One of the SCJA’s main purposes as stated in our Bylaws is to represent the judges’ positions and act on their behalf pertaining to the promulgation of rules, regulations and policies concerning all phases affecting the judging of dogs and individual judges. The SCJA is also here to help and guide its members if they need help in dealing with the governing bodies. The SCJA conducts surveys on various important subjects affecting our judges. When 66% or more of our members want something done, WE TAKE ACTION BASED ON OUR MEMBERS’ VIEWS.

  1. First and foremost, concerning a major SCJA achievement on playing a major role and standing alone with no coordination from the other two national judges groups, the ADSJ and the DJAA, in having the AKC Board vote to revoke their ill-advised policy on judges’ restrictions to prevent the judges from judging for anyone other than the AKC, the SCJA is the only national judges group to have written directly to the AKC Board and to AKC Delegates no fewer than five strong and on-point letters on the judges’ conflict of interest policy. The requested coordination of the ADSJ and the DJAA was not forth coming. We indicated the policy issued by the AKC Board was without the proper authority of the AKC Delegate Body. The SCJA also indicated the policy was in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The SCJA CEO was authorized to travel to two Delegates meetings to personally lobby individual Delegates and AKC Board members. We suggest you review SCJA’s letters and the open letter to all Delegates, judges and others within the Sport on SCJA’s web site A good number of Delegates agreed with the SCJA’s position. Once the SCJA invoked and coordinated with the federal government, the AKC Board revoked their policy.


  1. Recently, the SCJA objected when AKC management proposed an annual fee for all judges – they wanted to call it a user fee – the SCJA took the position it was a licensing fee – that if it looked like a duck, walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, IT WAS A DUCK and was a licensing fee. It was dropped and NEVER implemented. However, those of us who have been around awhile realize AKC is very persistent, and they have a way of resurrecting old ideas every few years.   The AKC did just that last year.   The SCJA once again was the only judges group that refused to attend a meeting called by the AKC Judges Department which placed limitations on what our representatives could discuss. The SCJA’s two strong letters opposing this speak for themselves and our recent action just months ago.  


  1. The SCJA fought, and gained the right, for judges to get copies of negative letters written on them that are sent to AKC.


  1. SCJA alone came on loud and strong to object to the judges disciplinary list proposed by AKC staff and adopted by the AKC Board – after a meeting with the entire AKC Board, IT WAS REVOKED.


  1. Concerning AKC’s Guidelines for Conformation Dog Show Judges, the SCJA has been successful in having the very objectionable phrase, “FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE GUIDELINES SUBJECTS A JUDGE TO POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.” removed from the inside cover of AKC’s Guidelines for Conformation Dog Show Judges. The SCJA has pushed for this revision on more than one occasion. We finally won the battle on the Guidelines of having the above bold quote REMOVED!!!


  1. SCJA was told over and over that “Hands On Testing was here to stay” – thanks to the persistent, well-thought out and presented position by the SCJA, AKC agreed and “Hands On Testing” is no longer a part of the judges approval process. This was a terrible burden on the newly approved judges – AGAIN SCJA STOOD ALONE!


  1. There were no Judges Institutes by AKC or any other judges organization until the SCJA led the way with the first weeklong Judges Institute in 1989 still in a class of its own.


  1. There was no Judges Educational Department at AKC until after the SCJA established their separate education foundation. Now some seriously question some of the recently established policies of the AKC Judges Department!!


  1. SCJA recommended the Judges Observation forms be given to all judges being observed, and that they be afforded the opportunity to comment when signing it.       DONE!


  1. SCJA recommended against AKC Reps commenting on how judges dress and it was gone in no time.


  1. SCJA lobbied for our judges to be given more than 30 minutes for lunch, and this was approved.


  1. There was no recognition of senior judges until the SCJA established the policy of recognizing our senior judges; the AKC and others have since adopted this worthwhile program.


  1. The SCJA strongly opposed the complicated proposal to place further requirements on Best In Show judges – it was never implemented (this came up and again was opposed by the SCJA and defeated with a vote within the AKC Board).


  1. SCJA lobbied against closed book testing --- it was discontinued.


  1. SCJA objected to the select “invitation only” policy to judges with more than four Groups--it was never adopted.


  1. SCJA set up and maintains a meaningful “HELP THE PROVISIONAL JUDGES PROGRAM”. The ADSJ objected to our program, and the SCJA, by edict from the AKC, was forced to discontinue it. This forced the SCJA to invoke the IRS rules for independent contractors. Again, no help from the DJAA. As a matter of fact, the DJAA President recently opposed it referring to it as solicitation. After getting the IRS rulings involved, the AKC reversed their long standing negative policy.

Want to Become a Member?

Contact Us:

Karen Sawyer,

Executive Assistant


MUST have the latest ADOBE ACROBAT READER free to read the PDF files:



      January 20, 2022.