Question On Proxy Voting

[WreckitWhippet]

It was a bit confusing but I've worked it out now

Edited September 23, 2010 by ReadySetGo

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Can you explain it to me? I assume those of us who are not Sydney-siders can just fill it out and send back our proxy to the chairman.

Of course, it would be useful to know what the heck is going on first. That was the weirdest letter I have had from a canine control for a while.

[Diva]

The OzShow list has some details. Apparently the meeting was called because >100 members asked for it via petition.

Not instigated by the CC as such, but called because they are req'd to respond to such a request.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

The OzShow list has some details. Apparently the meeting was called because >100 members asked for it via petition.

Not instigated by the CC as such, but called because they are req'd to respond to such a request.

Ta, I better start reading all those backed up digests.

[WreckitWhippet]

well I'm none the wiser as to what's actually going on. Given that dogs NSW didn't offer any substantial reason as to why Tom should be ousted from his position.

I have however, in the course of the day, worked out how to vote and make sure it counts

[Diva]

From what I understand - and that's a substantial qualifier, LOL - it's not Dogs NSW seeking he be removed, it's the petitioners. The motions are their wording. It's up to them to come up with their reasoning.

(I am not even in NSW - just a curious bystander).

[Guest CaptainCourageous]

The OP is not related to me in any way.

CC

[asal]

The OzShow list has some details. Apparently the meeting was called because >100 members asked for it via petition.

Not instigated by the CC as such, but called because they are req'd to respond to such a request.

Ta, I better start reading all those backed up digests.

i too was pretty confused by the letter.

i discovered today that if anyone is sending them in, they are NOT TO FILL OUT the bit at the top, ie. Part (A)

if you intend it as your vote you fill out the part under the word "OR"

then fill in

part (B)

with how you wish to vote.

if youve filled in part (A) and then part (B) its invalid. (soo if you actually want your vote to count then you have to get another copy and do it right.. have fun folks)

and will not be counted.

from my enquiries it was 1 person who made the complaint not one hundred. interesting eh?

even more interesting, the dogs of war have been unleashed. ie the rspca sent by the usual "annonamous" party.... sweet eh, to see that the practice among elements of the membership is still using the rspca to "get" anyone they decide they dont like... such a lovely bunch of backbiters there are among our ho so sweet bunch of self proclaimed "ethicals" so busily self preening

pity they are too stupid to realise the fox doesnt care which or how many it kills, all of em will be the end result of sucking up to the govt and giving more and more power to abuse, isnt it weird how so few think they are under threat?

judy guard has found out the hard way, n despite all the pleadings for needing more power, as its been stated before, the power to seize and destroy by any inpsector who "forms the opinion" this needs to be done has been in force for over 20 years.

they just dont use it very often because they dont want the chickens to twig how much 'power' they already have while begging for more, adding 'exhibiting' as a crime they must have been rubbing their hands together on that one.

ha the dog world, sometimes i wonder whos the more savage, the canine variety or the sapien, at least the canine does its own biting, the sapiens seem to prefer to send others to do the attack work

Edited October 4, 2010 by asal

[asal]

From what I understand - and that's a substantial qualifier, LOL - it's not Dogs NSW seeking he be removed, it's the petitioners. The motions are their wording. It's up to them to come up with their reasoning.

(I am not even in NSW - just a curious bystander).

from what i can find out, its ONE PETITIONER n thats legal. seems hes pissed someone off or they think he has. dangerous thing to do in the dog fraternity as i can vouch for., as i and my dog learned to our cost $1,100 all up to retstor string back to health from seizure by the rspca, bill for their testing then to my vet to save from the pnemonia acquired at rspca n torn trachea before finally comming home from his vets care.

wouldnt wish that on anyone. ummm save maybe a few "ethical's" that think sending the dogs of war is acceptable against anyone u dont like

[asal]

n no ive never met the man under attack

although until now, had never heard anything but how dedicated n ethical he is to the dog world, so a guess the shock of whats happening now will be a suprise to him

[Rayvale]

Hi Asal,

I have met the man, and I can honestly say when I first started showing - a friendlier more helpful person I could not have met my first time out filling entry forms for myself!

It is my understanding from various conversations with others that many showfolk have absolutely no idea how much Tom assists in making so many of our shows run so smoothly - if he is to turn his back on the dog world after being stabbed in it then it will be a terrible loss. And I know so little about him in comparison to the many of you DOLers who have been around far longer than me!

I hope the dog world wakes up and votes and is counted correctly on behalf of this man!

[WreckitWhippet]

We are still waiting on "the letter". I have mine but another member who resides here does not have theirs.

[Irish Lassy]

Can you explain it to me? I assume those of us who are not Sydney-siders can just fill it out and send back our proxy to the chairman.

Of course, it would be useful to know what the heck is going on first. That was the weirdest letter I have had from a canine control for a while.

Yes i too found the letter very weird.. It went in the too hard basket for me..

What would it of cost to send them out?

[inez]

Can you explain it to me? I assume those of us who are not Sydney-siders can just fill it out and send back our proxy to the chairman.

Of course, it would be useful to know what the heck is going on first. That was the weirdest letter I have had from a canine control for a while.

Yes i too found the letter very weird.. It went in the too hard basket for me..

What would it of cost to send them out?

