Dogs Queensland Special General Meeting

conztruct · January 8, 2012

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.

To do that - just hit reply and then click in the original post you are replying to where you want to insert the text and I then highlight it and choose the italics or bold or something so it looks different.

That's fair enough to ask the questions of Dogs Qld but from our perspective we've asked questions, made submissions, etc and they haven't been listened to so it gets pretty frustrating.

It also important to note that in a YES or NO outcome the future is uncertain for Dogs Qld and neither DQ or RNA have done anything in particular to impress me or many others that they are the "better" party in this - I think both parties have been far too involved in protecting their own or destroying the others reputation to concentrate on a good outcome for the members. My comments are solely related to the very one-sided information appearing on the Dogs Qld website which makes voting YES all sound wonderful but is in fact trying to rush through an outcome with a constitution that has too many loopholes at the moment that need to be tightened, clarified or closed and does not serve the needs of the membership (particularly the regional members) as is claimed.

We should also remember that when we had the last vote there was a lot of talk from DQ that this would be our only chance at democracy, yet here we are a short time later with another opportunity. I don't know about anyone else but I'm tired of being told one thing when it is apparent or a little research reveals it is not the case.

conztruct · January 9, 2012

To all who are interested - here is some information from RNA that address what the process will be if the motion at the special general meeting is defeated.

In the event of a "NO" vote.

The RNA will appoint an INTERIM committee (as per the correspondence from the RNA asking for committee nominations "The newly appointed CCCQ committee must as a matter of urgency, move to incorporation under a constitution which is founded on rights of democracy and fair process. Importantly, the new CCCQ must confer with CCCQ members so that any new constitution reflects the views and wishes of CCCQ members".

The RNA have stated that they wish to convene meetings across the state with the assistance of Ulla Greenwood and Lionel Blumel to get the views of the widest cross section of the membership as possible. ALL members will be given the right to ask any questions they wish both at the meetings and via correspondence. They will have the right to make suggestions about alterations to the constitution and, where possible and appropriate they will be adopted. If a suggestion is unsuitable members will be informed as to why. Details for democratic elections will be included in these discussions.

Once the constitution is at a fundamentally sound and acceptable stage for the vast majority of members a special general meeting will be called to vote on accepting it as the constitution. If accepted then progress towards the first fully democratic election according to the process agreed on by the members.

It is envisioned that this process would take LESS than 6 months if all goes well.

For me, this would be a good outcome - as I mentioned above I believe that CCCQ are rushing the process with a constitution that has not been properly and completely developed and still contains a number of contradictions, gaps and opportunities for abuse; and most importantly does not serve the needs of the members especially those in regional areas (Zones 2 and 3) who need allocated management committee positions so that decision-making is informed and conscious of impacts throughout the whole state.

For those creating hysteria and telling us that RNA are going to take us over and take all of our stuff if the YES vote doesn't occur, it would seem this is not correct and they intend to send us on the same path to incorporation but with a more robust, extensive and inclusive process of establishing the supporting constitution. Certainly from the regional perspective, CCCQ and their constitution draft are unwilling to listen to our calls for allocated regional representation so an opportunity to further develop the constitution and make our case (and hopefully get a fair hearing instead of being dismissed and ignored) is in our interests, and in fact the interests of the whole organisation. The benefits that the inclusion of regional representatives for more balanced decision-making would certainly reduce the backflips, exceptions, duplications and protests that have occurred due to ill-informed, out of touch decision-making in the past.

My other question is why is Dogs Qld spending members money on their advertising, etc for this vote when incorporation and democracy through a far more inclusive and rigorous process than CCCQ used, is what the RNA will be directing us to do?

conztruct · January 10, 2012

Communication from RNA for CCCQ members interested in having all the facts. There are indeed two sides to every story and I would be interested in additional information from CCCQ including as to how much of the members money has been spent on what is a campaign by a closed group of members who have not been inclusive of the membership as a whole - is that democracy?

http://rna.org.au/media/440038/combined-letter-to-cccq-9-jan-2012.pdf

agatha · January 10, 2012

Communication from RNA for CCCQ members interested in having all the facts. There are indeed two sides to every story and I would be interested in additional information from CCCQ including as to how much of the members money has been spent on what is a campaign by a closed group of members who have not been inclusive of the membership as a whole - is that democracy?

http://rna.org.au/media/440038/combined-letter-to-cccq-9-jan-2012.pdf

Hi again, thanks for telling me how to do the reply stuff, I am a dumbo when it comes to computer stuff. I agree there are always two sides to every story. Both the RNA and Dogs Queensland are entitled to put their point of view and concerns up. That is part of the democratic process. The RNA though keeps referring to Dogs For Democracy as a separate group, I just assumed that was the catchphrase that Dogs Queensland was using to get members attention.

I must admit I am disappointed that the RNA thinks that it is okay to publish the names of individual members from a private chat list though. Maybe this is why Dogs Queensland has not handed over our email addresses to it? And no I am NOT one of the people listed on the emails. But I am a firm believer in the right of everyone to voice their opinion in private without it suddenly appearing publically. I am sure you would not want everything you write to people privately put in the public domain just as I wouldn't. If everyone suddenly has to fear that everything we say will be put out there for the public to see no one will talk to anyone again, this is the curse of social media and organisations such as the RNA should not be lulled into its embrace.

Edited January 10, 2012 by agatha

conztruct · January 10, 2012

Communication from RNA for CCCQ members interested in having all the facts. There are indeed two sides to every story and I would be interested in additional information from CCCQ including as to how much of the members money has been spent on what is a campaign by a closed group of members who have not been inclusive of the membership as a whole - is that democracy?

http://rna.org.au/media/440038/combined-letter-to-cccq-9-jan-2012.pdf

Hi again, thanks for telling me how to do the reply stuff, I am a dumbo when it comes to computer stuff. I agree there are always two sides to every story. Both the RNA and Dogs Queensland are entitled to put their point of view and concerns up. That is part of the democratic process. The RNA though keeps referring to Dogs For Democracy as a separate group, I just assumed that was the catchphrase that Dogs Queensland was using to get members attention.

I must admit I am disappointed that the RNA thinks that it is okay to publish the names of individual members from a private chat list though. Maybe this is why Dogs Queensland has not handed over our email addresses to it? And no I am NOT one of the people listed on the emails. But I am a firm believer in the right of everyone to voice their opinion in private without it suddenly appearing publically. I am sure you would not want everything you write to people privately put in the public domain just as I wouldn't. If everyone suddenly has to fear that everything we say will be put out there for the public to see no one will talk to anyone again, this is the curse of social media and organisations such as the RNA should not be lulled into its embrace.

As I understand it the Dogs for Democracy communication was born from a self-selected group of members (a closed group, not inclusive of the whole membership and not providing any opportunity for other interested, equal members to be involved) who put the slogan and supporting documentation together using CCCQ's resources. It's fine for them to have their opinion and to advertise it widely but not to use the organisation's resources as far as I'm concerned. I have my own opinion and have certainly discussed it widely but I haven't had the opportunity to have CCCQ staff work on it, do a flashy design makeover on it, be granted the prominent use of the organisations website, had legal advice sought and provided and sent off for publication of flyers to be mailed to members - why should some members have this opportunity to support their view from the organisation and not others - not very democratic from a group calling for democracy - how much is it costing the members?.

I absolutely agree that Dogs Qld did the right thing in not providing the members contact details to the RNA - whether it would constitute a breach of privacy law or not, I don't know but it doesn't matter because protecting privacy even as a matter of principle or integrity rather than law is important. But I do believe that it would be appropriate in the interests of a balanced view for Dogs Qld to publish a link to or the contents of RNA's communication on their website.

As I read the communication from RNA - they have inserted an email from a member of the organisation who names the group conducting these discussions - this email and the communications have been published on a chat site and circulated to many members. As you correctly identified, the internet is a curse where one should exercise caution as to what they say and who they circulate it to. However, when you send an email your address as the sender or receiver may identify you and people know this - it is an inherent risk that people take, that their communication will be forwarded to and viewed by others. If privacy of group membership or the content of the discussion was a concern, there are plenty of steps that can be taken to conceal a distribution list so I can only assume these people are happy to stand by their commitment to their cause and their statements. There are many parties in this including the many calling for allocated regional representatives who have communicated and are only too happy to have their names attached to it for all to see.

