agatha

Agreed and I would like to thank you for being a gentleperson throughout our debate, thankful we managed to keep it civil, unlike what seemed to be going on on some of the other lists. So I am hoping that the DQ committee and all the members who are interested in being part of the process can come up with an acceptable constitution that we can all vote yes on in the very near future, meaning incorporation can proceed and we can finally leave home, so to speak. I know - it's great, and thank you too for your input - a lot of what we discussed actually enabled me to further strengthen and flesh out my own case and justification for my position and modify it to a better result, so it just goes to show that even if people don't agree on things, if they work together on achieving an outcome and keep asking questions to cover all possible weak points it results in a better outcome. Obviously if DQ and RNA are reading, they should have left this whole thing up to us :p. Finally we can get on with the job of becoming our own entity, owned and controlled by our members or at least start on the path to it, there's still a lot of work to be done, but the absence of the over-riding conflict will go a long way to ensuring a smooth transition. Edited to add: It's now up to the RNA to make a similar commitment to working together with the DQ council for the benefit of DQ members and whilst communication from RNA suggests this will happen, I would like to see their commitment and assurance (from both parties) that past disputes are going to be put aside for the objective of achieving a result - they can fight as much as they want to afterwards.....when it's not going to impact on us. This is how all good things are achieved (maybe we're starting to sound like a love fest ) There is never any reason why people with opposing beliefs can't have civilised debates and gain insights and understanding from each other, I know I have. Hopefully the RNA & DQ are reading and see how it can been done I agree with your last statement. I feel it appears that DQ has handed some form of olive branch to the RNA so hopefully it will be accepted by the RNA and they can all get on with it, so that ultimately the best interests of the MEMBERS are looked after. The internet is always a tricky forum to have a debate on but we have managed it so hopefully others can too

Agreed and I would like to thank you for being a gentleperson throughout our debate, thankful we managed to keep it civil, unlike what seemed to be going on on some of the other lists. So I am hoping that the DQ committee and all the members who are interested in being part of the process can come up with an acceptable constitution that we can all vote yes on in the very near future, meaning incorporation can proceed and we can finally leave home, so to speak.

