Dogs Queensland Special General Meeting

[agatha]

This is on the Dogs Queensland website

Notice of Special General Meeting

A Special General Meeting will be held on Thursday 19 January 2012 at 7pm at 247

King Ave, Durack to pass formally a resolution that the CCC(Q) incorporate under the

Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Qld) and adopt the proposed constitution and

further that the Secretary / General Manager be appointed to make the application for

Incorporation.

As a reminder to all Members the following details are the results of the recent Ballot in

regards to the Constitution question “Should the current Council of the Canine Control

Council (Queensland) be directed to form an incorporated association in accordance

with the proposed Constitution distributed to members?” that was sent to all Members

during October. As of the close-off date:

Number of Ballot Papers issued = 6,750

Total Ballot Papers admitted to Scrutiny = 2,082 (represents 31% of Ballot Papers

issued)

"Yes Votes" for the Constitution Question = 1,873 (represents 89% of votes received)

"No Votes" for the Constitution Question = 188 (represents 10% of votes received)

"Informal Votes" = 21 (represents 1% of votes received)

The Agenda for the evening will be:

1 Chair’s Introduction

2 Special Resolution

“Should the Canine Control Council (Queensland) incorporate under the

Associations Incorporation Act (1981) and adopt the proposed constitution.”

3 Appointment of Person to make Application for Incorporation

4 Appointment of Existing Committee as Interim Officers

[agatha]

This is on the Dogs Queensland website

Notice of Special General Meeting

A Special General Meeting will be held on Thursday 19 January 2012 at 7pm at 247

King Ave, Durack to pass formally a resolution that the CCC(Q) incorporate under the

Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Qld) and adopt the proposed constitution and

further that the Secretary / General Manager be appointed to make the application for

Incorporation.

I have had a read through the ammended Constitution and it seems Dogs Queensland has been listening to concerns from the membership and has revised many areas of concern.

I like the fact that regional members will be able to have postal votes on important items in the future.

Agatha

Edited January 6, 2012 by agatha

[Fraelighte]

YAHOO!! Well done to Dogs Queensland!!!

They have a new revised constitution which includes postal votes for regional members, 8 Councillors elected in the next 12 months, and a constitution that can be easily changed (no more 75% vote needed!!!). They've listened to members and are providing a constitution that WE want!!

The only thing needed is a 75% YES vote at this SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING on 19TH JANUARY. We then proceed to Democracy!

The alternative is to allow the RNA to appoint their own Council in February to control our dog world.... I for one say NO!!!!!!

Everyone in Queensland needs to attend this meeting and vote YES!!

If anyone needs a lift from the Redlands area, contact me.

[agatha]

YAHOO!! Well done to Dogs Queensland!!!

They have a new revised constitution which includes postal votes for regional members, 8 Councillors elected in the next 12 months, and a constitution that can be easily changed (no more 75% vote needed!!!). They've listened to members and are providing a constitution that WE want!!

The only thing needed is a 75% YES vote at this SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING on 19TH JANUARY. We then proceed to Democracy!

The alternative is to allow the RNA to appoint their own Council in February to control our dog world.... I for one say NO!!!!!!

Everyone in Queensland needs to attend this meeting and vote YES!!

If anyone needs a lift from the Redlands area, contact me.

Totally agree, we need as many YES voters at the Special General Meeting on JANUARY 19th at DURACK SHOWGROUNDS if we are to take control of our own destiny. It is time we joined the rest of the Australian dog world and decide who we want to run our hobby. We need a 75% YES vote (This is the Incorporation Law in Queensland) at the meeting at Durack.

Edited January 6, 2012 by agatha

[wayrod]

Victoria has democracy and has a long period of adjustment. eg. in a twenty year period (since democracy) (the President is voted in office for four year terms) there has been 5 Presidents, 1 acting President, 6 CEOs plus temporary CEOs.

Many of the members that lead the court challenges for democracy have voiced that in hindsight they may have been wrong in pushing for democracy.

The appointed members of the KCC Committee were appointed for their business expertise in society as well as their love and passion for breeding, owning and showing dogs. Had it not been for the appointed KCC Committee in Victoria, we would not have had the multi-million dollar venue that we own. They had the foresight over thirty years ago to purchase the land and begin the development.

To be an elected representative today is a popularity contest, some with no business skills taking office and now controlling your funds and assets worth millions of dollars; it is only a "hobby" to the participants, it is a professional organisation/business that needs to be run professionally and correctly so that the "hobbyists" can enjoy their activities.

Once you have democracy you can never go back!

So, Is full democracy really what you want? or is it the ability to have a say and be listened to.