I know what you're saying and in some ways I agree, but these people freely circulated their commentary with full knowledge that it may be onforwarded - there was no request for the discussions to be kept confidential or security to keep it that way. What I find more disturbing is that a group of members have established themselves without including others to push their opinion using the organisation's resources - not appropriate and I for one am glad that I found out. As unpleasant as it is, this kind of unprofessionalism is exactly the kind of information members need to be aware of to make informed judgements.

Don't get me wrong Agatha - I don't do things in black and white - I'm disappointed with and pleased with different actions of each group in this issue and prefer to judge on an issue by issue basis. The main thing for me is that I don't agree with the proposed constitution - it's deficient and doesn't serve the interests of the members so for me, an opportunity to have further input into the development of a better constitution is obviously a huge positive for me especially considering CCCQ are unwilling to listen to or take on our suggestions. Given that both parties have advised that incorporation is the objective, the constitution is the deciding factor.

agatha · January 10, 2012

Communication from RNA for CCCQ members interested in having all the facts. There are indeed two sides to every story and I would be interested in additional information from CCCQ including as to how much of the members money has been spent on what is a campaign by a closed group of members who have not been inclusive of the membership as a whole - is that democracy?

http://rna.org.au/media/440038/combined-letter-to-cccq-9-jan-2012.pdf

Hi again, thanks for telling me how to do the reply stuff, I am a dumbo when it comes to computer stuff. I agree there are always two sides to every story. Both the RNA and Dogs Queensland are entitled to put their point of view and concerns up. That is part of the democratic process. The RNA though keeps referring to Dogs For Democracy as a separate group, I just assumed that was the catchphrase that Dogs Queensland was using to get members attention.

I must admit I am disappointed that the RNA thinks that it is okay to publish the names of individual members from a private chat list though. Maybe this is why Dogs Queensland has not handed over our email addresses to it? And no I am NOT one of the people listed on the emails. But I am a firm believer in the right of everyone to voice their opinion in private without it suddenly appearing publically. I am sure you would not want everything you write to people privately put in the public domain just as I wouldn't. If everyone suddenly has to fear that everything we say will be put out there for the public to see no one will talk to anyone again, this is the curse of social media and organisations such as the RNA should not be lulled into its embrace.

I am going to have a go at replying the way you suggested, so I hope my dumb computer brain has got it:0)

As I understand it the Dogs for Democracy communication was born from a self-selected group of members (a closed group, not inclusive of the whole membership and not providing any opportunity for other interested, equal members to be involved) who put the slogan and supporting documentation together using CCCQ's resources. It's fine for them to have their opinion and to advertise it widely but not to use the organisation's resources as far as I'm concerned. I have my own opinion and have certainly discussed it widely but I haven't had the opportunity to have CCCQ staff work on it, do a flashy design makeover on it, be granted the prominent use of the organisations website, had legal advice sought and provided and sent off for publication of flyers to be mailed to members - why should some members have this opportunity to support their view from the organisation and not others - not very democratic from a group calling for democracy - how much is it costing the members?.

If people have concerns over this they should contact Dogs Queensland directly, I don't think anyone on any chat list or forum has the answer to this question.

I absolutely agree that Dogs Qld did the right thing in not providing the members contact details to the RNA - whether it would constitute a breach of privacy law or not, I don't know but it doesn't matter because protecting privacy even as a matter of principle or integrity rather than law is important. But I do believe that it would be appropriate in the interests of a balanced view for Dogs Qld to publish a link to or the contents of RNA's communication on their website.

I am glad we agree on the issue of not handing membership lists over. I don't know what the legalities are under the Privacy Act, but I am glad that Dogs Queensland didn't just hand out our details to anyone because they asked for them. In regards to providing a link to the RNA I wonder if the ALP provides a link to the LNP or visa versa as this debate has certainly become as polarised as any other political debate. People are free to look at both websites. I am playing the devil's advocate with this one.

As I read the communication from RNA - they have inserted an email from a member of the organisation who names the group conducting these discussions - this email and the communications have been published on a chat site and circulated to many members. As you correctly identified, the internet is a curse where one should exercise caution as to what they say and who they circulate it to. However, when you send an email your address as the sender or receiver may identify you and people know this - it is an inherent risk that people take, that their communication will be forwarded to and viewed by others. If privacy of group membership or the content of the discussion was a concern, there are plenty of steps that can be taken to conceal a distribution list so I can only assume these people are happy to stand by their commitment to their cause and their statements. There are many parties in this including the many calling for allocated regional representatives who have communicated and are only too happy to have their names attached to it for all to see.

The way I read the communication from the RNA was that they had inserted a third party email that did not come from those named, ie the third party was "outing" those named and then commenting on their alleged involvement. I maybe interpreting that incorrectly, but that's how I read it. And there are heaps of people who are not au fait with the internet or the inherit risks it imposes. I am pretty much computer illiterate and I imagine there are lots of people who are like me. I am a bit old fashioned and I guess if I was sent an email I wouldn't then email it on to other people unless I had permission to do so.

I know what you're saying and in some ways I agree, but these people freely circulated their commentary with full knowledge that it may be onforwarded - there was no request for the discussions to be kept confidential or security to keep it that way. What I find more disturbing is that a group of members have established themselves without including others to push their opinion using the organisation's resources - not appropriate and I for one am glad that I found out. As unpleasant as it is, this kind of unprofessionalism is exactly the kind of information members need to be aware of to make informed judgements.

Don't get me wrong Agatha - I don't do things in black and white - I'm disappointed with and pleased with different actions of each group in this issue and prefer to judge on an issue by issue basis. The main thing for me is that I don't agree with the proposed constitution - it's deficient and doesn't serve the interests of the members so for me, an opportunity to have further input into the development of a better constitution is obviously a huge positive for me especially considering CCCQ are unwilling to listen to or take on our suggestions. Given that both parties have advised that incorporation is the objective, the constitution is the deciding factor.

In regards to the constitution I much prefer postal votes to proxy votes. In my experience with other organisations (not dog related) proxy votes are usually only on agenda items, not on motions brought up in general business. If proxies are allowed on un-agended (not sure if that's a word) items the person holding the proxy effectively has two votes on an issue because unless they are in direct phone/text/email contact with the other person at the time they really don't know how that person would vote. I think postal votes are a better way of people being heard, and are harder to manipulate as the vote is there in black & white. Also on the issue of the model rules I am going through this process with another organisation at the moment (not dog related) and the advice we have from the government is if something is not in the model rules, it doesn't mean it can't be included in a constitution as long as whatever it is is not breeching the act in any other way. So, my understanding from what I have been told (when dealing with the other organisation's process) there would be no problem if Dogs Queensland wanted its members to have postal vote.

conztruct · January 10, 2012

Yes, the Dogs Qld website advises that FAQ questions will be posted today - as yet they haven't eventuated but I'm keen to see what further information they have to provide.

I get where you're coming from with playing the devil's advocate but with all due respect Dogs Qld is not a political party, as a member of the organisation I do not agree with the propaganda representing the view of SOME members (it certainly doesn't represent mine) which has been created using the organisation's resources that we ALL pay for, appearing on the Dogs Qld website. I do not expect my organisation to be driven on the whims of a power-group's agenda. What I expect as a member is information that enables me to make an informed decision and cast an informed vote if I was to travel to Brisbane to attend the meeting - not misleading, incorrect, feeble propaganda. I also expect professionalism and objectivity from the employees of the organisation. So as you can imagine I'm not exactly sympathetic that people making vulgar, stupid statements got caught out and now everyone knows about it. We go through life finding out things and making judgements based on things we discover that others probably wish we hadn't - if you don't want to face the consequences, don't put yourself in the way of harm.