Transparency is nice and expected more and more in organisations now but I agree there are times when privacy and confidence is required, however my points aren't about transparency they're about contradicting statements in the constitution that may impact members democratic opportunities (again this is my reading of the constitution, not an expert but it is unclear. As an example there is a provision of postal votes which are required to be submitted 3 days before the meeting, however, there is another provision that states the management committee can determine the method and parameters of voting and reduce the notice time for voting. What this may mean is that a management committee could constitutionally make a decision to deny postal votes or reduce the notice time so that members are unable to get their postal votes to DQ within the notice period, making them invalid constitutionally. This is the tightening and further review I am talking about, rather than the provisions be changed altogether, they just need to be clarified so the voting process and notice periods may be decided but not at the expense of providing sufficient opportunity for postal votes to be submitted and count. I agree transparency should not be an opportunity to damage someone and I do not advocate this however, none of the requested alterations to the constitution are seeking this? DQ have stated that they will provide summaries of minutes, etc for members to view which is great however, the issue again is the current draft constitution not the procedure which can still be adopted after further review and development of an improved constitution through a more robust and extensive consultative process. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your statement about the "what more do the regions want?" Are we not also members of the association? This totally highlights the problems that the regions have had to put up with for years being referred to as those whinging people who always want to have a say in how things happen but don't have the numbers to vote one of their own is as a representative. The DQ policy so far has been to consult when they felt it was necessary which was basically not at all which has resulted in many decisions which have later had to be overturned, exceptions put in place, etc because they were made without considering the diversity of our members. The regions are being short changed now, with no representation on the management committee at all and having to deal with and constantly fight to not be impacted detrimentally by decisions of people who don't consider, don't understand and probably don't care - you really would had to have been on the receiving end to understand why your questioning over whether we would be shortchanged by having a voice in the management of the organisation or whether it would be of value is.......I'm trying to think of the word......as unintentional as it is on your part because you haven't been privy to the same perspective as regional members, really @#$%ing insulting. It's like saying Tasmania would be shortchanged because they have seats in parliament for the same reason, so they shouldn't have them - if you can understand how that would feel to a Tasmanian, you will understand what a regional member would think of this notion. The point I was trying to make, and I am not being insulting, is that there would be those who would think that once the regions had a designated councillor that that would be enough. Those people would not think anything further would have to be done as far as the regions were concerned as they would have a representative. The "what more do the regions want" statment refers to the mindset of those types of people. It might be just as hard or even harder for the regions to be heard, that was what I mean by being short changed, but I'm not sure if I am using the right words to explain what I mean. But ultimately yes you are right, there probably should be three designated councillors from each zones, with the rest of the positions up for grabs. Although I am a metropolitan member now, I have been a regional member in the past so I am very sympathic to the issues of the regions. A clear deck in my opinion is the highest form of democracy and that's what we're after isn't it? Every year, candidates will nominate for election including those who already serve on the management committee and be considered equally by the members and voted on. If the existing councillors are doing a great job, it is highly likely they'll be re-elected, if not they'll get the boot...isn't that preferable to protecting poor performance and complacency by not having to go through the election process. I understand where you are getting at about experience, but I don't think someone being experienced should take precedence of a democratic process and it doesn't necessarily equal effectiveness or good performance. On the surface this would seem like a good idea, my concern is that if there is a high percentage of new councillers elected every year, then 12 months is not a long time to get to know the ropes of the position. In we are to have a clear deck maybe the elected term should be two years? Otherwise that is why I think the staggered terms work better. In terms of the majority vote - you need to review the provisions of the draft constitution because majority vote is certainly not the case in several instances - as some examples there is provision for 4 management committee members to proceed with meetings and actions to remove a MC member even if the other 8 are against this, 5% of members can instigate actions within the organisation even if the other 95% are opposed, there is still a clause requiring a 75% majority for passing a motion in some instances - unless my maths is wrong, there is no simple majority in these few examples. This is the danger of the DQ propaganda - they say that everything will be decided democratically but if you read the provisions in the constitution it is only true in SOME instances - this is highly misleading and members are being manipulated by untruths. Okay I will go and have another look at this.

