First, I really like the changes that have taken place recently with respect to new agilty rules. I'm sure that Mr. Hartman had some, if not major influence in that area. Second, I have very limited exposure to Mr. Hartman, although I did kind of- sort of- meet him once with a small group of people. Since he served in a "public role", I think it is okay for me to comment about it, although it's dangerous to draw conclusions upon such small sample sizes. He was very quiet, very aloof. Not at all what I would call "ambassador like". Perhaps that was not in his job description. I have no idea what the "director" is supposed to do. I also wrote to the AKC on several occasions regarding the agility rules, and never received any acknowledgements of my input. When major changes were made to Obedience several decades ago, I had similar inputs, but received very nice acknowledgements in return. I know that Mr. Hartman is a staunch supporter of the World Team events. I enjoyed the world team and even supported them. But I don't think that should be the major focus of the director. But then again, I don't know what role the director is supposed to have.
There have been some strong responses by the agilty community- with petitions and other similar responses. Since I don't know any of the details, and don't want to make assumptions, I won't join in those efforts. Other responses expressed smack a bit of elitism. To each his own. I wish Mr. Hartman well, and also best wishes to his successor.