Edited January 6, 2012 by wayrod

[agatha]

Victoria has democracy and has a long period of adjustment. eg. in a twenty year period (since democracy) (the President is voted in office for four year terms) there has been 5 Presidents, 1 acting President, 6 CEOs plus temporary CEOs.

Many of the members that lead the court challenges for democracy have voiced that in hindsight they may have been wrong in pushing for democracy.

The appointed members of the KCC Committee were appointed for their business expertise in society as well as their love and passion for breeding, owning and showing dogs. Had it not been for the appointed KCC Committee in Victoria, we would not have had the multi-million dollar venue that we own. They had the foresight over thirty years ago to purchase the land and begin the development.

To be an elected representative today is a popularity contest, some with no business skills taking office and now controlling your funds and assets worth millions of dollars; it is only a "hobby" to the participants, it is a professional organisation/business that needs to be run professionally and correctly so that the "hobbyists" can enjoy their activities.

Once you have democracy you can never go back!

So, Is full democracy really what you want? or is it the ability to have a say and be listened to.

I guess the fact that the majority of people who responded to the ballot asking that question and said "yes we want a full democracy and we want a say" sort of says it all. YES we want democracy, we want a say in our future. Dogs Queensland already owns the unencumbered land at Durack and office space in the inner city, this will further protect that and other assets. No one should ever fear democracy or the democratic process. Historically the only governments to fear freedoms and people having the right to have a voice have been dictatorships, oligarchies and monarchies. That is like saying Australia should be run by the banks because we are too stupid to pick the right leaders.

Edited January 6, 2012 by agatha

[conztruct]

I don't think anyone was opposed to incorporation however, that was not the ballot question. CCCQ decided to attach incorporation question to a draft constitution which was deficient in many ways and this is where the opposition and ultimate defeat of the motion resulted.

CCCQ has provided an amended constitution advising that it has listened to concerns and adjusted accordingly - my question is, who was consulted, when and how? As a club secretary there was no communication to my club requesting feedback or suggestions which I think would be a logical move - the governing body consulting with it's member clubs.

From a regional viewpoint, I believe that there must be regionally allocation Zone 2 and Zone 3 management committee members for Dogs Qld to be a truly Queensland wide organisation - this sort of structure (regional representation) is in place in NSW, in many organisations, sporting management committees and at all levels of government and is in place for a reason - to ensure the views of the entire constituency are considered in decision-making.

Before making a decision, members would be well advised to consider that only 4 management committee members will change this year under the proposed constitution which means that the majority of the management committee who oversaw several poor decisions that impacted on regional clubs and competitions (ie DOTY rules) without consultation, who oversaw a double-edged ballot questions which ultimately failed and cost members a large amount of money then sought to blame everyone else except themselves for it (interestingly, this was one of the only ballots where I have ever received a propaganda letter from only one side of the question in my ballot......tainted much?), and are partaking in political games and grandstanding with RNA which is ultimately injurious to and deviates from the objectives of the organisation.

If we really want change and democracy, we should clear the decks completely and start again with all positions vacant. Our current councillors will have the opportunity to nominate, so I think it would be appropriate to allow the members to have their voice heard on their performance.

We are all for incorporation and democracy, however, this proposed constitution is deficient as was the previous and there are many holes in it. I can't help but think that the current management committee is using persistence to wear down the membership into voting YES when it is apparent that a great deal more thought and work needs to go into developing a constitution that will really allow the organisation to progress when incorporated, not to flounder.

[agatha]

I don't think anyone was opposed to incorporation however, that was not the ballot question. CCCQ decided to attach incorporation question to a draft constitution which was deficient in many ways and this is where the opposition and ultimate defeat of the motion resulted.

CCCQ has provided an amended constitution advising that it has listened to concerns and adjusted accordingly - my question is, who was consulted, when and how? As a club secretary there was no communication to my club requesting feedback or suggestions which I think would be a logical move - the governing body consulting with it's member clubs.

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.

Edited January 7, 2012 by agatha

[conztruct]

I don't think anyone was opposed to incorporation however, that was not the ballot question. CCCQ decided to attach incorporation question to a draft constitution which was deficient in many ways and this is where the opposition and ultimate defeat of the motion resulted.

CCCQ has provided an amended constitution advising that it has listened to concerns and adjusted accordingly - my question is, who was consulted, when and how? As a club secretary there was no communication to my club requesting feedback or suggestions which I think would be a logical move - the governing body consulting with it's member clubs.

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.