Hi again, thanks for telling me how to do the reply stuff, I am a dumbo when it comes to computer stuff. I agree there are always two sides to every story. Both the RNA and Dogs Queensland are entitled to put their point of view and concerns up. That is part of the democratic process. The RNA though keeps referring to Dogs For Democracy as a separate group, I just assumed that was the catchphrase that Dogs Queensland was using to get members attention. I must admit I am disappointed that the RNA thinks that it is okay to publish the names of individual members from a private chat list though. Maybe this is why Dogs Queensland has not handed over our email addresses to it? And no I am NOT one of the people listed on the emails. But I am a firm believer in the right of everyone to voice their opinion in private without it suddenly appearing publically. I am sure you would not want everything you write to people privately put in the public domain just as I wouldn't. If everyone suddenly has to fear that everything we say will be put out there for the public to see no one will talk to anyone again, this is the curse of social media and organisations such as the RNA should not be lulled into its embrace. I am going to have a go at replying the way you suggested, so I hope my dumb computer brain has got it:0) As I understand it the Dogs for Democracy communication was born from a self-selected group of members (a closed group, not inclusive of the whole membership and not providing any opportunity for other interested, equal members to be involved) who put the slogan and supporting documentation together using CCCQ's resources. It's fine for them to have their opinion and to advertise it widely but not to use the organisation's resources as far as I'm concerned. I have my own opinion and have certainly discussed it widely but I haven't had the opportunity to have CCCQ staff work on it, do a flashy design makeover on it, be granted the prominent use of the organisations website, had legal advice sought and provided and sent off for publication of flyers to be mailed to members - why should some members have this opportunity to support their view from the organisation and not others - not very democratic from a group calling for democracy - how much is it costing the members?. If people have concerns over this they should contact Dogs Queensland directly, I don't think anyone on any chat list or forum has the answer to this question. I absolutely agree that Dogs Qld did the right thing in not providing the members contact details to the RNA - whether it would constitute a breach of privacy law or not, I don't know but it doesn't matter because protecting privacy even as a matter of principle or integrity rather than law is important. But I do believe that it would be appropriate in the interests of a balanced view for Dogs Qld to publish a link to or the contents of RNA's communication on their website. I am glad we agree on the issue of not handing membership lists over. I don't know what the legalities are under the Privacy Act, but I am glad that Dogs Queensland didn't just hand out our details to anyone because they asked for them. In regards to providing a link to the RNA I wonder if the ALP provides a link to the LNP or visa versa as this debate has certainly become as polarised as any other political debate. People are free to look at both websites. I am playing the devil's advocate with this one. As I read the communication from RNA - they have inserted an email from a member of the organisation who names the group conducting these discussions - this email and the communications have been published on a chat site and circulated to many members. As you correctly identified, the internet is a curse where one should exercise caution as to what they say and who they circulate it to. However, when you send an email your address as the sender or receiver may identify you and people know this - it is an inherent risk that people take, that their communication will be forwarded to and viewed by others. If privacy of group membership or the content of the discussion was a concern, there are plenty of steps that can be taken to conceal a distribution list so I can only assume these people are happy to stand by their commitment to their cause and their statements. There are many parties in this including the many calling for allocated regional representatives who have communicated and are only too happy to have their names attached to it for all to see. The way I read the communication from the RNA was that they had inserted a third party email that did not come from those named, ie the third party was "outing" those named and then commenting on their alleged involvement. I maybe interpreting that incorrectly, but that's how I read it. And there are heaps of people who are not au fait with the internet or the inherit risks it imposes. I am pretty much computer illiterate and I imagine there are lots of people who are like me. I am a bit old fashioned and I guess if I was sent an email I wouldn't then email it on to other people unless I had permission to do so. I know what you're saying and in some ways I agree, but these people freely circulated their commentary with full knowledge that it may be onforwarded - there was no request for the discussions to be kept confidential or security to keep it that way. What I find more disturbing is that a group of members have established themselves without including others to push their opinion using the organisation's resources - not appropriate and I for one am glad that I found out. As unpleasant as it is, this kind of unprofessionalism is exactly the kind of information members need to be aware of to make informed judgements. Don't get me wrong Agatha - I don't do things in black and white - I'm disappointed with and pleased with different actions of each group in this issue and prefer to judge on an issue by issue basis. The main thing for me is that I don't agree with the proposed constitution - it's deficient and doesn't serve the interests of the members so for me, an opportunity to have further input into the development of a better constitution is obviously a huge positive for me especially considering CCCQ are unwilling to listen to or take on our suggestions. Given that both parties have advised that incorporation is the objective, the constitution is the deciding factor. In regards to the constitution I much prefer postal votes to proxy votes. In my experience with other organisations (not dog related) proxy votes are usually only on agenda items, not on motions brought up in general business. If proxies are allowed on un-agended (not sure if that's a word) items the person holding the proxy effectively has two votes on an issue because unless they are in direct phone/text/email contact with the other person at the time they really don't know how that person would vote. I think postal votes are a better way of people being heard, and are harder to manipulate as the vote is there in black & white. Also on the issue of the model rules I am going through this process with another organisation at the moment (not dog related) and the advice we have from the government is if something is not in the model rules, it doesn't mean it can't be included in a constitution as long as whatever it is is not breeching the act in any other way. So, my understanding from what I have been told (when dealing with the other organisation's process) there would be no problem if Dogs Queensland wanted its members to have postal vote.

