem was that of putting up photos of their cats both before and after the shows. Whilst in some cases that might be quite innocent, there were some people doing it for other reason as well. The delegate would welcome some ways of stopping this going on.
The GCCF delegate recognised this as a valid point for which he did not have a solution. They had stopped photographing at shows without the consent of the owner and the show manager but that was irrelevant since everyone had access to a camera on their phone so it was impossible to monitor.
The President said that Sweden had guidelines on social media and the FIFe delegate could tell the Members about them. He added that it was not only breeders and exhibitors writing on Facebook, Judges also did it and if they went too far, steps could be taken but again it was very difficult as there was a right to free speech, although not a right to lie about someone. Within FIFe It would normally be left to the national member to deal with.
There was a lot of discussion in which all Members recognised the problem and the effect it had on the cat fancy in terms of both exhibitors and judges alike. It was expected that people would follow a general rule of good conduct but this was not always the case and there was no easy answer to the problem.
The NZCF delegate would appreciate it if other Members who had a policy on this subject would share these with them.
10. Royal Canin
Ms Malineau spoke of the concerns she had raised the previous year in regard to issues over the breeding of some specific breeds etc. She was very glad to be at the WCC meeting to explain more as these issues were becoming a great concern. Animal welfare is an ever-increasing theme and that was putting pressure on many areas involved with animals. In some countries certain breeds were forbidden on the grounds of welfare and such rules impacted on other countries. As an example she quoted the fact that there would be no more dog shows in Amsterdam as they had been forbidden by the authorities. The media was used to show animals suffering from a condition that had come about from irresponsible breeding and/or neglect and that was very emotive to the general public. It also meant that all breeders were suffering from such reactions as the public was not aware of the fact that there were many knowledgeable and very responsible breeders who worked for the good of the animals.
Breeders as a whole did not enjoy any respect because people were unaware of what was involved. She cited an example of the job of a chef, who some years ago would have been regarded as a menial worker without any specialised knowledge or training. In recent years that image had changed with the rise of interest in cuisine and the resultant publicity given to chefs who exhibited a vast knowledge and skill in their area of expertise. The perception of breeders needed to be changed and acknowledgement given to their expertise, learning and hard work.
She stressed the need to be proactive and explained that RC was developing a programme, which was firstly focussed on dog breeding but applied also to cat breeding. This programme was designed to help ensure that breeder grow in a sustainable and responsible way through efficient and relevant tools and services, in order to reach together the common mission that was the health and well-being of cats and dogs. The objectives being to raise the bar in breeding and improve the image of the breeding profession,
The benefits from this programme would be the well-being and health of the pet and the breeders would be better equipped and breeding well regarded as well as to encourage responsible pet owners. Breeders not willing to focus on pet’s welfare would have no place in the market.
Ms Malineau then outlined the programme; it was based on three areas: i) Skills and knowledge, ii) Facility that meant management generally. and iii) Responsibility,
There was a full programme on all three areas; in the first area there were regularly organised seminars, conventions and webinars with experts lecturing as well as practical guides. In area ii) support was provided with adapted diets and self-diagnosis facilities in respect of environment and the business side of breeding. In the third area for promoting responsible pet ownership a puppy/kitten kit was provided as well as an easy diagram to improve even further relationship between pet and owner. There was also a brochure explaining all the responsibilities and duties of an owner and brochure on responsible pet ownership and how best to welcome a new pet into the home.
With the dog modules it was planned to contact the kennel clubs in order to reach a wider audience than just their own database. Where there was no education programme in a country, the kennel club would set one up and a similar situation would apply for cats so that the programme could each a wide audience. She further intimated that one the first module was set up for cats, the WCC members and Royal Canin could work together.
She then moved on to the Cat Breed Project. They had asked a large number of cat owners, 54 breeders and 5 vets and some all-breed judges. The idea was to have the information available at ‘one click.’
From the data collected they were able to identify a variation in characteristics. She showed a slide giving the results; on digestive sensitivity Burmese, Maine Coons and Birmans had occasional episodes of a single complaint. Bengals and Ragdolls had repeated episodes of a single complaint; Sphynx, Norwegian Forest Cats and Persians had repeated episodes of one to two complaints and Siamese showed severe digestive disorders varying across more than two different disorders.
With regard to eating patterns the very active breeds such as Bengals and Sphynx needed high-energy food with most other breeds varying from high-energy needs to low needs according to the activeness of the breed. They had also looked at coat density and behaviour in terms of friendliness. All these different aspects were important to be known and understood.