[agatha]

I don't think anyone was opposed to incorporation however, that was not the ballot question. CCCQ decided to attach incorporation question to a draft constitution which was deficient in many ways and this is where the opposition and ultimate defeat of the motion resulted.

CCCQ has provided an amended constitution advising that it has listened to concerns and adjusted accordingly - my question is, who was consulted, when and how? As a club secretary there was no communication to my club requesting feedback or suggestions which I think would be a logical move - the governing body consulting with it's member clubs.

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.

Edited January 7, 2012 by agatha

[agatha]

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.

[conztruct]

I don't think anyone was opposed to incorporation however, that was not the ballot question. CCCQ decided to attach incorporation question to a draft constitution which was deficient in many ways and this is where the opposition and ultimate defeat of the motion resulted.

CCCQ has provided an amended constitution advising that it has listened to concerns and adjusted accordingly - my question is, who was consulted, when and how? As a club secretary there was no communication to my club requesting feedback or suggestions which I think would be a logical move - the governing body consulting with it's member clubs.

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.

Absolutely, all throughout the consultation process regional clubs and members have expressed their concerns that all versions of the proposed constitution does nothing to further involve the regional areas (Zone 2 and Zone 3). The message has been loud and clear that the regional areas want dedicated representatives on the management committee so they have a voice in decision-making - to date these constant and consistent wishes of the regional constituency have been ignored and dismissed by the current management committee who refuse to include it in the constitution drafts - one only need view the feeble, irrelevant arguments against this specific request in the notes to earlier versions of the proposed constitution to see there are no valid reasons why Dogs Qld should not follow suit with the multitude of progressive organisations who base their structure on regional representation and adopt this as our management structure.

Again it is insulting to label this point of contention "nitty gritty" and it speaks volumes of the whole issue for regional clubs - the metropolitan members don't understand, don't know and more than likely don't care about the regions at all and rather than have an organisation that is truly representative of the whole state, want to concentrate the power in the metropolitan where they have their numbers and can continue to make their out-of-touch, self-serving decisions that negatively impact on the regions. Case in point DOTY/POTY eligibility rule changes WITHOUT any consultation with Zone 2 or Zone 3 which decimated our end of year finals - as I mentioned earlier, the score is on the board and the regions want more than a weak, cynical clause saying that the management committee will consult with them when it sees fit - talk about labelling your regional members as second-rate.......

Your assertion that members should simply agree with a deficient constitution that fails to include all members (especially the regional areas) in the decision making processes, because CCCQ has gone through a long, cumbersome, ineffective process simply reward mediocrity.

The regions are under no illusions that with our lack of numbers it is unlikely we have the power to make any change, however, we will push for them none the less as we have done throughout the WHOLE process only to be continually ignored and dismissed as some kind of fringe group who doesn't have the right make this noise. And you wonder why we feel this way - are we looking at progressing or just rewarding mediocrity and having to continue to endure the same cumbersome, out of touch management we have had to put up with for so long?

[agatha]

Absolutely, all throughout the consultation process regional clubs and members have expressed their concerns that all versions of the proposed constitution does nothing to further involve the regional areas (Zone 2 and Zone 3). The message has been loud and clear that the regional areas want dedicated representatives on the management committee so they have a voice in decision-making - to date these constant and consistent wishes of the regional constituency have been ignored and dismissed by the current management committee who refuse to include it in the constitution drafts - one only need view the feeble, irrelevant arguments against this specific request in the notes to earlier versions of the proposed constitution to see there are no valid reasons why Dogs Qld should not follow suit with the multitude of progressive organisations who base their structure on regional representation and adopt this as our management structure.

Again it is insulting to label this point of contention "nitty gritty" and it speaks volumes of the whole issue for regional clubs - the metropolitan members don't understand, don't know and more than likely don't care about the regions at all and rather than have an organisation that is truly representative of the whole state, want to concentrate the power in the metropolitan where they have their numbers and can continue to make their out-of-touch, self-serving decisions that negatively impact on the regions. Case in point DOTY/POTY eligibility rule changes WITHOUT any consultation with Zone 2 or Zone 3 which decimated our end of year finals - as I mentioned earlier, the score is on the board and the regions want more than a weak, cynical clause saying that the management committee will consult with them when it sees fit - talk about labelling your regional members as second-rate.......

Your assertion that members should simply agree with a deficient constitution that fails to include all members (especially the regional areas) in the decision making processes, because CCCQ has gone through a long, cumbersome, ineffective process simply reward mediocrity.

The regions are under no illusions that with our lack of numbers it is unlikely we have the power to make any change, however, we will push for them none the less as we have done throughout the WHOLE process only to be continually ignored and dismissed as some kind of fringe group who doesn't have the right make this noise. And you wonder why we feel this way - are we looking at progressing or just rewarding mediocrity and having to continue to endure the same cumbersome, out of touch management we have had to put up with for so long?