Hi again, thanks for telling me how to do the reply stuff, I am a dumbo when it comes to computer stuff. I agree there are always two sides to every story. Both the RNA and Dogs Queensland are entitled to put their point of view and concerns up. That is part of the democratic process. The RNA though keeps referring to Dogs For Democracy as a separate group, I just assumed that was the catchphrase that Dogs Queensland was using to get members attention. I must admit I am disappointed that the RNA thinks that it is okay to publish the names of individual members from a private chat list though. Maybe this is why Dogs Queensland has not handed over our email addresses to it? And no I am NOT one of the people listed on the emails. But I am a firm believer in the right of everyone to voice their opinion in private without it suddenly appearing publically. I am sure you would not want everything you write to people privately put in the public domain just as I wouldn't. If everyone suddenly has to fear that everything we say will be put out there for the public to see no one will talk to anyone again, this is the curse of social media and organisations such as the RNA should not be lulled into its embrace.

Oh God I don't know how to do what you have done above to make things easier to read:0) I am a bit of a computer illiterate when it comes to this stuff especially on forums. You are right if we were sitting down and talking about this at a show or whatever it would be easier to have a good debate. I really think we should all contact Dogs Queensland with any questions, concerns, etc. They have asked members to contact them and that what I will be doing about anything I'm not sure of. Ultimately I prefer the postal vote system to a proxy vote system though as it is more "honest" providing the issue with time frames is clarified.

Okay firstly, I truly am NOT being patronising, nor am I trying to be. This is the problem with the internet, things can be read into things when they are not intended to be meant that way. No I am NOT on the management committee, just an ordinary member who is extremely concerned about where we will be in 10-15 years time. I find it insulting that you call my point of view propaganda. Why is my view propaganda and your view, which is obviously a no vote, not? You can't have it both ways. At no stage have I made this thread personal. As a Dogs Queensland member I have every right to voice an OPINION and you have every right to debate it. But to make unfounded innuendos I actually find this very offensive. I believe there is an email address to contact on the Dogs Queensland website. Maybe you should contact it with those questions about the cost of the campaign, or maybe the RNA knows, as I certainly have no idea what the answers to those are. From my understanding the previous constitution that was voted on could only be revised by a 75% majority vote of total membership including the ones who join so they can breed registered puppies and make a quick buck, and never participate in any aspect of our sport. In the constitution we are now being asked to vote on it is 75% at a special meeting and through the incorporation of postal votes for regional members I see this as pretty democratic and far more flexible to meet the needs of the members as the dog world changes. My understanding of the way the postal voting will work is that it will be for the AGM, special meetings and any other general meeting where there is a written agenda. But again maybe it is best to email Dogs Queensland to clarify as I may be totally wrong? I am happy to continue the debate, but not if I am going to be accused of being patronising, a committee member, or worse.

I respect your viewpoint and your right to voice your concerns. However, I would like to understand exactly what it is about the proposed constitution that is undemocratic. Much of what is in is required by Qld law in any case.

You're right most metropolitan members don't know what has happened in the regions, I agree. I am sorry if my use of language offends as it wasn't meant to. The point I am making is that there has been a process by which people could make submissions. No one has been denied a voice. People only are denied a voice who remain silent. I don't know about what has been happening in other zones, again because I am not in them, just as you probably don't know what is necessarily happening in all of the metropolitan areas. The point I am making is we need to incorporate, be out from under the wing of the RNA, we MUST have a constitution to do that, that's the law in Queensland, and the sooner Dogs Queensland members, and all the members whether they live in the regions or the city, can control their own organisation the better. It is not about the regions verses the metropolitan members; it is about the dog world in its whole, conformation, obedience, herding and everything else being able to chose their own leaders and make their own decisions. It is about democracy.

The other problem with the Queensland Incorporation Act is that any organisation wanting to incorporate has to have one special meeting, regardless of whether or not it is a State wide body. The law also does NOT allow proxy voting at any meeting to incorporate, again that is Queensland law, NOT Dogs Queensland rules. I personally think that that is rough, but the people to complain to about that are your State Members of Parliament, not the Dogs Queensland Councillers, not the RNA or anyone else in the dog world.

