In a message dated 8/10/2006 9:27:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, klite3gsd@xxxxxxxxx writes: I agree with those who have said that it is NOT FAIR to change the rules regarding a job description AFTER that job has been filled. At least, not right away. If the rules are to changed, that should have been accomplished prior to the job being filled. Or, change the rules and open the position to new candidates. Anything else reeks of cronyism - regardless of that being true or not true - the appearance of favoritism is just as bad as real favoritism. I kept quiet about this until Gail Sprock herself made clear what was - and what was not - the situation when she became editor. Thank you, Gail. I have absolutely nothing against Susan - in fact, as a long ago former member of the Rocky Mountain GSDC, I'm happy to see her do well and applaud her for what she's done so far with the Review. I'm happy to see her win this position. But - the bigger issue is -- can we bend the rules when it's not fair, or right? Or should we take the higher road and do what is right and most fitting to dispell any appearance of impropriety. Maybe I'll get a lot of hate mail for this - and let me say right now that if I had to choose between solving this issue vs. getting world peace - I'd definitely push toward world peace. But I can't make Israel stop bombing Lebanon, and I can't make Hesbollah stop terrorizing Israel - so instead I'll post on the things that maybe I know a tiny bit about, and then sit back and see what happens. Thanks! Kim McNamara - Kimberlite, Newnan, GA Member GSDCA (America) and GSDCA (Atlanta) Kim, Thank you for you excellent post. There are obviously two distinct issues; the need for the current rule and the process to change the same, if indeed it is changed and the consequences to the application process. I've heard good arguments on both sides re the need for "the rule" (and thank you Gail for providing historically accurate data.). Folks, that's not the issue. As Laurie, Cindy, Molly, Patty, Kim and others have pointed out, the rule was in place and a condition of the position PRIOR to the whole application process. To change it now, would require re-opening the process, or I'm sure face a lawsuit. (One IMO with merit.) I don't think it can be any clearer; some people didn't considering applying because they didn't want to give up their hobby or in some cases their livelihood or a portion of the same. I can't imagine re-opening the whole process; how cumbersome! BUT, since the rule was a condition of employment, legally, I don't see how you could remove it without leveling the playing field...so, I say let it stand and move on. Now, if you want to change the rules for any subsequent positions, the lesson learned here is to do so PRIOR to the position being advertised. We can have a lively debate on that:) Kathy member GSDCA, DVGSDC three generations of Dual Titled Champions live here! visit _Pine Hill German Shepherd Dogs_ (http://www.geocities.com/pinehillgsds/) ============================================================================ POST is Copyrighted 2006. All material remains the property of the original author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE PROSECUTED. For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx VISIT OUR WEBSITE - URL temporarily deleted due to AOL issues ============================================================================