The Most Dog Friendly Community Online
Join Dog Forum to Discuss Breeds, Training, Food and More

Join Now for Free
New posts

Bwra Constitution

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register
postal voting for all members was never stoped, so any vote put to the floor at the agm should go out to all members, but then this year no proposal's should have been allowed so the only vote should have been of new committee members and should have gone out to all payed up members for the vote
 
sadieandco said:
  Whats this all about - lets get on with racing our dogs and E N J O Y I N G whippet racing for what it should be a friendly fun hobby/sport - maybe i'm just not cut out for whippet racing anymore it used to be FUN........ not making light of any of the unfortunate incidents that have happened and do happen in racing but once they have been dealt with lets put them behind us and carry on with what we are meant to be doing enjoying whippet racing. :)
Click to expand...
Here here. (w00t) :- " :thumbsup:
 
Its o/k for you lot ,but two people have got a lifetime ban from doing the sport they love.

The B.W.R.A should never have allowed a vote on Mr & Mrs Bellwood as it was all the same people who voted on this, who had banned them from the Fed.

Really this was nothing to do with the B.W.R.A & if a vote had to be taken it should have gone out to the full membership[i think it would have been a different result]
 
johnnoble said:
Its o/k for you lot ,but two people have got a lifetime ban from doing the sport they love.
Click to expand...
I won't comment on either of the committees decisions over the above as i didn't attend either of the meetings so don't feel i should publicy air my views on it.

I will only say that there are many things that happen or have happened and have been tried to be resolved one way or another but however they are dealt with people are never satisfied with the outcome and instead of trying to put things behind us and get on with racing we keep returning to the same incidents. This i'm sure is not good for our sport what some of us have been doing for a lifetime and love or loved and most of us have done nothing wrong. Ok you may say the tables can turn and one day i might be on the receiving end of one of the disputes but i would like to think like most of my fellow whippet racers these things are very rare and most of us for whatever reasons would not put ourselves in this position.

Lets try and promote the sport and get back to enjoying the racing and may the best dogs win fairly and the loosers do it with dignity, say well done to their opponents and come back and race next week it might be your turn to take the glory then. (I've been trying for the glory for quite some time - it may come round to my turn one day :wacko: )
 
johnnoble said:
Its o/k for you lot ,but two people have got a lifetime ban from doing the sport they love.  The B.W.R.A should never have allowed a vote on Mr & Mrs Bellwood as it was all the same people who voted on this, who had banned them from the Fed.

  Really this was nothing to do with the B.W.R.A & if a vote had to be taken it should have gone out to the full membership[i think it would have been a different result]

Click to expand...
WELL JOHN TONY DID SAY IF U GET 50 SIGNATURES THEY WOULD DEAL WITH IT BUT THE MEMBERS WANTED IT ACTED ON THAT DAY, IT WAS THROWN AT HIM AND SEEIN AS HE WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS TALKIN FOR THE BWRA AT THE MEETING HE DID WHAT THE MEMBERS REQUESTED, DONT FORGET IT WAS SUPPOSSED TO BE A BWRA MEETING NOT FED SUE
 
it had nothing to do with fed sue i dont think it should of gone to a vote at the meeting regarding bwra :( i think whats bugging people is if its good for one it should of been good for the others :rant: but i think tony had a lot to deal with which he did to the best of his ability

gaz :thumbsup:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont come on K9 very often so i am just reading the comments about the new officials should of gone to a postal vote. If anyone is unhappy about me been voted on to the BWRA committee please feel free to take it up with the existing committe and let it go to a postal vote. I did not know it was going to be a floor vote. i was very pleased to be voted on to the committe but as usual a few people have put the kiwash on it.
 
take no notice joyce you will do a wonderfull job as treasurer :luck:
 
woody said:
I dont come on K9 very often so i am just reading the comments about the new officials should of gone to a postal vote. If anyone is unhappy about me been voted on to the BWRA committee please feel free to take it up with the existing committe and let it go to a postal vote. I did not know it was going to be a floor vote. i was very pleased to be voted on to the committe but as usual a few people have put the kiwash on it.
Click to expand...
Its KIBOSH Joyce, not kiwash :lol: :luck: in your new postion, you billy sugger :lol:
 
woody said:
I dont come on K9 very often so i am just reading the comments about the new officials should of gone to a postal vote. If anyone is unhappy about me been voted on to the BWRA committee please feel free to take it up with the existing committe and let it go to a postal vote. I did not know it was going to be a floor vote. i was very pleased to be voted on to the committe but as usual a few people have put the kiwash on it.
Click to expand...