To be honest, I think whatever anyone in their secret group said or did whilst valuable information to know the character of those you are dealing with, is irrelevant at this point - it's another issue to be dealt with at another time. The point of the matter is that CCCQ is not willing to listen to their members on the matter of regional representation and is trying to rush through a deficient constitution based on a campaign of misleading statements that contains many undemocratic provisions and is not going to serve the needs of members, especially the regional members who have been conveniently ignored and brushed aside for years. The RNA have advised their intention is for Dogs Qld to become it's own entity through incorporation and are providing a far more rigorous consultation process for members than has been provided by CCCQ.

It's not a personal attack Agatha but as I have said a number of times to many others (and it applies to all parties to this issue equally), as soon as someone seeks to discredit the actions of another party instead of addressing the actual issue at hand, it speaks volumes of the merit of their argument (or lack thereof). The behaviour of all parties at times has been poor and it is mediocre at best to assert a greater moral or ethical authority by claiming that of all the parties the others behaved worse than you...........

I'd rather focus on the issue at hand. For me, CCCQ has ignored and will not support the constant calls for regional (Zone 2 and Zone 3) allocated representative seats on the management committee as well as identification of many undemocratic provisions and deficient, contradictory clauses prone to abuse as I have outlined in this thread. I know I sound like a broken record on these issues but I and many other supportive members will unapologetically continue to pursue them and don't think for a moment that the people in charge will make an ounce of difference to that.

agatha · January 11, 2012

Yes, the Dogs Qld website advises that FAQ questions will be posted today - as yet they haven't eventuated but I'm keen to see what further information they have to provide.

I too am hoping there will be more information.

I get where you're coming from with playing the devil's advocate but with all due respect Dogs Qld is not a political party, as a member of the organisation I do not agree with the propaganda representing the view of SOME members (it certainly doesn't represent mine) which has been created using the organisation's resources that we ALL pay for, appearing on the Dogs Qld website. I do not expect my organisation to be driven on the whims of a power-group's agenda. What I expect as a member is information that enables me to make an informed decision and cast an informed vote if I was to travel to Brisbane to attend the meeting - not misleading, incorrect, feeble propaganda.

I don't think that it is a case of DQ only representing the views of SOME members. We had the referendum and of those that returned the ballot 90% supported the question that was to incorporate with the proposed constitution. I agree that not all members returned the ballot, but what does that really say ... to me it says they are not interested in the outcome either way. Which for me is sad, but it is their right. You can't force people to care. So in my opinion DQ have been acting on the majority view of people who are actively involved in the process. It is unfair for people who chose not to have a voice in the original ballot to now cry foul (and please I am not accusing you of being one of those people) I believe that ballot gave DQ the mandate to carry through with incorporation with the constitution. Now DQ has revised the constitution again surely in any democratic process that is what we expect?

I also expect professionalism and objectivity from the employees of the organisation. So as you can imagine I'm not exactly sympathetic that people making vulgar, stupid statements got caught out and now everyone knows about it. We go through life finding out things and making judgements based on things we discover that others probably wish we hadn't - if you don't want to face the consequences, don't put yourself in the way of harm.

I agree totally that while wearing their work hat that is how they should act. Now I will be the Devil's advocate again, what if someone makes private comments to other people not as Julia Gillard, Prime Minister, but as Julia Gillard private person, where there is an expectation that the comments made are to remain private, only to find they are on the front page of the paper the next day? I am sure I have, as you have have said, and written in emails things we wouldn't necessarily want repeated to the whole world, sometimes even in the heat of the moment, sometimes because you assume the person you are talking with/emailing or whatever is someone you trust. I think it says more about the character of the person that released private emails than the people who wrote them, as if we are to be honest with ourselves we are all guilty of saying the wrong thing about people at times. But to call yourself a friend and then betray the friendship that is something different again.

To be honest, I think whatever anyone in their secret group said or did whilst valuable information to know the character of those you are dealing with, is irrelevant at this point - it's another issue to be dealt with at another time. The point of the matter is that CCCQ is not willing to listen to their members on the matter of regional representation and is trying to rush through a deficient constitution based on a campaign of misleading statements that contains many undemocratic provisions and is not going to serve the needs of members, especially the regional members who have been conveniently ignored and brushed aside for years. The RNA have advised their intention is for Dogs Qld to become it's own entity through incorporation and are providing a far more rigorous consultation process for members than has been provided by CCCQ.

You are right . It is not about who said what about whom, or who sent what private email to whom. It IS however a matter of how we all perceive we have been treated as members by DQ. For me personally, I have never had a problem. I breed infrequently, the last litter I bred the registrations were processed quickly & efficiently. I had a problem with a long term owner dumping a dog in another State, DQ were very helpful when it came to advising me the best way of proceeding so legally I was in the clear. I get my magazines on time. I whinge when memberships go up, but I understand why they do, the cost of everything is going up. The RNA says it will provide more rigorous consultation, but I don't want the RNA involved in our organisation. If I wanted to be a member of the RNA I would join it. I joined Dogs Queensland and to be quite honest I remember a number of years ago when we tried to disengage from the RNA and that failed then. I just want it done with, so we can make our own choices, and yes our own mistakes if need be. I am sick of the nanny state mentality we live in in the wider community and I don't want it in my hobbies.

It's not a personal attack Agatha but as I have said a number of times to many others (and it applies to all parties to this issue equally), as soon as someone seeks to discredit the actions of another party instead of addressing the actual issue at hand, it speaks volumes of the merit of their argument (or lack thereof). The behaviour of all parties at times has been poor and it is mediocre at best to assert a greater moral or ethical authority by claiming that of all the parties the others behaved worse than you...........

It would be far easier if all DQ and the RNA just stuck to the fact and the supporters on both sides (not directed at you either) did too, but unfortunately whenever human beings are added to the mix there will always be these types of tactics and attacks. It would seem the concept of a "gentleman's war" went out a very long time ago.

I'd rather focus on the issue at hand. For me, CCCQ has ignored and will not support the constant calls for regional (Zone 2 and Zone 3) allocated representative seats on the management committee as well as identification of many undemocratic provisions and deficient, contradictory clauses prone to abuse as I have outlined in this thread. I know I sound like a broken record on these issues but I and many other supportive members will unapologetically continue to pursue them and don't think for a moment that the people in charge will make an ounce of difference to that.

I can see your point of view with allocated representative seats on the management committee. But being the Devils Advocate again. Say we had the allocated seats, would that mean that no other people from zones 2 & 3 would be able to stand for a committee position. Or Should we have a Zone 1, 2 & 3 allocated positions and the rest are up for grabs? What would happen (and I realise this is unlikely, but humour me in anycase) but what would happen if all the committee positions were filled by people from zones 2 & 3. leaving zone 1 unrepresented? The way the revised constition is doesn't stop people from zones 2 or 3 from seeking a committee position does it? Also noone can assume that someone selected from Zone 2 will always do what Zone 2 wants, likewise if a committee member lives in zone 1 it doesn't automatically make them against zone 2 or 3? I really am trying to understand and put a couple of ideas out there too.

conztruct · January 11, 2012

I don't think that it is a case of DQ only representing the views of SOME members. We had the referendum and of those that returned the ballot 90% supported the question that was to incorporate with the proposed constitution. I agree that not all members returned the ballot, but what does that really say ... to me it says they are not interested in the outcome either way. Which for me is sad, but it is their right. You can't force people to care. So in my opinion DQ have been acting on the majority view of people who are actively involved in the process. It is unfair for people who chose not to have a voice in the original ballot to now cry foul (and please I am not accusing you of being one of those people) I believe that ballot gave DQ the mandate to carry through with incorporation with the constitution. Now DQ has revised the constitution again surely in any democratic process that is what we expect?