People were invited to have a say throughout the 18 month process as far as I am aware and there were dozens of submissions received. In terms of the ballot question I think what people fail to understand is that you can't incorporate and then work out the constitution later that is Queensland law, not something Dogs Queensland made up for its convenience http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/incorporated-association-rules.htm If Dogs Queensland Incorporates without its own Constitution in place then it must by law adopt the model constitution http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/AssociationsAndNonprofits/Model_rules.pdf Then it would not be so easy incorporating all that the dog world needs into the model constitution. I would have thought the regions would have been happy theat members would be able to have postal votes under the revised constitution on AGM agenda items, something they don't have now. To me this would be more inclusive for the regions? The other thing to remember that in the end Dogs Queensland could spend 100 years consulting, getting feedback etc, but there would never be concensus, because there would always be some that didn't want this bit or wanted that bit changed. So really folks just come to the meeting cast your ballot understand why we can't just vote for incorporation...Queensland law requires we have a constitution, not a draft constitution and get on with it. Then again, incorporating with a deficient constitution is hardly the way to progress which is what this is all about....? Of course it is a step forward (small albeit) to allow members to have postal votes under the revised constitution however, this is limited only to AGM agenda items and any statement that this somehow provides a greater voice and inclusiveness in decision-making for the regional area is simply insulting to the regions who continue to have to deal with the fallout from out-of-touch, ill-conceived decisions. The regional areas need dedicated advocates on the management committee to provide balanced decision-making and I would again add that this concept is in no way novel - it is used in all variety of sporting management committees, companies and our government at all levels. What the regions (if I may speak for them and I don't know that I represent their feelings) are unhappy with is that the only provision for regional consultation is that it MAY be obtained where the management committee sees fit but this does not provide the regions with any influence or voting power in decisions. Are we going to rely on the management committee's determination that regional consultation is needed when this was sadly lacking in the DOTY rule change fiasco which decimated the Zone 2 and Zone 3 DOTY/POTY finals this year? The score is on the board and it's poor...... Honestly, people wonder why the regions have such a negative view when they have been left right out for so long and then a token gesture claiming a voice and inclusiveness is offered which will deliver next to nothing. The first draft of a proposed CCCQ constitution was forwarded to all members on 15 April 2011 seeking feedback prior to 8 May 2011. Many members provided extensive feedback both by way of formal written submissions and by informal consultations held at the meeting rooms at Durack and elsewhere. Members were invited to provide feedback in the manner that suited them. After meeting with the RNA on June 14 Dogs Queensland suggested extending the consultation time to allow members more time to submit feedback. This feedback time was extended to July 1. So basically members had about three and a half months to read it, go through it, pick it to pieces, put in a submission about what they liked or didn't like about it. If members in the regions had/have specific concerns did they make submissions to the process? From what I understand submissions have been continually sent to the Dogs Queensland office since that 1st draft came out. The draft now being put up for voting on is the third or fourth revised constitution after Dogs Queensland looked at the concerns of people who provided feedback and for that matter many of the concerns of the RNA as well. Everyone has had a chance to have a say. It is a democracy we live in. Staying silent often says as much as speaking out. The time for arguing about the nitty gritty really is over. We can't separate the vote on the constitution and incorporation, by Queensland Law we MUST have a constitution to incoporate. If we continue to go back to the drawing board it may take another 2 or 3 years for us to have a voice in our hobby.

People were invited to have a say throughout the 18 month process as far as I am aware and there were dozens of submissions received. In terms of the ballot question I think what people fail to understand is that you can't incorporate and then work out the constitution later that is Queensland law, not something Dogs Queensland made up for its convenience http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/incorporated-association-rules.htm If Dogs Queensland Incorporates without its own Constitution in place then it must by law adopt the model constitution http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/AssociationsAndNonprofits/Model_rules.pdf Then it would not be so easy incorporating all that the dog world needs into the model constitution. I would have thought the regions would have been happy theat members would be able to have postal votes under the revised constitution on AGM agenda items, something they don't have now. To me this would be more inclusive for the regions? The other thing to remember that in the end Dogs Queensland could spend 100 years consulting, getting feedback etc, but there would never be concensus, because there would always be some that didn't want this bit or wanted that bit changed. So really folks just come to the meeting cast your ballot understand why we can't just vote for incorporation...Queensland law requires we have a constitution, not a draft constitution and get on with it.