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.

[conztruct]

Absolutely, all throughout the consultation process regional clubs and members have expressed their concerns that all versions of the proposed constitution does nothing to further involve the regional areas (Zone 2 and Zone 3). The message has been loud and clear that the regional areas want dedicated representatives on the management committee so they have a voice in decision-making - to date these constant and consistent wishes of the regional constituency have been ignored and dismissed by the current management committee who refuse to include it in the constitution drafts - one only need view the feeble, irrelevant arguments against this specific request in the notes to earlier versions of the proposed constitution to see there are no valid reasons why Dogs Qld should not follow suit with the multitude of progressive organisations who base their structure on regional representation and adopt this as our management structure.

Again it is insulting to label this point of contention "nitty gritty" and it speaks volumes of the whole issue for regional clubs - the metropolitan members don't understand, don't know and more than likely don't care about the regions at all and rather than have an organisation that is truly representative of the whole state, want to concentrate the power in the metropolitan where they have their numbers and can continue to make their out-of-touch, self-serving decisions that negatively impact on the regions. Case in point DOTY/POTY eligibility rule changes WITHOUT any consultation with Zone 2 or Zone 3 which decimated our end of year finals - as I mentioned earlier, the score is on the board and the regions want more than a weak, cynical clause saying that the management committee will consult with them when it sees fit - talk about labelling your regional members as second-rate.......

Your assertion that members should simply agree with a deficient constitution that fails to include all members (especially the regional areas) in the decision making processes, because CCCQ has gone through a long, cumbersome, ineffective process simply reward mediocrity.

The regions are under no illusions that with our lack of numbers it is unlikely we have the power to make any change, however, we will push for them none the less as we have done throughout the WHOLE process only to be continually ignored and dismissed as some kind of fringe group who doesn't have the right make this noise. And you wonder why we feel this way - are we looking at progressing or just rewarding mediocrity and having to continue to endure the same cumbersome, out of touch management we have had to put up with for so long?

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.

Everyone wants incorporation but when we have a constitution that serves the membership in the best way. As it stands, despite the "consultative process" where some suggestions have been picked and chosen by our management committee and others not (what a great example of democracy....) is flawed and has delivered a flawed product. As the RNA stated in correspondence, they support CCCQ incorporation however, did not believe that the constitution drafted served the needs of the members so opposed on these grounds. You don't just push ahead with a flawed structure and process for the sake of it.

It is fallacious to assume that things will be better with incorporation with the proposed constitution, there is in fact great opportunity for the power-hungry to push their own agenda which certainly will not advance the objectives of the organisation or be for the betterment of the membership - this is why it is so important to have a well-constructed constitution rather than make a few rushed amendments and put up a catchy slogan on the website to appease the last few % required to pass the special motion.

There are many undemocratic provisions in the proposed constitution so it is also a flawed argument to state this will bring about democracy.

The message is loud and clear and the same thing I have been saying all along, throughout the consultation process a very strong case has been made for allocated regional representatives as being essential for Dogs Qld being a truly statewide organisation. This case has been continually ignored by the management committee, and more insultingly dismissed through a raft of illogical, feeble, irrelevant excuses. We should also bear in mind that if incorporation proceeds the majority of this management committee will remain in power - how is this democracy - clear the decks and let them be judged on their performance, not use the proposed constitution to hold on to power. I have never said that it's about metropolitan vs regional, it's about having regional representation as the model for the management committee to make more balanced and informed decisions and consider their impacts on the whole state - simple as that. As I mentioned this same model is used widely by progressive organisations, so I can't understand why (in the absence of any agendas) why it wouldn't be adopted as the structure for an organisation that says it wants to progress.

Democracy is good - this constitution does not deliver it. Rushing an outcome through without proper consideration and exploration of the impacts is exactly the wrong way of doing it, and you would find has been the basis of much poor decision-making in the organisations history. It would be well advised to do a more in-depth analysis rather than rush something through to try and beat action from the RNA - the politicking and grandstanding by our current committee has been nothing short of shameful, wasteful, arrogant and inconsistent with the objectives of the organisation - did I mentioned that if this is rushed through, the majority of this committee will remain in power?? Scary......

[Bullbreedlover]

Some very good points raised by Conztruct.