Have you forgotten the Mrs Furbur incident?

"They" wasted over $800,000 of members money going to court to do what?

Prevent Mrs Furbur from finding out something. It was a very long time ago now but I think it was she wondered why the secretary of the canine council had been supplied with a car worth more than the chairman?

So, what, you may say, since in normal company policy, the value of vehicles issured to staff is less the lower down the rank it goes, so there was a reason to make her wonder and ask why?

This was a valid question since it was against normal company, all companies should I add, policy.

She was not given a satisfactory answer so wanted to see the records to see why and how this had occurred. except she was refused access to said records.

Considering the lady was a member of the board of directors you could be forgiven for being of the same opinion as I, she was a duly elected member and had right to access anything in the records she wanted.

But no the rest of the board banned her from access so she took them to court. and after a very long dragged out process ultimately lost on appeal, the board that is Not Mrs Furbur.

and WHY did the board waste so many hundreds of thousands of members money you may ask?

"Because" I was told, "she was wasting staff time asking them to get the files"

Now you tell me ,someone, anyone? How many hundred they could have employed to wait on her hand and foot with the $800,000 they fed into the court system to stop her "wasting staff time"?

Is it just me or was there a very strong smell of rat in the air?

Even more strange, the secretary resigned when the battle was lost?

Coincidence

No idea how many of the fellow directors voted for that incredible waste of resources to fight a legitatimately elected member to their own board.

Equally no idea who Mr Couchman has offended, but so hope this sorry mess isnt dragged along to the detriment of all.

I too was astonised to see that letter.

I have never heard or seen a single person say anything but good about this amazing man.

So was apalled to see this arrive

Frankly I hope everyone who has received this digusting attack against such a person who has worked so hard for all votes NO IN EVERY ONE OF THOSE BOXES.

As for learning about the sending the RSPCA after him as well, just goes to show how low the perpertrator is prepared to go.

Get off your collective butts and VOTE NO to both motions or you will ALL be the losers in this sorry tale.

This is certainly one case where the usual lethargy of members to not bother to vote will be to their total detriment and the trouble maker is counting on you doing just that, they would certainly be busy rallying votes confidant in the belief the majority wouldnt have a clue or do anything and so they win by default

Edited October 4, 2010 by inez

[asal]

ummmmm n do i suspect now the rsca have been called , the "where there's smoke there's fire" is now being spread?????????????????????????

n why should that be?

well make anyone thinking of standing up for him to have second thoughts. fraid to be seen to have anything to do with anyone with smoke near em in case it sticks to them?

sort of shave the hunted off from the herd so its isolated n easier to attack?

or am i just of the suspicious kind?

surely not ;)

come to think of it wasnt i not that long ago described as "raving" when trying to warn about the rspca, n yes suspect being branded as raving was calculated to influence anyone into ignoring what i said. once burnt your a "raving luni" if you try to warn the other chickens n it is interesting to note now many once "friends" cant see u anymore....now your scent has been changed by exposure to "smoke" ;)

Edited October 5, 2010 by asal

[asal]

ummmm poor chap

me turning up and saying anything is probably the kiss of death for him.

apologies if ive done him a major disservice

feel a bit like a pirah

(yep no idea how to spell it)

Edited October 5, 2010 by asal

[SkySoaringMagpie]

The difficulty I still have with it is that there has been no official allegation of impropriety that I am aware of. All I have is this letter that says nothing.

I am not going to vote to remove someone that people have voted in without some kind of credible information that suggests I should do otherwise. Credible information does not include gossip on the internet.

[asal]

The difficulty I still have with it is that there has been no official allegation of impropriety that I am aware of. All I have is this letter that says nothing.

I am not going to vote to remove someone that people have voted in without some kind of credible information that suggests I should do otherwise. Credible information does not include gossip on the internet.

your problem being, if you do not vote then by obstaining you are by default letting the one who started this one less to prevent them gaining their aim soooo

difficult decision is it not

[asal]

The difficulty I still have with it is that there has been no official allegation of impropriety that I am aware of. All I have is this letter that says nothing.

I am not going to vote to remove someone that people have voted in without some kind of credible information that suggests I should do otherwise. Credible information does not include gossip on the internet.

ummm another question?

do you mean what i said.

or the other poster who said that one hundred people had signed a petition?

I know when i read that weird letter i received from dogs nsw and began phoning around to ask what on earth is this about and from the replies i had already been told, before i spotted this thread on dogzonline, that the whole thing had been started by just one person, and thats all it takes to have started this in motion, how weird?

then read that??? like what the?

not what ive been told and not just from one source either.

Edited October 5, 2010 by asal

[Diva]

or the other poster who said that one hundred people had signed a petition?

I know when i read that weird letter i received from dogs nsw and began phoning around to ask what on earth is this about and from the replies i had already been told, before i spotted this thread on dogzonline, that the whole thing had been started by just one person, and thats all it takes to have started this in motion, how weird?

then read that??? like what the?

not what ive been told and not just from one source either.

I believe that 'other poster' would have been me.

The purely factual information that 112 members signed the notice for requisition for the special general meeting is easy to find on the Dogs NSW website.

I have no views on the motions either way. As I have previously said, I am not a voting member of Dogs NSW.

And I have absolutely and utterly no interest in the factions or feuds of Dogs NSW.