I know what you're saying but 90% of the respondents is SOME of the members, not all. I don't think it matters about a majority or minority view, as we are all equal and paying members of the organisation, why is it that the resources of the organiastion have been used to only represent one view, and why hasn't the opportunity been provided from those with different views to use these same resources and have equal opportunity to campaign their view, even if in the minority. Should we not all have equal opportunity no matter what our view? If you are going to liken this situation to the political arena, all parties (or views if you will) have opportunity through the media etc to campaign for their cause. If DQ is all about democracy, how democratic is it to deny all other views except one the resources and media space (website) of the organisation. By censoring all other views than one, how does this give people a democratic say unless they toe the line of the majority. With all due respect the ballot was a loaded question - many people didn't like elements of the constitution but were told that if they did not vote yes, they were against incorporation (not true everyone including RNA is for that), they were told that there would never be another opportunity to incorporate (again not true - here we are only a few months later), the RNA were going to take us over (again not true) and I must say this is the only democratic ballot I've been involved in where a letter from only one side of the question campaigning their cause and including the above falsehoods was enclosed with the ballot. Do you really think that a ballot tainted with propaganda based on misinformation is really democratic??

I agree totally that while wearing their work hat that is how they should act. Now I will be the Devil's advocate again, what if someone makes private comments to other people not as Julia Gillard, Prime Minister, but as Julia Gillard private person, where there is an expectation that the comments made are to remain private, only to find they are on the front page of the paper the next day? I am sure I have, as you have have said, and written in emails things we wouldn't necessarily want repeated to the whole world, sometimes even in the heat of the moment, sometimes because you assume the person you are talking with/emailing or whatever is someone you trust. I think it says more about the character of the person that released private emails than the people who wrote them, as if we are to be honest with ourselves we are all guilty of saying the wrong thing about people at times. But to call yourself a friend and then betray the friendship that is something different again.

Julia? Yes what if. This happens all the time as you would know. That is why our politicians have staff and exercise extreme caution over the statements they make, even in private. It is their responsibility to ensure they do this otherwise they are fair game should their irresponsible comments fall into the wrong hands. Is it nice? No. Do I support that kind of thing? No. But as above DQ have not exactly behaved like little angels with the accuracy of their propaganda of what the RNA is supposed to be doing even without any evidence such as emails (intended to be private or otherwise) to validate the legitimacy of their claims. Are you saying that DQ have acted perfectly in all this and the RNA are behaving badly? As I mentioned it was a member of the organisation who chose to out the group for whatever reason and I assume it's her character you are calling into question. As you have read the communication from the RNA, you will know who this member is and I'd recommend that maybe you challenge her directly on her character for doing this and maybe ask what the justification was? Unless you find out, any assumed motives is merely baseless speculation.

You are right . It is not about who said what about whom, or who sent what private email to whom. It IS however a matter of how we all perceive we have been treated as members by DQ. For me personally, I have never had a problem. I breed infrequently, the last litter I bred the registrations were processed quickly & efficiently. I had a problem with a long term owner dumping a dog in another State, DQ were very helpful when it came to advising me the best way of proceeding so legally I was in the clear. I get my magazines on time. I whinge when memberships go up, but I understand why they do, the cost of everything is going up. The RNA says it will provide more rigorous consultation, but I don't want the RNA involved in our organisation. If I wanted to be a member of the RNA I would join it. I joined Dogs Queensland and to be quite honest I remember a number of years ago when we tried to disengage from the RNA and that failed then. I just want it done with, so we can make our own choices, and yes our own mistakes if need be. I am sick of the nanny state mentality we live in in the wider community and I don't want it in my hobbies.

I have no issues with the operational aspects of DQ at all. But this issue is structural and strategic. The correspondence from RNA clearly states that they are appointing an interim council to move DQ towards incorporation so it seems they are intending not to be involved, they aren't asking you to be a member of RNA so I'm not quite sure how they're trying to make it a nanny state as you say. The RNA are advocating a more rigorous process of consultation to be outworked by the interim DQ council so again while the hysteria that RNA are taking over is being ramped up, it's not the case. Yep, I'm selfish - as I said DQ have failed our regional members and refuse to even put our calls for designated regional representatives in a draft constitution to go to a vote (not very democratic) the current council have picked and chosen what they want. If you read the explanatory notes that went with the previous draft of the constitution the reasons for the council denying this progressive step were thin, irrelevant and trivial. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the historical reference, I assume that you don't mean that even though the RNA have clearly outlined their process for DQ to be their own members organisation through incorporation that it won't happen because their was a failed bid in the past?

It would be far easier if all DQ and the RNA just stuck to the fact and the supporters on both sides (not directed at you either) did too, but unfortunately whenever human beings are added to the mix there will always be these types of tactics and attacks. It would seem the concept of a "gentleman's war" went out a very long time ago.

Yep - it's a sure sign of the times - politeness, decency, professionalism and all those good values are dead when it comes to the lengths people will go to, to get their way. Fortunately there's still a few who play by the rules a bit and I'd hope I still fit into that category. Whilst I might make personal judgements about people based on their behaviour, I well and truly make my decisions based on the facts of their position. I tend to tune out when the attacks on the other parties rather than their policies/positions occur as they're just trying to divert attention away from the facts.

I can see your point of view with allocated representative seats on the management committee. But being the Devils Advocate again. Say we had the allocated seats, would that mean that no other people from zones 2 & 3 would be able to stand for a committee position. Or Should we have a Zone 1, 2 & 3 allocated positions and the rest are up for grabs? What would happen (and I realise this is unlikely, but humour me in anycase) but what would happen if all the committee positions were filled by people from zones 2 & 3. leaving zone 1 unrepresented? The way the revised constition is doesn't stop people from zones 2 or 3 from seeking a committee position does it? Also noone can assume that someone selected from Zone 2 will always do what Zone 2 wants, likewise if a committee member lives in zone 1 it doesn't automatically make them against zone 2 or 3? I really am trying to understand and put a couple of ideas out there too.

Honestly, the mechanics would be up to someone much smarter than me to ensure our diverse membership is adequately represented and this is the whole point of my arguments. I would suggest (and again this isn't from someone with constitutional expertise) that some type of procedural clause be that the members of the council are elected by majority ballot with the highest polling nominations elected providing at least one representative from Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3 are on the management committee. Should a representative from each zone not be elected through number of votes, the highest polling nomination from that Zone will be allocated on of the allotted positions on the management committee. This would mean that even in your example where say Zone 2 and 3 people polled the highest number of votes, the highest polling Zone 1 person would be elected to the management committee. The constitution in any form has never prevented a nomination from Zone 2 or Zone 3 but how many Zone 2 or Zone 3 people have been elected to council in comparison to Zone 1? The reason is that there is a significant disparity in numbers between Zone 1 and regional areas and of course, this has been exacerbated by no provision for postal voting. Even with the provision of postal voting however, the disparity in numbers is still too significant to enable a Zone 2 or Zone 3 person to realistically have the same opportunity and chance. In terms of explanation, it's like having a vote for the 8 rural seats in the state election (population 200,000 of so) and having all Brisbane (say 5 million or so) voting for it - there are 8 regional candidates and everyone in the rural areas vote for one of them because they desperately want a local representative = 200,000 votes, there are 8 candidates in Brisbane for the seats and they all get in despite everyone in the regional area coordinating their vote because they just don't have the numbers. This is why there are designated regional and metropolitan seats in parliament, to have a parliament that represents the constituency. DQ should not have a problem with doing the same.

There is always a risk that elected representatives will not do what their constituency want no matter what the structure, so to use is as an example why Zone 2 and Zone 3 shouldn't have designated representatives on the management committee isn't really valid because the risk would not be limited to that particular structure but is inherent in every situation.

Edited to add: You'll have to excuse some of my horrendous spelling, grammar and word choice errors as there is too much for me to go through and change and I don't have enough time to do it - lol

Edited January 11, 2012 by conztruct

agatha · January 11, 2012

I know what you're saying but 90% of the respondents is SOME of the members, not all. I don't think it matters about a majority or minority view, as we are all equal and paying members of the organisation, why is it that the resources of the organiastion have been used to only represent one view, and why hasn't the opportunity been provided from those with different views to use these same resources and have equal opportunity to campaign their view, even if in the minority. Should we not all have equal opportunity no matter what our view? If you are going to liken this situation to the political arena, all parties (or views if you will) have opportunity through the media etc to campaign for their cause. If DQ is all about democracy, how democratic is it to deny all other views except one the resources and media space (website) of the organisation. By censoring all other views than one, how does this give people a democratic say unless they toe the line of the majority. With all due respect the ballot was a loaded question - many people didn't like elements of the constitution but were told that if they did not vote yes, they were against incorporation (not true everyone including RNA is for that), they were told that there would never be another opportunity to incorporate (again not true - here we are only a few months later), the RNA were going to take us over (again not true) and I must say this is the only democratic ballot I've been involved in where a letter from only one side of the question campaigning their cause and including the above falsehoods was enclosed with the ballot. Do you really think that a ballot tainted with propaganda based on misinformation is really democratic??

I think personally when it came to the actual ballot question DQ was damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Incorporation law in Queensland requires any organisation to have a constitution. If they don't the organisation must by law adopt all of the rules of the Model Constitution. So the way I see it DQ had two options to ask the question about incorporation without the question about the constitution, thereby proceeding to incorporation under the Model Constitution in its entirety, or ask the members would they accept the proposed constitution which is the path they chose. Could DQ have handled things differently, of course they could have. But hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think we forget that the councillors are all volunteers, they are not paid to do this, as is the case in most incorporated organisations.

You are right . It is not about who said what about whom, or who sent what private email to whom. It IS however a matter of how we all perceive we have been treated as members by DQ. For me personally, I have never had a problem. I breed infrequently, the last litter I bred the registrations were processed quickly & efficiently. I had a problem with a long term owner dumping a dog in another State, DQ were very helpful when it came to advising me the best way of proceeding so legally I was in the clear. I get my magazines on time. I whinge when memberships go up, but I understand why they do, the cost of everything is going up. The RNA says it will provide more rigorous consultation, but I don't want the RNA involved in our organisation. If I wanted to be a member of the RNA I would join it. I joined Dogs Queensland and to be quite honest I remember a number of years ago when we tried to disengage from the RNA and that failed then. I just want it done with, so we can make our own choices, and yes our own mistakes if need be. I am sick of the nanny state mentality we live in in the wider community and I don't want it in my hobbies.

I have no issues with the operational aspects of DQ at all. But this issue is structural and strategic. The correspondence from RNA clearly states that they are appointing an interim council to move DQ towards incorporation so it seems they are intending not to be involved, they aren't asking you to be a member of RNA so I'm not quite sure how they're trying to make it a nanny state as you say. The RNA are advocating a more rigorous process of consultation to be outworked by the interim DQ council so again while the hysteria that RNA are taking over is being ramped up, it's not the case. Yep, I'm selfish - as I said DQ have failed our regional members and refuse to even put our calls for designated regional representatives in a draft constitution to go to a vote (not very democratic) the current council have picked and chosen what they want. If you read the explanatory notes that went with the previous draft of the constitution the reasons for the council denying this progressive step were thin, irrelevant and trivial. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the historical reference, I assume that you don't mean that even though the RNA have clearly outlined their process for DQ to be their own members organisation through incorporation that it won't happen because their was a failed bid in the past?

Probably about 15 years ago, but it may have been longer there was a push to separate from the RNA that was defeated at the time, I can't remember all the particulars. I have for as long as I have been a member of Dogs Queensland never understood why as a member I couldn't chose our representatives. It has always irked me that the only way to have a say in how things would run, would be to join the RNA which I have never done. In all the time I have been a member of Dogs Queensland I can never remember the RNA calling for expressions of interest for the positions of councillors, so yes I regard that step as interference in our process. Why suddenly change something now? Why does the RNA need to guide us through the incorporation process? Surely our organisation is solvent and successful enough to stand on its own two feet and work through the process itself. Will there be mistakes? Of course, there will always be mistakes, but those mistakes will happen whether the RNA appoints a new council or not, or is involved in the process or not. The point that frustrates me the most, that if we as DQ members are truly in charge of our own destinies we MUST be allowed to make those mistakes ourselves, it is part of the growing up and leaving home process.

It would be far easier if all DQ and the RNA just stuck to the fact and the supporters on both sides (not directed at you either) did too, but unfortunately whenever human beings are added to the mix there will always be these types of tactics and attacks. It would seem the concept of a "gentleman's war" went out a very long time ago.

Yep - it's a sure sign of the times - politeness, decency, professionalism and all those good values are dead when it comes to the lengths people will go to, to get their way. Fortunately there's still a few who play by the rules a bit and I'd hope I still fit into that category. Whilst I might make personal judgements about people based on their behaviour, I well and truly make my decisions based on the facts of their position. I tend to tune out when the attacks on the other parties rather than their policies/positions occur as they're just trying to divert attention away from the facts.

I can see your point of view with allocated representative seats on the management committee. But being the Devils Advocate again. Say we had the allocated seats, would that mean that no other people from zones 2 & 3 would be able to stand for a committee position. Or Should we have a Zone 1, 2 & 3 allocated positions and the rest are up for grabs? What would happen (and I realise this is unlikely, but humour me in anycase) but what would happen if all the committee positions were filled by people from zones 2 & 3. leaving zone 1 unrepresented? The way the revised constition is doesn't stop people from zones 2 or 3 from seeking a committee position does it? Also noone can assume that someone selected from Zone 2 will always do what Zone 2 wants, likewise if a committee member lives in zone 1 it doesn't automatically make them against zone 2 or 3? I really am trying to understand and put a couple of ideas out there too.

Honestly, the mechanics would be up to someone much smarter than me to ensure our diverse membership is adequately represented and this is the whole point of my arguments. I would suggest (and again this isn't from someone with constitutional expertise) that some type of procedural clause be that the members of the council are elected by majority ballot with the highest polling nominations elected providing at least one representative from Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3 are on the management committee. Should a representative from each zone not be elected through number of votes, the highest polling nomination from that Zone will be allocated on of the allotted positions on the management committee. This would mean that even in your example where say Zone 2 and 3 people polled the highest number of votes, the highest polling Zone 1 person would be elected to the management committee. The constitution in any form has never prevented a nomination from Zone 2 or Zone 3 but how many Zone 2 or Zone 3 people have been elected to council in comparison to Zone 1? The reason is that there is a significant disparity in numbers between Zone 1 and regional areas and of course, this has been exacerbated by no provision for postal voting. Even with the provision of postal voting however, the disparity in numbers is still too significant to enable a Zone 2 or Zone 3 person to realistically have the same opportunity and chance. In terms of explanation, it's like having a vote for the 8 rural seats in the state election (population 200,000 of so) and having all Brisbane (say 5 million or so) voting for it - there are 8 regional candidates and everyone in the rural areas vote for one of them because they desperately want a local representative = 200,000 votes, there are 8 candidates in Brisbane for the seats and they all get in despite everyone in the regional area coordinating their vote because they just don't have the numbers. This is why there are designated regional and metropolitan seats in parliament, to have a parliament that represents the constituency. DQ should not have a problem with doing the same.

There is always a risk that elected representatives will not do what their constituency want no matter what the structure, so to use is as an example why Zone 2 and Zone 3 shouldn't have designated representatives on the management committee isn't really valid because the risk would not be limited to that particular structure but is inherent in every situation.

I wasn't saying that this should be a reason not to have representatives from the zones, just pointing out people don't always do what we think they should.

Edited to add: You'll have to excuse some of my horrendous spelling, grammar and word choice errors as there is too much for me to go through and change and I don't have enough time to do it - lol

I think my spelling is pretty bad it is too hot here at the moment over 40 degrees

conztruct · January 11, 2012

I think personally when it came to the actual ballot question DQ was damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Incorporation law in Queensland requires any organisation to have a constitution. If they don't the organisation must by law adopt all of the rules of the Model Constitution. So the way I see it DQ had two options to ask the question about incorporation without the question about the constitution, thereby proceeding to incorporation under the Model Constitution in its entirety, or ask the members would they accept the proposed constitution which is the path they chose. Could DQ have handled things differently, of course they could have. But hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think we forget that the councillors are all volunteers, they are not paid to do this, as is the case in most incorporated organisations.

I certainly take your point and of course, there will always be some people who aren't happy with a process. I guess the thing that made me most unhappy was the statements that went along with the question that voting no meant that we didn't support incorporation, the RNA were going to take us over and steal all our assets. This was not the case - everyone supported incorporation (I don't know this for a fact but I'd but $5 on it) but there were many who did not support the draft constitution and now the revised draft constitution because it is full of flaws and there is an absence of a key component (allocated regional reps) that many members have been calling for but MC has decided not to put to the vote. This isn't letting the membership decide and is not democratic and in fact the campaign and statements have been misleading and at times patently incorrect.

Probably about 15 years ago, but it may have been longer there was a push to separate from the RNA that was defeated at the time, I can't remember all the particulars. I have for as long as I have been a member of Dogs Queensland never understood why as a member I couldn't chose our representatives. It has always irked me that the only way to have a say in how things would run, would be to join the RNA which I have never done. In all the time I have been a member of Dogs Queensland I can never remember the RNA calling for expressions of interest for the positions of councillors, so yes I regard that step as interference in our process. Why suddenly change something now? Why does the RNA need to guide us through the incorporation process? Surely our organisation is solvent and successful enough to stand on its own two feet and work through the process itself. Will there be mistakes? Of course, there will always be mistakes, but those mistakes will happen whether the RNA appoints a new council or not, or is involved in the process or not. The point that frustrates me the most, that if we as DQ members are truly in charge of our own destinies we MUST be allowed to make those mistakes ourselves, it is part of the growing up and leaving home process.

We should change absolutely and from the communications both DQ and RNA have same objective of incorporation for Dogs Qld so that it is it's own entity. RNA has called for nominations because according to the rules the CCCQ council is appointed at their February meeting the time for which is cutting short and I haven't seen any nomination process from Dogs Qld instigated - the RNA are following a logical, systematic process to ensure our council is in place. I would imagine in the past that Dogs Qld have prepared their nominations and recommendations for the appointments by this point in the year which would negate the requirement for RNA to drive the process. Again, the appointed CCCQ council will be guiding us through the consultation process, not RNA - after the consultation process and ignorance and contempt directed towards the suggestions and submissions (especially those which heavily impact on regional members) by CCCQ, it is a good thing that someone is advocating a more stable, robust process. The reference to mistakes I agree with, there are always mistakes, but mistakes suggests a lack of intent, but the reality is that CCCQ filtered the submissions especially the one regarding allocated regional representation on the MC and refused to even let it go to a vote. Intended and unintended actions are completely different. Of course we need to set our own direction but the draft constitution proposed is highly flawed, does not even allow a democratic vote on key provisions that I feel are essential to meet the needs of members and ensure democracy (as I've outlined above) and is being campaigned on by statements that do not reflect the true content or mechanics of the document. To start off in such a precarious position and to establish it by misinforming the membership leaves the organisation at risk of abuse and not functioning for the members or the objectives of the organisation.

To have a truly democratic organisation DQ needs to have a constitution that:

Doesn't contain the current contradictions exposing DQ to the risk of abuse and conduct not in the spirit of the intention of the document - this is simply a matter of reviewing with consistency
Guarantees at least one representative from each Zone to ensure that decision-making is fully informed and considers the Qld-wide impact as part of the process.
Vacates all management committee positions each year enabling the members to have a democratic vote for our MC (not to protect councillers from being judged)
Reflects that a majority vote carries all decisions and actions

There are probably other provisions that other members want to put forward so it demonstrates that the draft is deficient and the original process was not adequate to establish a draft constitution that met the needs of the members, and the need for greater consultation, time and effort being invested in making sure we start off on the right foot.

agatha · January 11, 2012

To have a truly democratic organisation DQ needs to have a constitution that:

Doesn't contain the current contradictions exposing DQ to the risk of abuse and conduct not in the spirit of the intention of the document - this is simply a matter of reviewing with consistency

Guarantees at least one representative from each Zone to ensure that decision-making is fully informed and considers the Qld-wide impact as part of the process.

Vacates all management committee positions each year enabling the members to have a democratic vote for our MC (not to protect councillers from being judged)

Reflects that a majority vote carries all decisions and actions

There are probably other provisions that other members want to put forward so it demonstrates that the draft is deficient and the original process was not adequate to establish a draft constitution that met the needs of the members, and the need for greater consultation, time and effort being invested in making sure we start off on the right foot.

Yep I totally get where you are coming from in all of the above. I know some people want total transparency in all that DQ and the MC does, but in reality what business has total transparency. There are always issues of commerical in confidence, and what about dealing with members who allegedly breech rules. Should all the individuals dirty laundry be out for everyone to read, even if they are found innocent of any breech? I think there needs to be more openess in issues dealt with by the MC maybe after each meetings there need to be summaries sent out to the clubs and printed in Dog World. These summaries would protect the right of individual members to privacy and also protect commercial interests.

On the issue of a designated representative from each region I am still not convinced that this ultimately would be the best process as I could see the regions ending up being short changed. IE the reasoning being "Look we have a Zone 2 & 3 councillor what more do the regions want?" I think some members could be lulled into thinking that they couldn't have more than those two representatives from the regions.

As for vacating all council positions each year, I think it would be more valuable to have something similar to a half senate election. The problem is that by vacating all positions the possibility exists that you have a totally new MC with no experience in the specific procedures of DQ. I don't quite know how you would do it, but maybe have half the positions up for election this year, the other half next year and do it round about each time, so there are always people with at least some experience of DQ on the MC? This is purely my opinion of course, and it may be a bit cumbersome but the only other option would be to elect people for two or three year terms maybe?

One the issue of voting, I thought the voting was being carried by way of a simple majority under the revised document?

conztruct · January 11, 2012

To have a truly democratic organisation DQ needs to have a constitution that:

Doesn't contain the current contradictions exposing DQ to the risk of abuse and conduct not in the spirit of the intention of the document - this is simply a matter of reviewing with consistency

Guarantees at least one representative from each Zone to ensure that decision-making is fully informed and considers the Qld-wide impact as part of the process.

Vacates all management committee positions each year enabling the members to have a democratic vote for our MC (not to protect councillers from being judged)

Reflects that a majority vote carries all decisions and actions

There are probably other provisions that other members want to put forward so it demonstrates that the draft is deficient and the original process was not adequate to establish a draft constitution that met the needs of the members, and the need for greater consultation, time and effort being invested in making sure we start off on the right foot.

Yep I totally get where you are coming from in all of the above. I know some people want total transparency in all that DQ and the MC does, but in reality what business has total transparency. There are always issues of commerical in confidence, and what about dealing with members who allegedly breech rules. Should all the individuals dirty laundry be out for everyone to read, even if they are found innocent of any breech? I think there needs to be more openess in issues dealt with by the MC maybe after each meetings there need to be summaries sent out to the clubs and printed in Dog World. These summaries would protect the right of individual members to privacy and also protect commercial interests.

On the issue of a designated representative from each region I am still not convinced that this ultimately would be the best process as I could see the regions ending up being short changed. IE the reasoning being "Look we have a Zone 2 & 3 councillor what more do the regions want?" I think some members could be lulled into thinking that they couldn't have more than those two representatives from the regions.

As for vacating all council positions each year, I think it would be more valuable to have something similar to a half senate election. The problem is that by vacating all positions the possibility exists that you have a totally new MC with no experience in the specific procedures of DQ. I don't quite know how you would do it, but maybe have half the positions up for election this year, the other half next year and do it round about each time, so there are always people with at least some experience of DQ on the MC? This is purely my opinion of course, and it may be a bit cumbersome but the only other option would be to elect people for two or three year terms maybe?

One the issue of voting, I thought the voting was being carried by way of a simple majority under the revised document?

Transparency is nice and expected more and more in organisations now but I agree there are times when privacy and confidence is required, however my points aren't about transparency they're about contradicting statements in the constitution that may impact members democratic opportunities (again this is my reading of the constitution, not an expert but it is unclear. As an example there is a provision of postal votes which are required to be submitted 3 days before the meeting, however, there is another provision that states the management committee can determine the method and parameters of voting and reduce the notice time for voting. What this may mean is that a management committee could constitutionally make a decision to deny postal votes or reduce the notice time so that members are unable to get their postal votes to DQ within the notice period, making them invalid constitutionally. This is the tightening and further review I am talking about, rather than the provisions be changed altogether, they just need to be clarified so the voting process and notice periods may be decided but not at the expense of providing sufficient opportunity for postal votes to be submitted and count.