In light of recent events Agatha and Fraelighte, you may wish to review your thoughts on how CCCQ has handled all this.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Bullbreedlover

[agatha]

Everyone wants incorporation but when we have a constitution that serves the membership in the best way. As it stands, despite the "consultative process" where some suggestions have been picked and chosen by our management committee and others not (what a great example of democracy....) is flawed and has delivered a flawed product. As the RNA stated in correspondence, they support CCCQ incorporation however, did not believe that the constitution drafted served the needs of the members so opposed on these grounds. You don't just push ahead with a flawed structure and process for the sake of it.

It is fallacious to assume that things will be better with incorporation with the proposed constitution, there is in fact great opportunity for the power-hungry to push their own agenda which certainly will not advance the objectives of the organisation or be for the betterment of the membership - this is why it is so important to have a well-constructed constitution rather than make a few rushed amendments and put up a catchy slogan on the website to appease the last few % required to pass the special motion.

There are many undemocratic provisions in the proposed constitution so it is also a flawed argument to state this will bring about democracy.

The message is loud and clear and the same thing I have been saying all along, throughout the consultation process a very strong case has been made for allocated regional representatives as being essential for Dogs Qld being a truly statewide organisation. This case has been continually ignored by the management committee, and more insultingly dismissed through a raft of illogical, feeble, irrelevant excuses. We should also bear in mind that if incorporation proceeds the majority of this management committee will remain in power - how is this democracy - clear the decks and let them be judged on their performance, not use the proposed constitution to hold on to power. I have never said that it's about metropolitan vs regional, it's about having regional representation as the model for the management committee to make more balanced and informed decisions and consider their impacts on the whole state - simple as that. As I mentioned this same model is used widely by progressive organisations, so I can't understand why (in the absence of any agendas) why it wouldn't be adopted as the structure for an organisation that says it wants to progress.

Democracy is good - this constitution does not deliver it. Rushing an outcome through without proper consideration and exploration of the impacts is exactly the wrong way of doing it, and you would find has been the basis of much poor decision-making in the organisations history. It would be well advised to do a more in-depth analysis rather than rush something through to try and beat action from the RNA - the politicking and grandstanding by our current committee has been nothing short of shameful, wasteful, arrogant and inconsistent with the objectives of the organisation - did I mentioned that if this is rushed through, the majority of this committee will remain in power?? Scary......

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.

[conztruct]

Everyone wants incorporation but when we have a constitution that serves the membership in the best way. As it stands, despite the "consultative process" where some suggestions have been picked and chosen by our management committee and others not (what a great example of democracy....) is flawed and has delivered a flawed product. As the RNA stated in correspondence, they support CCCQ incorporation however, did not believe that the constitution drafted served the needs of the members so opposed on these grounds. You don't just push ahead with a flawed structure and process for the sake of it.

It is fallacious to assume that things will be better with incorporation with the proposed constitution, there is in fact great opportunity for the power-hungry to push their own agenda which certainly will not advance the objectives of the organisation or be for the betterment of the membership - this is why it is so important to have a well-constructed constitution rather than make a few rushed amendments and put up a catchy slogan on the website to appease the last few % required to pass the special motion.

There are many undemocratic provisions in the proposed constitution so it is also a flawed argument to state this will bring about democracy.

The message is loud and clear and the same thing I have been saying all along, throughout the consultation process a very strong case has been made for allocated regional representatives as being essential for Dogs Qld being a truly statewide organisation. This case has been continually ignored by the management committee, and more insultingly dismissed through a raft of illogical, feeble, irrelevant excuses. We should also bear in mind that if incorporation proceeds the majority of this management committee will remain in power - how is this democracy - clear the decks and let them be judged on their performance, not use the proposed constitution to hold on to power. I have never said that it's about metropolitan vs regional, it's about having regional representation as the model for the management committee to make more balanced and informed decisions and consider their impacts on the whole state - simple as that. As I mentioned this same model is used widely by progressive organisations, so I can't understand why (in the absence of any agendas) why it wouldn't be adopted as the structure for an organisation that says it wants to progress.

Democracy is good - this constitution does not deliver it. Rushing an outcome through without proper consideration and exploration of the impacts is exactly the wrong way of doing it, and you would find has been the basis of much poor decision-making in the organisations history. It would be well advised to do a more in-depth analysis rather than rush something through to try and beat action from the RNA - the politicking and grandstanding by our current committee has been nothing short of shameful, wasteful, arrogant and inconsistent with the objectives of the organisation - did I mentioned that if this is rushed through, the majority of this committee will remain in power?? Scary......

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.

Patronising much??? How about we just overlook that.......I am no constitutional or legal expert so you'll have to accept the view of the uneducated in this and as flawed as it may be, I'm a member like anyone else (even they who are more learned) - we all sit on our own backsides after all don't we.....and it's what democracy is all about - being equal.