The TICA delegate thought it was a very ambitious programme but was impressed with it an Ms Malineau said that she had also wondered at the beginning but it was starting to go very well. The TICA delegate then asked how it was to be made available and Ms Malineau explained that the cat module would be available in 2020 and Royal Canin would be making a big campaign to promote responsible breeding.
When asked about the different countries’ governments, Ms Malineau said that it varied from country to country as some countries had rules in place, which applied to all breeders and in some cases even boarding cattery owners.
Ms Malineau said that Royal Canin was passionate about dogs and cats and their well-being and were very aware of the dangers of people who bred outside the accepted associations. They needed to make the general public aware of responsible breeders and what was involved.
The President thanked Ms Malineau and said he thought it was a very interesting programme.
The meeting then broke for the tea break.
The meeting re-convened after the tea break and the Secretary gave some information about the Members section on the WCC web site, which would be up and running in the next weeks. Unfortunately, she did not have the right adaptor to project the site on the screen but would be happy to show it to anyone who would like to look at it on her computer. She explained that Members would be able to go in and register with their own password. It had facilities for private messages, group messages and for sharing files, Invoices can also be sent out through this medium and Members can make their payments.
The Secretary will be providing access codes and there can be more than one recipient to each member, that is up to the Member.
The updating of the Breed Comparisons would also be made as soon as possible. A lot of further information was required from the Members and the Secretary would contact them in due course.
11. Matters Arising at Open Meeting
The only matters raised were settled at the meeting and other those there was nothing raised. The President pointed out that at the end of the afternoon people were tired.
He said that it had been an excellent Seminar, but it was necessary to bear in mind that the reason why lectures in universities did not last more than 40 to 45 minutes was that beyond that time the listener was not able to absorb any more information. It would be good if it could be arranged to have something other than just listening following on a long lecture. He added that the script on screen presentation should be large enough to be seen at a distance. There had been a very good attendance at the Seminar and there were subjects of interest to all.
12. WCC Meetings 2020 and 2021
The ACF delegates said that the 2020 meeting would take place after the weekend of 6/7th June. She then asked Robbie Walker, who was organising the event, to give the information. Robbie said they were looking for the delegates to arrive at the latest on Thursday, 4th June as an outing was arranged for the Friday with a reception that evening. The show was on both days of the weekend and the international judge delegates will be invited. There will be a dinner on the Sunday night. The Seminar will be on the Monday as many of the people who will be attending it will be involved in setting up the show on the previous Friday. The Business meeting will be on Tuesday, 9TH June.
The GCCF delegate said that they were planning on the 23/24th October in 2021.and thought about having the Seminar on the Sunday rather than the Friday. This would be in conjunction with their Supreme Show on the Saturday. Happily, the Supreme Show did not fall on the same weekend as the FIFe World Show. They were expecting to use the New Hotel because of its proximity to the airport and the National Exhibition Centre where the show would be held. It was currently being buily but was expected to be finished by June 2020.
There was some discussion on the question of visa requirements which could occur following Brexit but that is a little too far in the future to predict at present.
13. Any Other Business
Dr Lamprecht said that although he would not be at the WCC officially the following year, he would like to offer his services to any of the Members if they had a particular task they needed to be carried out.
Jan van Rooyen said that he felt the exposure to the international judges at the SACC National show had been a very positive experience and thought more people would, in future, understand more when he returned from a WCC meeting with his report.
The GCCF delegate expressed the thanks of all the delegates for the hospitality and organisation of the weekend by the SACC Member. This was endorsed with enthusiastic applause. The President, CFA and others also noted the warmth of the hospitality they had received from everybody in Cape Town from the hotel staff, who were amazing to others that they had met in the course of the weekend.
14. Close of Meeting
The President then reminded the delegates of the group photograph which should be taken and thanked everybody, delegates and observers alike for their attendance and patience. With the promise that everybody would meet again the following year in Perth he closed the meeting at 4.15 pm.
Mr Eric Reijers:
Mrs Cheryle U’Ren:
Mrs Sandi Gemmel:
Ms Rachel Anger:
Mrs Annette Sjødin:
Mr John Hansson;
Mrs Chris Lowe:
Mr Jan van Rooyen;
Mrs Ngaio Crawley:
Mrs Vickie Fisher:
Mrs Anneliese Hackmann: