Dogs Manangement Changes ?

[klink]

Over the past few years there has been a tremendous amount of unhappiness with the Dog controlling bodies in the various states,and I would like to put it to the members of these organisations if you feel that it may be worth looking at the following suggestion. The canine bodies process quite a lot of our monies during any one year ,and quite often get bogged down with legal problems and management bickering amongst themselves over mostly unimportant ego trips and the pushing of their own agendas Do you think, like I do that because of these problems that continually surface from within maybe the time has come for our canine bodies to be run by full time business people doing the everyday admin . When it is all said and done there is always conflicts of interests when " dog " people are running the "dog " business. A business is exactly what it is ! Obviously there would need to be a source of consultation in regard to special matters ,but these could be handled by a professional panel ,Not involved in everyday show business. I know you are all likely to be surprised by these remarks and I would point to the results of a survey conducted last year that showed that 88% of members indicated they were unhappy with the management of Dogs' NSW.This is only intended to create some discussion and perhaps lead to some changes.

[wayrod]

Over the past few years there has been a tremendous amount of unhappiness with the Dog controlling bodies in the various states,and I would like to put it to the members of these organisations if you feel that it may be worth looking at the following suggestion. The canine bodies process quite a lot of our monies during any one year ,and quite often get bogged down with legal problems and management bickering amongst themselves over mostly unimportant ego trips and the pushing of their own agendas Do you think, like I do that because of these problems that continually surface from within maybe the time has come for our canine bodies to be run by full time business people doing the everyday admin . When it is all said and done there is always conflicts of interests when " dog " people are running the "dog " business. A business is exactly what it is ! Obviously there would need to be a source of consultation in regard to special matters ,but these could be handled by a professional panel ,Not involved in everyday show business. I know you are all likely to be surprised by these remarks and I would point to the results of a survey conducted last year that showed that 88% of members indicated they were unhappy with the management of Dogs' NSW. This is only intended to create some discussion and perhaps lead to some changes.

I believe that every state body is an employer for one or more dedicated staff that handle the day to day activities of running the respective organisations. Each state has a representative on the ANKC. Each state organisation then has its own Board of Directors/Management Committee or appointed representatives (Qld) to oversee the running of the State organisations, it is these people that set policy for each state and oversee the financial activities of the organisations on behalf of the membership. If members do not like what is occuring in their state (except Qld) then they can vote them out or better still they can stand for election and hopefully people of like mind will vote them in.

If you are suggesting that the whole organisation is run by full time business people including the management committees/board of directors, we had something along those lines until the late 1980s in Victoria until some members took legal action.

The "öld regime" were appointed to the then KCC Committee for their business expertise in everyday life and their abilities to administer, set policy. They had an office of full time staff of which the Secretary of the organisation was also the registrar and in charge of the daily administration of the organisation. Since then democratic elections have been conducted. Dogs Victoria office is now on its 6th CEO plus 2 acting CEOs since 1996 and has had only 5 Presidents since 1992.

Are you suggesting that the ANKC become the one and only organisation?

In the past state bickering as to who will control or have the ANKC office located in their state has caused this not to proceed any further than an a agenda item, no differently to producing only one magazine on a national basis.

Maybe it needs a referendum of all ANKC member bodies individual members to ask the question, remembering that at this stage, you may be a member of Dogs NSW but it is Dogs NSW that is a member of ANKC not you as an individual. To have an item like this would be a delicate operation to get placed as an agenda item at an ANKC Conference.