Dogs Qld is asking us to vote YES for Democracy based on these principles:

1. You will have a democratic say in all aspects of Dogs Qld

All??? ALL??? Well not really, we can elect a management committee who make decisions in all aspects of Dogs Qld - so I don't really think this statement is fully correct is it? Are we going to have a ballot every time a decision needs to be made? That's how it reads but I don't think that's going to be the reality of it now, is it? How is the decision-making truly democratic - I think you need to clarify that you are establishing a representative democracy rather than a pure democracy. People vote for representatives who vote on things.

Meeting procedure for Special General Meeting - rather than a majority of votes, 75% of present members are required to remove a Management Committee member - this is inconsistent with other aspects and provisions of the proposed constitution which requires a majority and is undemocratic where a majority may vote to remove but be denied because of the % provision.

Section 19 - casual vacancies - the management committee appoint - why can't there be nominations and elections for this position?? That's not a democratic process for the "you" (members) you are referring to in the communication.

S.37.4, S37.5 & S37.6 - enables the management committee to with-hold minutes of certain meetings if they don't like the justification for wanting the information - this is inconsistent with normal procedure where minutes and information should be readily available to members. Whilst not exactly an issue of democracy - deliberately with-holding information for whatever reason places far too much power in the hands of a few and marginalises the members who have no say over this.

2. You will have a constitution that serves your needs.

I think we've covered this above - it is a wideheld view that the proposed constitution does NOT serve our needs - certainly not in the regional areas, many of whom reject this assumption, and this has been communicated extensively to the appropriate people, only to be ignored - nice!

3. You will elect 8 Councillors by March 2013.

Nice try at making it seem a lot but it's only 4 in this year - not even the majority of the management committe. As per Section 17 of the proposed constitution, I don't think it's democratic at all - all positions should be vacated and the membership should vote on their management committee - existing MC can stand for election and be judged on their performance, not use an undemocratic provision in a constitution to hold on to power if they haven't been doing the job. Also note that while there is provision for postal votes s17.6 states that the ballot will be conducted as determined by the management committee and s17.9 (i) no election will be invalidated....because a shorter time-frame allowed than is otherwise required under this constitution has the potential to be abused to the detriment of democratic opportunities especially for regional members using postal votes.

4. You will be able to have a postal vote.

Well yes, as long the management committee decide that it's part of the manner determined to conduct the ballot and they provide sufficient time to lodge these which according to the constitution may not occur. So you only get a postal vote in certain circumstances which are uncertain - a little inconsistent with such a definite statement.

5. You will be able to change the constitution.

Well again yes - it sounds easy to do but it isn't really. It relies on certain conditions. Any incorporated organisation can change it's constitution so this is a given really so it's not like anyone did some special work with the proposed constitution to enable this.

6. You can make a difference.

This is what is referred to as a "weasely" statement - it sounds nice but what does it specifically mean??? At the moment the regional areas aren't listened to and don't have any allocated representatives which is what we want so how is voting YES going to make a difference for us on this point?

46.3 The Management Committee may take such steps as it determines to be necessary to ensure that the interests of all zones are adequately represented, including permitting a representative from the regional zones to participate in Management Committee meeetins save that such representatives shall have observer status only and shall not be entitled to vote unless duly elected.

Yeah well, thanks for that. So us regional people MAY be consulted as the management committee see fit - is this the same see fit that saw the DOTY/POTY rules changed without ANY consultation with the regions and resulted in greatly diminished participation at their finals?? I've got news - the regional zones MUST be consulted and MUST participate in decision-making - the logical way to do this is to have allocated representative positions on the management committee to provide balanced decision-making that considers Qld wide issues, impacts and considerations.

These are but a few sections that I consider to be out of line with a democratic and progressive organisation - admittedly from a largely inept and uneducated person when it comes to interpretation of law and constitutions, however, from where I'm sitting, I don't have much confidence that after reading this document and the propaganda by Dogs Qld about this vote, that they have any better idea. There are enough holes in this document and inconsistencies that could provide the opportunity for abuse from what I can see, to call it a piece of swiss cheese!!

By the way - all this one-sided propaganda and advertising Agatha. Are you a management committee member of Dogs Qld? Or can we get one of the management committee to tell us how much this is all costing us? There has been staff time, legal consultation, printing of leaflets, etc used in this process - so how much is this agenda/push costing the membership??

I see bleak days ahead for Dogs Qld - the good of the organisation has become overrun by the egos and politics of the two power groups (DQ and RNA)vying for the edge in this dispute. The thought of the majority of the Dogs Qld people, who have been behind this, participated in this and their performance, retaining their council positions is an unthinkably poor result should the incorporation vote proceed.

[agatha]

I respect your viewpoint and your right to voice your concerns.[/b] 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.

Patronising much??? How about we just overlook that.......I am no constitutional or legal expert so you'll have to accept the view of the uneducated in this and as flawed as it may be, I'm a member like anyone else (even they who are more learned) - we all sit on our own backsides after all don't we.....and it's what democracy is all about - being equal.

Dogs Qld is asking us to vote YES for Democracy based on these principles:

1. You will have a democratic say in all aspects of Dogs Qld

All??? ALL??? Well not really, we can elect a management committee who make decisions in all aspects of Dogs Qld - so I don't really think this statement is fully correct is it? Are we going to have a ballot every time a decision needs to be made? That's how it reads but I don't think that's going to be the reality of it now, is it? How is the decision-making truly democratic - I think you need to clarify that you are establishing a representative democracy rather than a pure democracy. People vote for representatives who vote on things.

Meeting procedure for Special General Meeting - rather than a majority of votes, 75% of present members are required to remove a Management Committee member - this is inconsistent with other aspects and provisions of the proposed constitution which requires a majority and is undemocratic where a majority may vote to remove but be denied because of the % provision.

Section 19 - casual vacancies - the management committee appoint - why can't there be nominations and elections for this position?? That's not a democratic process for the "you" (members) you are referring to in the communication.

S.37.4, S37.5 & S37.6 - enables the management committee to with-hold minutes of certain meetings if they don't like the justification for wanting the information - this is inconsistent with normal procedure where minutes and information should be readily available to members. Whilst not exactly an issue of democracy - deliberately with-holding information for whatever reason places far too much power in the hands of a few and marginalises the members who have no say over this.

2. You will have a constitution that serves your needs.

I think we've covered this above - it is a wideheld view that the proposed constitution does NOT serve our needs - certainly not in the regional areas, many of whom reject this assumption, and this has been communicated extensively to the appropriate people, only to be ignored - nice!

3. You will elect 8 Councillors by March 2013.

Nice try at making it seem a lot but it's only 4 in this year - not even the majority of the management committe. As per Section 17 of the proposed constitution, I don't think it's democratic at all - all positions should be vacated and the membership should vote on their management committee - existing MC can stand for election and be judged on their performance, not use an undemocratic provision in a constitution to hold on to power if they haven't been doing the job. Also note that while there is provision for postal votes s17.6 states that the ballot will be conducted as determined by the management committee and s17.9 (i) no election will be invalidated....because a shorter time-frame allowed than is otherwise required under this constitution has the potential to be abused to the detriment of democratic opportunities especially for regional members using postal votes.

4. You will be able to have a postal vote.

Well yes, as long the management committee decide that it's part of the manner determined to conduct the ballot and they provide sufficient time to lodge these which according to the constitution may not occur. So you only get a postal vote in certain circumstances which are uncertain - a little inconsistent with such a definite statement.

5. You will be able to change the constitution.

Well again yes - it sounds easy to do but it isn't really. It relies on certain conditions. Any incorporated organisation can change it's constitution so this is a given really so it's not like anyone did some special work with the proposed constitution to enable this.

6. You can make a difference.

This is what is referred to as a "weasely" statement - it sounds nice but what does it specifically mean??? At the moment the regional areas aren't listened to and don't have any allocated representatives which is what we want so how is voting YES going to make a difference for us on this point?

46.3 The Management Committee may take such steps as it determines to be necessary to ensure that the interests of all zones are adequately represented, including permitting a representative from the regional zones to participate in Management Committee meeetins save that such representatives shall have observer status only and shall not be entitled to vote unless duly elected.

Yeah well, thanks for that. So us regional people MAY be consulted as the management committee see fit - is this the same see fit that saw the DOTY/POTY rules changed without ANY consultation with the regions and resulted in greatly diminished participation at their finals?? I've got news - the regional zones MUST be consulted and MUST participate in decision-making - the logical way to do this is to have allocated representative positions on the management committee to provide balanced decision-making that considers Qld wide issues, impacts and considerations.

These are but a few sections that I consider to be out of line with a democratic and progressive organisation - admittedly from a largely inept and uneducated person when it comes to interpretation of law and constitutions, however, from where I'm sitting, I don't have much confidence that after reading this document and the propaganda by Dogs Qld about this vote, that they have any better idea. There are enough holes in this document and inconsistencies that could provide the opportunity for abuse from what I can see, to call it a piece of swiss cheese!!