:luck: :luck: think you'll do an excellent job Joyce :luck: :luck: :thumbsup:
 
Can't think of anybody better for the job joyce

:luck: for the future

Brian
 
woody said:
I dont come on K9 very often so i am just reading the comments about the new officials should of gone to a postal vote. If anyone is unhappy about me been voted on to the BWRA committee please feel free to take it up with the existing committe and let it go to a postal vote. I did not know it was going to be a floor vote. i was very pleased to be voted on to the committe but as usual a few people have put the kiwash on it.
Click to expand...
Hi Joyce,

I don't think for one second anyone wanted to ''kiwash'' your feelings about being voted onto the comittee, so please don't take the debate personally. As has been said, I'm sure you'll do a fine job. :thumbsup: Best wishes. :luck:

I do have to say though that if there are rules in place, really they should be adhered to otherwise what's the point? Now I do think all the BWRA comittee do a fine job, however, it must be noted there was no official statement that other positions would be up for election, only rumours posted on K9. So as a result:

a) No-one else was nominated for other positions other than the treasurers position.

b) No official vote was taken on whether the members currently in position should retain their posts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that individuals are willing to accept these roles however if it was me personally standing for such a position, I would want full backing of as many members as possible, because I personally feel it would enforce to me personally that those members had faith in my competancy. Furthermore, I noted at the AGM that some of the comittee members stated that their task was a thankless one and I couldn't help feel that some took criticisms in a negative manner to be directed at them personally. This then leads me to wonder

a) why they subjected themselves again to a comittee member position

b) Did they feel 'pressured' to maintain their positions because 'no-one else offered to take a position'

c) If they did feel criticisms regarding a certain agenda as personal to them, is it really fair to force them into doing a job where they feel people are against them.

d) Do they feel confident that they have the full backing of their members?

I do hope my post isn't viewed with animosity, especially from a personal aspect as I don''t know any of the comittee personally or have any vexes regarding the BWRA. But I am familiar with constitutions and their methods of organisation and have to say I'm surprised that there are rules in place yet they don't seem to be adhered to.

Kind regards,

Jacqui Glover
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Have the BWRA got a constitution?

I only mention this because at the last BWRA AGM 5th Nov. 2006

it was stated

"Tony Cooper then explained that he and Doreen Hopkins had met with a solicitor to discuss putting a new constitution in place. After meeting with the solicitor both these two people realised that it was a minefield and it had to be thought through thoroughly before going into print. "
 
Also fully agree with what Jacqui says. I understood both Alison and Colin Armstrong took the positions temporarily until they or someone could be voted in a t the AGM. Personally I think they do a grand job and am grateful that they must have agreed to take these jobs permanently. It would have been nice for them to have the backing of everyone and a vote taken

Not being able to attend the AGM I have no idea what went on, so perhaps they were voted in. I had no idea Joyce was the new Treasurer, I am sure she will go as grand a job as she does Top Gun Good Luck Joyce.
 
wild whippies said:
woody said:
I dont come on K9 very often so i am just reading the comments about the new officials should of gone to a postal vote. If anyone is unhappy about me been voted on to the BWRA committee please feel free to take it up with the existing committe and let it go to a postal vote. I did not know it was going to be a floor vote. i was very pleased to be voted on to the committe but as usual a few people have put the kiwash on it.
Click to expand...
Hi Joyce,

I don't think for one second anyone wanted to ''kiwash'' your feelings about being voted onto the comittee, so please don't take the debate personally. As has been said, I'm sure you'll do a fine job. :thumbsup: Best wishes. :luck:

I do have to say though that if there are rules in place, really they should be adhered to otherwise what's the point? Now I do think all the BWRA comittee do a fine job, however, it must be noted there was no official statement that other positions would be up for election, only rumours posted on K9. So as a result:

a) No-one else was nominated for other positions other than the treasurers position.

b) No official vote was taken on whether the members currently in position should retain their posts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that individuals are willing to accept these roles however if it was me personally standing for such a position, I would want full backing of as many members as possible, because I personally feel it would enforce to me personally that those members had faith in my competancy. Furthermore, I noted at the AGM that some of the comittee members stated that their task was a thankless one and I couldn't help feel that some took criticisms in a negative manner to be directed at them personally. This then leads me to wonder

a) why they subjected themselves again to a comittee member position

b) Did they feel 'pressured' to maintain their positions because 'no-one else offered to take a position'

c) If they did feel criticisms regarding a certain agenda as personal to them, is it really fair to force them into doing a job where they feel people are against them.

d) Do they feel confident that they have the full backing of their members?

I do hope my post isn't viewed with animosity, especially from a personal aspect as I don''t know any of the comittee personally or have any vexes regarding the BWRA. But I am familiar with constitutions and their methods of organisation and have to say I'm surprised that there are rules in place yet they don't seem to be adhered to.

Kind regards,

Jacqui Glover

Click to expand...

totality agree nothing personal, but every member should have a vote if they don't send back there voting slip that's up to that member but they have a right as a payed up member of a member's run organization TO HAVE A VOTE
 
Could someone please tell me which positions should have been up for re-election?
 
rocky said:
Also fully agree with what Jacqui says.    I understood both Alison and Colin Armstrong took the positions temporarily until they or someone could be voted in a t the AGM.    Personally I think they do a grand job and am grateful that they must have agreed to take these jobs permanently.    It would have been nice for them to have the backing of everyone and a vote takenNot being able to attend the AGM I have no idea what went on, so perhaps they were voted in.    I had no idea Joyce was the new Treasurer, I am sure she will go as grand a job as she does Top Gun  Good Luck Joyce.

Click to expand...
Tony did ask members about commitee audrey and members were happy for the committee to stay as it was, John Meades asked committee if they were happy to stay in Sue
 
wild whippies said:
woody said:
I dont come on K9 very often so i am just reading the comments about the new officials should of gone to a postal vote. If anyone is unhappy about me been voted on to the BWRA committee please feel free to take it up with the existing committe and let it go to a postal vote. I did not know it was going to be a floor vote. i was very pleased to be voted on to the committe but as usual a few people have put the kiwash on it.
Click to expand...
Hi Joyce,

I don't think for one second anyone wanted to ''kiwash'' your feelings about being voted onto the comittee, so please don't take the debate personally. As has been said, I'm sure you'll do a fine job. :thumbsup: Best wishes. :luck:

I do have to say though that if there are rules in place, really they should be adhered to otherwise what's the point? Now I do think all the BWRA comittee do a fine job, however, it must be noted there was no official statement that other positions would be up for election, only rumours posted on K9. So as a result:

a) No-one else was nominated for other positions other than the treasurers position.

b) No official vote was taken on whether the members currently in position should retain their posts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that individuals are willing to accept these roles however if it was me personally standing for such a position, I would want full backing of as many members as possible, because I personally feel it would enforce to me personally that those members had faith in my competancy. Furthermore, I noted at the AGM that some of the comittee members stated that their task was a thankless one and I couldn't help feel that some took criticisms in a negative manner to be directed at them personally. This then leads me to wonder

a) why they subjected themselves again to a comittee member position

b) Did they feel 'pressured' to maintain their positions because 'no-one else offered to take a position'

c) If they did feel criticisms regarding a certain agenda as personal to them, is it really fair to force them into doing a job where they feel people are against them.

d) Do they feel confident that they have the full backing of their members?

I do hope my post isn't viewed with animosity, especially from a personal aspect as I don''t know any of the comittee personally or have any vexes regarding the BWRA. But I am familiar with constitutions and their methods of organisation and have to say I'm surprised that there are rules in place yet they don't seem to be adhered to.

Kind regards,

Jacqui Glover

Click to expand...
wot committee members u talking about jackie sue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to Dog Forum!

Join our vibrant online community dedicated to all things canine. Whether you're a seasoned owner or new to the world of dogs, our forum is your go-to hub for sharing stories, seeking advice, and connecting with fellow dog lovers. From training tips to health concerns, we cover it all. Register now and unleash the full potential of your dog-loving experience!

Login or Register
Back
Top