Dracdog Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) I received a ballot paper in the mail today from Dogs Qld from the speel that came with it it seems that they are making some changes to have the committee members voted in. They are asking members to vote to retain the current committee for the next 2 years whilst the changes to the constitution are made. They are wanting us to reply by Monday which doesn't give much time but at least they have given us a reply paid envelope. So all you Qld members out there especially those that are always complaining about the current system and how much of a dictatorship you think it is get your ballots back to them so change can be started. Edited February 14, 2011 by Dracdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystiqview Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I filed mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolassesLass Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I think it's very interesting that suddenly the board wants to split but it seemed like they were dead against it when the members forced a ballot on it. I want to know what's gone on with the RNA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I was speaking to a person at the RNA only weeks that stated that the dogs were really nothing to do with them and hadn't been for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I filed mine. But where did you file it ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I think it's very interesting that suddenly the board wants to split but it seemed like they were dead against it when the members forced a ballot on it. I want to know what's gone on with the RNA! Especially when democracy has been voted for twice and failed. The RNA say that they have little or nothing to do with the dog side of matters these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolassesLass Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) The RNA say that they have little or nothing to do with the dog side of matters these days. It's seemed to me that it's always been that way, so why split now? Give us the juicy goss DogsQld and I might vote. ;) Edited February 17, 2011 by molasseslass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I think it's very interesting that suddenly the board wants to split but it seemed like they were dead against it when the members forced a ballot on it. I want to know what's gone on with the RNA! Especially when democracy has been voted for twice and failed. The RNA say that they have little or nothing to do with the dog side of matters these days. It's seemed to me that it's always been that way, so why split now? Give us the juicy goss and I might vote. ;) My lips are sealed ;) To be quite truthfull I know nothing more than what I have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I have just checked the PO Box and nothing for me from Dogs Queensland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I have rung Dogs Queensland and as far as the person that I was talking to was aware, said the ballots had been posted as job lot. Keep your eyes open for them and Please vote no matter what your choice is. So few vote and the result is not alway a clear view of the members wishes. It always appears as though only a minority of the members vote. If a majority vote a clearer decision may be obtained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracdog Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 I was looking for a form on the Dogs Qld site and saw they had put up a further explaination of the ballot and the reason they only gave us a week to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) I don't know what is going on either, but I think it is vitally important that every member votes. It doesn't look good from where I am, and we do need a split from the RNA, and a split from the RNA councillors. The RNA has obviously forced the split, as the CCCQ had to find new offices. The Douglas Wadley pavilion (which the CCCQ paid for) at the show grounds is being demolished after 2011. I see nowhere that the CCCQ is getting any recompense. RNA councillors are trustees for Durack. If the CCCQ is physically away from the RNA, I don't think the RNA councillors should continue to be trustees for Durack, for a whole lot of reasons. In a rapidly changing scenario, with the government apparently involved, unless we (members) vote, we could have anyone as trustees for Durack, including those who have no interest in dogs at all, and no interest in keeping a designated area for dog shows. Robb Jeffs warned us all about this very scenario. Please, do vote. Needs to be in the office by Monday. Edited February 17, 2011 by Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolassesLass Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I don't think we've been given a fair choice - keep the current councillours and let them write a new constitution to suit themselves or we don't split at all? I'll be abstaining on this vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Ah, ML, if you vote "yes", you get to chuck 'em out after 2 years, and get the councillors you wanted and they can amend the constitution!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolassesLass Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Not if the new constitution is written in some way that protects them from being voted out. Something as simple as "all nominations for council must be put forth by an existing councillor and seconded by another" would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiesrule Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Im would like to know why we need to put our names against the vote ??? I have never been involved in a vote where this was required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsdog2 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Im would like to know why we need to put our names against the vote ??? I have never been involved in a vote where this was required. x 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Not if the new constitution is written in some way that protects them from being voted out. Something as simple as "all nominations for council must be put forth by an existing councillor and seconded by another" would do it. I think you are right there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracdog Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 Not if the new constitution is written in some way that protects them from being voted out. Something as simple as "all nominations for council must be put forth by an existing councillor and seconded by another" would do it. I think you are right there Do you seriously think they would do that. I think you need to wake up and realise that not everyone in the world is out conspiring against you. Believe it or not there are alot of people in the world who don't just think of what is best for them and actually go out of their way to try and do what is best for everyone involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 How else could it work if you dont have someone in there orchestrating the change/ The current committee is a good choice. Any changes to the constitution have to be voted on anyway. At the risk of being accused of having no right to an opinion on a state I dont live in - looks like its a reasonable deal to me and a fair start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now