I agree transparency should not be an opportunity to damage someone and I do not advocate this however, none of the requested alterations to the constitution are seeking this? DQ have stated that they will provide summaries of minutes, etc for members to view which is great however, the issue again is the current draft constitution not the procedure which can still be adopted after further review and development of an improved constitution through a more robust and extensive consultative process.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your statement about the "what more do the regions want?" Are we not also members of the association? This totally highlights the problems that the regions have had to put up with for years being referred to as those whinging people who always want to have a say in how things happen but don't have the numbers to vote one of their own is as a representative. The DQ policy so far has been to consult when they felt it was necessary which was basically not at all which has resulted in many decisions which have later had to be overturned, exceptions put in place, etc because they were made without considering the diversity of our members. The regions are being short changed now, with no representation on the management committee at all and having to deal with and constantly fight to not be impacted detrimentally by decisions of people who don't consider, don't understand and probably don't care - you really would had to have been on the receiving end to understand why your questioning over whether we would be shortchanged by having a voice in the management of the organisation or whether it would be of value is.......I'm trying to think of the word......as unintentional as it is on your part because you haven't been privy to the same perspective as regional members, really @#$%ing insulting. It's like saying Tasmania would be shortchanged because they have seats in parliament for the same reason, so they shouldn't have them - if you can understand how that would feel to a Tasmanian, you will understand what a regional member would think of this notion.

A clear deck in my opinion is the highest form of democracy and that's what we're after isn't it? Every year, candidates will nominate for election including those who already serve on the management committee and be considered equally by the members and voted on. If the existing councillors are doing a great job, it is highly likely they'll be re-elected, if not they'll get the boot...isn't that preferable to protecting poor performance and complacency by not having to go through the election process. I understand where you are getting at about experience, but I don't think someone being experienced should take precedence of a democratic process and it doesn't necessarily equal effectiveness or good performance.

In terms of the majority vote - you need to review the provisions of the draft constitution because majority vote is certainly not the case in several instances - as some examples there is provision for 4 management committee members to proceed with meetings and actions to remove a MC member even if the other 8 are against this, 5% of members can instigate actions within the organisation even if the other 95% are opposed, there is still a clause requiring a 75% majority for passing a motion in some instances - unless my maths is wrong, there is no simple majority in these few examples. This is the danger of the DQ propaganda - they say that everything will be decided democratically but if you read the provisions in the constitution it is only true in SOME instances - this is highly misleading and members are being manipulated by untruths.

agatha · January 11, 2012

To have a truly democratic organisation DQ needs to have a constitution that:

Doesn't contain the current contradictions exposing DQ to the risk of abuse and conduct not in the spirit of the intention of the document - this is simply a matter of reviewing with consistency

Guarantees at least one representative from each Zone to ensure that decision-making is fully informed and considers the Qld-wide impact as part of the process.

Vacates all management committee positions each year enabling the members to have a democratic vote for our MC (not to protect councillers from being judged)

Reflects that a majority vote carries all decisions and actions

There are probably other provisions that other members want to put forward so it demonstrates that the draft is deficient and the original process was not adequate to establish a draft constitution that met the needs of the members, and the need for greater consultation, time and effort being invested in making sure we start off on the right foot.

Yep I totally get where you are coming from in all of the above. I know some people want total transparency in all that DQ and the MC does, but in reality what business has total transparency. There are always issues of commerical in confidence, and what about dealing with members who allegedly breech rules. Should all the individuals dirty laundry be out for everyone to read, even if they are found innocent of any breech? I think there needs to be more openess in issues dealt with by the MC maybe after each meetings there need to be summaries sent out to the clubs and printed in Dog World. These summaries would protect the right of individual members to privacy and also protect commercial interests.

On the issue of a designated representative from each region I am still not convinced that this ultimately would be the best process as I could see the regions ending up being short changed. IE the reasoning being "Look we have a Zone 2 & 3 councillor what more do the regions want?" I think some members could be lulled into thinking that they couldn't have more than those two representatives from the regions.

As for vacating all council positions each year, I think it would be more valuable to have something similar to a half senate election. The problem is that by vacating all positions the possibility exists that you have a totally new MC with no experience in the specific procedures of DQ. I don't quite know how you would do it, but maybe have half the positions up for election this year, the other half next year and do it round about each time, so there are always people with at least some experience of DQ on the MC? This is purely my opinion of course, and it may be a bit cumbersome but the only other option would be to elect people for two or three year terms maybe?

One the issue of voting, I thought the voting was being carried by way of a simple majority under the revised document?

Transparency is nice and expected more and more in organisations now but I agree there are times when privacy and confidence is required, however my points aren't about transparency they're about contradicting statements in the constitution that may impact members democratic opportunities (again this is my reading of the constitution, not an expert but it is unclear. As an example there is a provision of postal votes which are required to be submitted 3 days before the meeting, however, there is another provision that states the management committee can determine the method and parameters of voting and reduce the notice time for voting. What this may mean is that a management committee could constitutionally make a decision to deny postal votes or reduce the notice time so that members are unable to get their postal votes to DQ within the notice period, making them invalid constitutionally. This is the tightening and further review I am talking about, rather than the provisions be changed altogether, they just need to be clarified so the voting process and notice periods may be decided but not at the expense of providing sufficient opportunity for postal votes to be submitted and count.

I agree transparency should not be an opportunity to damage someone and I do not advocate this however, none of the requested alterations to the constitution are seeking this? DQ have stated that they will provide summaries of minutes, etc for members to view which is great however, the issue again is the current draft constitution not the procedure which can still be adopted after further review and development of an improved constitution through a more robust and extensive consultative process.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your statement about the "what more do the regions want?" Are we not also members of the association? This totally highlights the problems that the regions have had to put up with for years being referred to as those whinging people who always want to have a say in how things happen but don't have the numbers to vote one of their own is as a representative. The DQ policy so far has been to consult when they felt it was necessary which was basically not at all which has resulted in many decisions which have later had to be overturned, exceptions put in place, etc because they were made without considering the diversity of our members. The regions are being short changed now, with no representation on the management committee at all and having to deal with and constantly fight to not be impacted detrimentally by decisions of people who don't consider, don't understand and probably don't care - you really would had to have been on the receiving end to understand why your questioning over whether we would be shortchanged by having a voice in the management of the organisation or whether it would be of value is.......I'm trying to think of the word......as unintentional as it is on your part because you haven't been privy to the same perspective as regional members, really @#$%ing insulting. It's like saying Tasmania would be shortchanged because they have seats in parliament for the same reason, so they shouldn't have them - if you can understand how that would feel to a Tasmanian, you will understand what a regional member would think of this notion.

The point I was trying to make, and I am not being insulting, is that there would be those who would think that once the regions had a designated councillor that that would be enough. Those people would not think anything further would have to be done as far as the regions were concerned as they would have a representative. The "what more do the regions want" statment refers to the mindset of those types of people. It might be just as hard or even harder for the regions to be heard, that was what I mean by being short changed, but I'm not sure if I am using the right words to explain what I mean. But ultimately yes you are right, there probably should be three designated councillors from each zones, with the rest of the positions up for grabs. Although I am a metropolitan member now, I have been a regional member in the past so I am very sympathic to the issues of the regions.

A clear deck in my opinion is the highest form of democracy and that's what we're after isn't it? Every year, candidates will nominate for election including those who already serve on the management committee and be considered equally by the members and voted on. If the existing councillors are doing a great job, it is highly likely they'll be re-elected, if not they'll get the boot...isn't that preferable to protecting poor performance and complacency by not having to go through the election process. I understand where you are getting at about experience, but I don't think someone being experienced should take precedence of a democratic process and it doesn't necessarily equal effectiveness or good performance.

