MASTER NATIONAL RETRIEVER CLUB
MNRC Club Members,
The Master National Board of Directors (BOD) would like to provide some clarity to the ballots that have been sent to your club. As you recall, previous correspondence was sent out the latter part of July explaining the reasons the board proposed changes to the MNRC by-laws. Some changes are due to the substantial increasing number of dog entries and the issues surrounding the tremendous growth of our event, while others are needed to update administrative content. Since that correspondence was sent out, the MNRC BOD received two more by-laws amendment proposals. We will try and provide some clarification to these proposals along with other by-law amendments proposed by the MNRC BOD.
In Summary there 3 different submission of bylaw changes for your review and vote on how the event is to be conducted in the future. Vote yes or no on each proposal.
Proposal 1 from the MNRC BOD
The MNRC BOD proposed changes in Article 1, Section 2b and Article IX Section 2 to provide flexibility to split the current annual event into multiple smaller annual events as necessary to conduct a quality national event for the contestants. Initially we are proposing two events that balances the number of dogs allowing for improved quality event. However, this proposal does allow the BOD to have as many events as necessary depending on the number of dogs to ensure we maintain testing quality and consistency. In this proposal the handler can only compete at one site and is dependent on the “handler” location.
Proposal 2 from the North Alabama Retriever Club
The Regional Events Model proposal is somewhat similar in nature of proposal 1. This proposal allows the BOD flexibility to choose the number of test sites and locations to balance the number of dogs. The different example scenarios show the flexibility the BOD would have in how states are aligned to manage the number of dogs. It allows flexibility for the BOD to manage the size of the events to fit the location as well as balance the number of dogs to ensure a quality event. Local clubs will lead most of the event details with oversite from the MNRC BOD. In this proposal the handler can only compete at one site and is dependent on the “handler” location.
Proposal 3 from the Waterloo Amateur Retriever Club
The Preserve the Integrity proposal and model would utilize a single test site with entries split into two separate groups with staggered start and finish times. This allows the BOD the flexibility to determine the number of flights per group and test over as many days as needed to achieve the expected level. In this example each group should be complete the event in an estimated 6 days of testing based with 4 flights of 125 dogs each. Judges for group 2 would begin setup the day after group 1 test are completed. BOD members and Hunt Test Committee may split responsibilities and time over the course of the event.
- Capped entry system – Changes to Article IX, Section 3, 4c would allow the MNRC BOD to implement a system to cap entries to an event. Capping would be used as a last resort if potential entries are larger than an event site can support. MNRC BOD has not established what that number may be, but do not support capping entries unless absolutely necessary. While not specified, the BOD would utilize the process for capping that was sent previously which explained the capping process.
- Administrative changes to run the MNRC club are in the following locations of the by-laws: Article 1, Section 2a, Article 2 Section 3, Article VII Section 1, Article VII Section 3, Article VII Section 4, Article VII Section 6, Article VIII Section 1, Article VIII Section 5, Article VIII Section 6, Article IX Section 1, Article IX Section 3 4a & 4c, Article IX Section 4 c1 & c2, Article IX Section 5b, Article XI Section 1.
The significant changes are:
Expansion of the Master National Board by the addition of two First Vice Presidents.
Revision of the Annual Meeting format, detaching the meeting from the event. Annual Meetings would be held virtually at a time designated by the President.
Clubs need to vote yes or no for the above 2 proposals.
Additionally, if your region has a vote for a Regional Director, please cast your vote.