By the way - all this one-sided propaganda and advertising Agatha. Are you a management committee member of Dogs Qld? Or can we get one of the management committee to tell us how much this is all costing us? There has been staff time, legal consultation, printing of leaflets, etc used in this process - so how much is this agenda/push costing the membership??

I see bleak days ahead for Dogs Qld - the good of the organisation has become overrun by the egos and politics of the two power groups (DQ and RNA)vying for the edge in this dispute. The thought of the majority of the Dogs Qld people, who have been behind this, participated in this and their performance, retaining their council positions is an unthinkably poor result should the incorporation vote proceed.

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.

[conztruct]

I'll address these one by one as I think it's the best way for it not become confusing.

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.

Great - thanks for not being patronising - I must admit that on a website I have to interpret this and certainly acknowledge that I may not interpret it with the intent of the author. As you can imagine after all of the regional members submissions which have been ignored and the way decisions that impact on us are made time and time again without any consultation, any leading statement that our view is respected, understood or valued is considered well and truly patronising and sorry but your comment certainly came across that way. I did not refer to your viewpoint as propaganda but the advertising that Dogs Qld have placed on their website about the vote YES to democracy - this statement and the supporting points are highly misleading to anyone who is unfamiliar with the situation or who has not read the proposed constitution to obtain the facts. Your view as an individual is not propaganda and neither is mine, however, the one-sided view that Dogs Qld have placed on their website most certainly is. No innuendos or accusations towards you so please don't be offended.

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.

We certainly intend to make our views clear and ask the relevant questions we have through the email address - I doubt the RNA knows and DQ and RNA haven't really been talking lately - lol.

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.

Yes it is my understanding that the previous constitution had the 75% majority. I agree that there is more flexibility but the rules are not tight enough - as I mentioned above there is the provision for postal votes however, the management committee has provision to determine the method of ballot and spell out the timeframe for the vote which has the potential to be abused to the detriment of those regional members who wish to use the postal system. This does not go far enough and we should be embracing better technology to involve more members in voting whether it be using teleconferencing, video-conferencing or web-based methods.

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 too want this point clarified - as I mentioned above, I can see potential in other provisions of the constitution for this to be abused.

I am happy to continue the debate, but not if I am going to be accused of being patronising, a committee member, or worse.

You have clarified you are not being patronising so happy to leave it at that. I only asked if you were a committee member (didn't accuse you of being one) with a view to obtaining information and I haven't accused you of anything else. It is your choice if you wish to continue discussing this, please be assured that I don't take things personally or seek to become personal in such discussions but I will definately try to clarify things if I feel I need to.

[agatha]

I'll address these one by one as I think it's the best way for it not become confusing.

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.

Great - thanks for not being patronising - I must admit that on a website I have to interpret this and certainly acknowledge that I may not interpret it with the intent of the author. As you can imagine after all of the regional members submissions which have been ignored and the way decisions that impact on us are made time and time again without any consultation, any leading statement that our view is respected, understood or valued is considered well and truly patronising and sorry but your comment certainly came across that way. I did not refer to your viewpoint as propaganda but the advertising that Dogs Qld have placed on their website about the vote YES to democracy - this statement and the supporting points are highly misleading to anyone who is unfamiliar with the situation or who has not read the proposed constitution to obtain the facts. Your view as an individual is not propaganda and neither is mine, however, the one-sided view that Dogs Qld have placed on their website most certainly is. No innuendos or accusations towards you so please don't be offended.

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.

We certainly intend to make our views clear and ask the relevant questions we have through the email address - I doubt the RNA knows and DQ and RNA haven't really been talking lately - lol.

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.

Yes it is my understanding that the previous constitution had the 75% majority. I agree that there is more flexibility but the rules are not tight enough - as I mentioned above there is the provision for postal votes however, the management committee has provision to determine the method of ballot and spell out the timeframe for the vote which has the potential to be abused to the detriment of those regional members who wish to use the postal system. This does not go far enough and we should be embracing better technology to involve more members in voting whether it be using teleconferencing, video-conferencing or web-based methods.

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 too want this point clarified - as I mentioned above, I can see potential in other provisions of the constitution for this to be abused.

I am happy to continue the debate, but not if I am going to be accused of being patronising, a committee member, or worse.

You have clarified you are not being patronising so happy to leave it at that. I only asked if you were a committee member (didn't accuse you of being one) with a view to obtaining information and I haven't accused you of anything else. It is your choice if you wish to continue discussing this, please be assured that I don't take things personally or seek to become personal in such discussions but I will definately try to clarify things if I feel I need to.

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.