On the surface this would seem like a good idea, my concern is that if there is a high percentage of new councillers elected every year, then 12 months is not a long time to get to know the ropes of the position. In we are to have a clear deck maybe the elected term should be two years? Otherwise that is why I think the staggered terms work better.

In terms of the majority vote - you need to review the provisions of the draft constitution because majority vote is certainly not the case in several instances - as some examples there is provision for 4 management committee members to proceed with meetings and actions to remove a MC member even if the other 8 are against this, 5% of members can instigate actions within the organisation even if the other 95% are opposed, there is still a clause requiring a 75% majority for passing a motion in some instances - unless my maths is wrong, there is no simple majority in these few examples. This is the danger of the DQ propaganda - they say that everything will be decided democratically but if you read the provisions in the constitution it is only true in SOME instances - this is highly misleading and members are being manipulated by untruths.

Okay I will go and have another look at this.

conztruct · January 12, 2012

The point I was trying to make, and I am not being insulting, is that there would be those who would think that once the regions had a designated councillor that that would be enough. Those people would not think anything further would have to be done as far as the regions were concerned as they would have a representative. The "what more do the regions want" statment refers to the mindset of those types of people. It might be just as hard or even harder for the regions to be heard, that was what I mean by being short changed, but I'm not sure if I am using the right words to explain what I mean. But ultimately yes you are right, there probably should be three designated councillors from each zones, with the rest of the positions up for grabs. Although I am a metropolitan member now, I have been a regional member in the past so I am very sympathic to the issues of the regions.

I know you weren't intentionally being insulting but that is certainly the way the regional members would be inclined to take the comment if you know what I mean. I guess you have to consider from the perspective that under the proposed constitution, regional members MAY be consulted with when and if the MC sees fit or feel it is required. This has been the method used to date and it has proven to be ill-advised and insensitive to the diversity of our membership, resulting in a number of decisions that have impacted negatively on the regional areas. The appointment of allocated regional reps is only the start of the journey so it isn't a case of the regions wanting any more, they are getting the voice on the MC and in the decision making discussions which is what they have been calling for, for some time and it progresses from there - the regions don't have the expectation that they will always get their way but need the mechanism to have their arguments and recommendations made as part of the decision-making discussions rather than having to fight to change aspects of decisions after the fact because all perspectives have not been considered.

On the surface this would seem like a good idea, my concern is that if there is a high percentage of new councillers elected every year, then 12 months is not a long time to get to know the ropes of the position. In we are to have a clear deck maybe the elected term should be two years? Otherwise that is why I think the staggered terms work better.

This is an assumption though that newly elected councillors don't have any skills or the ability to quickly acquire a working knowledge of the mechanics of the organisation (if these are clearly spelt out in a constitution it is even easier - this isn't the case at the moment - too many gray areas and contradictions and not enough detail). Most nominees who stand for committees have experience and skills which support their ability to function effectively. Additionally, in some committees I have been involved in and I know it also happens in parliament, "newbies" (LOL) are given information and/or attend an induction to cover all these aspects - I think this is a great idea and should be incorporated in our organisation. I think democratic election of all MC members every year is the best way to ensure democracy allowing the members to judge on performance. If councillors are doing a great job, they will almost certainly be re-elected which rewards their performance. On the alternative side, if someone isn't doing a good job the 12 month term may limit the impact of this. I understand the arguments of stability and consistency but this is based on an assumption that everything is being done well, which is a rather unrealistic idea and has been proven to be false.

Re - the constitution. I would urge all members intending to vote or just interested in the process to carefully read the proposed constitution in addition to the key points that the Dogs for Democracy campaign notes in it's advertising because upon reading the detail, these guarantees are only correct and true some of the time. The absolute statements made are actually not technically true because they all have exceptions where they may not occur and I believe it is highly misleading to make them without clarifying the exceptions. The members have the right to and should be provided with a full and complete understanding of the truths in order to make an informed decision.

conztruct · January 12, 2012

I believe we're at a point where we can defer discussion in this thread as the DQ president has advised that the SGM has been deferred from proceeding at this point with a recognition that a joint progression by DQ and RNA, and development of a better constitution is necessary. Hopefully this joint working can proceed without delay to achieve incorporation under a constitution that has been rigorously developed to provide a strong basis for our future.

agatha · January 12, 2012

I believe we're at a point where we can defer discussion in this thread as the DQ president has advised that the SGM has been deferred from proceeding at this point with a recognition that a joint progression by DQ and RNA, and development of a better constitution is necessary. Hopefully this joint working can proceed without delay to achieve incorporation under a constitution that has been rigorously developed to provide a strong basis for our future.

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

conztruct · January 12, 2012

I believe we're at a point where we can defer discussion in this thread as the DQ president has advised that the SGM has been deferred from proceeding at this point with a recognition that a joint progression by DQ and RNA, and development of a better constitution is necessary. Hopefully this joint working can proceed without delay to achieve incorporation under a constitution that has been rigorously developed to provide a strong basis for our future.

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

I know - it's great, and thank you too for your input - a lot of what we discussed actually enabled me to further strengthen and flesh out my own case and justification for my position and modify it to a better result, so it just goes to show that even if people don't agree on things, if they work together on achieving an outcome and keep asking questions to cover all possible weak points it results in a better outcome. Obviously if DQ and RNA are reading, they should have left this whole thing up to us :p. Finally we can get on with the job of becoming our own entity, owned and controlled by our members or at least start on the path to it, there's still a lot of work to be done, but the absence of the over-riding conflict will go a long way to ensuring a smooth transition.

Edited to add: It's now up to the RNA to make a similar commitment to working together with the DQ council for the benefit of DQ members and whilst communication from RNA suggests this will happen, I would like to see their commitment and assurance (from both parties) that past disputes are going to be put aside for the objective of achieving a result - they can fight as much as they want to afterwards.....when it's not going to impact on us.

Edited January 12, 2012 by conztruct

agatha · January 12, 2012

I believe we're at a point where we can defer discussion in this thread as the DQ president has advised that the SGM has been deferred from proceeding at this point with a recognition that a joint progression by DQ and RNA, and development of a better constitution is necessary. Hopefully this joint working can proceed without delay to achieve incorporation under a constitution that has been rigorously developed to provide a strong basis for our future.

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

I know - it's great, and thank you too for your input - a lot of what we discussed actually enabled me to further strengthen and flesh out my own case and justification for my position and modify it to a better result, so it just goes to show that even if people don't agree on things, if they work together on achieving an outcome and keep asking questions to cover all possible weak points it results in a better outcome. Obviously if DQ and RNA are reading, they should have left this whole thing up to us :p. Finally we can get on with the job of becoming our own entity, owned and controlled by our members or at least start on the path to it, there's still a lot of work to be done, but the absence of the over-riding conflict will go a long way to ensuring a smooth transition.

Edited to add: It's now up to the RNA to make a similar commitment to working together with the DQ council for the benefit of DQ members and whilst communication from RNA suggests this will happen, I would like to see their commitment and assurance (from both parties) that past disputes are going to be put aside for the objective of achieving a result - they can fight as much as they want to afterwards.....when it's not going to impact on us.

This is how all good things are achieved (maybe we're starting to sound like a love fest :laugh: ) There is never any reason why people with opposing beliefs can't have civilised debates and gain insights and understanding from each other, I know I have. Hopefully the RNA & DQ are reading and see how it can been done I agree with your last statement. I feel it appears that DQ has handed some form of olive branch to the RNA so hopefully it will be accepted by the RNA and they can all get on with it, so that ultimately the best interests of the MEMBERS are looked after. The internet is always a tricky forum to have a debate on but we have managed it so hopefully others can too

Blonde_Phoenix · January 13, 2012

Just noticed on the Dogs Queensland website:

IMPORTANT - NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING
13 January 2012

Notice of Cancellation

I wish to advise all Members that the Special General Meeting that was scheduled to be held on Thursday 19th January has been cancelled until further notice.

Council apologises for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

JR Harrison

General Manager

Dogs QLD

Dogs Queensland Special General Meeting

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in