SkySoaringMagpie Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 The difficulty I still have with it is that there has been no official allegation of impropriety that I am aware of. All I have is this letter that says nothing. I am not going to vote to remove someone that people have voted in without some kind of credible information that suggests I should do otherwise. Credible information does not include gossip on the internet. your problem being, if you do not vote then by obstaining you are by default letting the one who started this one less to prevent them gaining their aim soooo difficult decision is it not Well, quite. If you read my post again you'll see I'm not suggesting I'll abstain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 The purely factual information that 112 members signed the notice for requisition for the special general meeting is easy to find on the Dogs NSW website.I have no views on the motions either way. As I have previously said, I am not a voting member of Dogs NSW. And I have absolutely and utterly no interest in the factions or feuds of Dogs NSW. It's also in the letter everyone got, second sentence of the first paragraph. I am a voting member of DogsNSW and also have pretty much zero interest in factions and fighting so unless someone can demonstrate to me that the guy should be removed, I will vote in favour of the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 (edited) Edit, motion defeated according to OzShow Edited November 4, 2010 by SkySoaringMagpie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 what an EPIC waste of our members money. Not only were they defeated but they failed to really gain any votes beyond the initial poo stirring petition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ark Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Thank goodness that's over and done with, then. Now let Tom get on with what he does best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvale Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Thank goodness that's over and done with, then. Now let Tom get on with what he does best. Two thumbs up from me! So many of us don't realise how much this man does to keep so many things happening behind the scenes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havasneeze Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 (edited) Thank goodness that's over and done with, then. Now let Tom get on with what he does best. Unfortunately that isn't the end of it. An independent person has been appointed to delve further into this matter. Tom stated at the meeting last night that he was not prepared to deal with the independent assessor and that he wanted the matter handed over to ASIC but "the board" in their wisdom (after seeking legal advice) prefer for the independent assessor to look further into this matter.... Further, in regards to the 112 people who signed the petition, the majority of them signed the petition as they were told it was in support of resolution 1, which was put to the SGM last night, that being that any assessor could assess during the judges training scheme, even if the assessors were candidates within the scheme themselves. This motion was also defeated. "The board" had also sought legal advice in this matter and were advised that even if the vote supported the motion, "the board" did NOT have to put the motion into play.... more waste of money!!! As the sands pass through the hourglass (and our money), these are the days of our lives.... Edited November 4, 2010 by Havasneeze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 The board wastes our money like it's growing on a tree out back, when it comes to "legal advice". What irks me the most about Dogs, if the fact the so much crap goes on behind closed doors and we as members , rarely get a say on anything. They give away our money ( McGreevy comes to mind there ), hand over our info, play pals with the RSPCA and we get no say it what happens, just an after thought in the gazette if we are lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havasneeze Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 The board wastes our money like it's growing on a tree out back, when it comes to "legal advice". What irks me the most about Dogs, if the fact the so much crap goes on behind closed doors and we as members , rarely get a say on anything. They give away our money ( McGreevy comes to mind there ), hand over our info, play pals with the RSPCA and we get no say it what happens, just an after thought in the gazette if we are lucky. I guess this is the problem when you have a Solicitor as President. They see a problem behind every leaf of that money tree.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now