Is It True

[weathergirls]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

Please tell me if i have got this wrong
You have to submit proposals 28 days before the committees last meeting prior to agm.

All you can ever do at agm is debate the proposals because they must go to postal vote.

The committee work for the members and cannot make unilateral decisions with out members approval obtained by postal vote.

Any proposal accepted by members re postal ballot runs for two years before amendments can be made. however new proposals can be put forward each year providing it is a NEW.

Can someone please tell me how members can put forward proposals and nominations at the correct time when we are not informed of when committee meetings are taking place.

Graham

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

proposals should be in in time for the national committee meeting which shoould be 28 days before the AGM The proposals should then be discussed and if agreed workable by the national committee they will be put out to a postal ballot the national committee is the top table and 3 reps from each region results should be back in time for AGM

 

[Tony Taylor]

proposals should be in in time for the national committee meeting which shoould be 28 days before the AGM  The proposals should then be discussed and if agreed workable by the national committee they will be put out to a postal ballot the national committee is the top table and 3 reps from each region  results should be back in time for AGM

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Was there a national committee meeting before the 2007 AGM ?

 

[jeffb]

totally agree geoff bruce and di should never have been banned from the bwra and in my opinion the ban from the federation should never have been that long anyway if at all. about time somebody spoke some sense,and we start putting the fun back into our sport ,instead of dragging it down

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

[/quot

how would you speak sencible about it all then jeff please tell :blink: it wasnt really such a big deal then is that what you mean :blink: and if you wouldnt of banned them at all then what would you of done the members dicided it remember not just the committee

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

gary just got back on computer been to work all weekend sorry i never replied earlier i did,nt say it was the committee that banned bruce and di i was at the meeting and the members there voted to ban them. What di did was wrong we all agree on that,when i said the ban from the fed should never have been that long if at all what i was refering to was it should never have been brought up at bwra meeting there were supose to be 2 different meetings but that didnt happen on the day

I agree a ban of some kind for di was always likely but the length of the ban i did not agree with on the day but the majority voted thats democracy but the ban by the bwra i disagree with altogether anyway thats another matter lets just get on and enjoy the new season

 

[weathergirls]

totally agree geoff bruce and di should never have been banned from the bwra and in my opinion the ban from the federation should never have been that long anyway if at all. about time somebody spoke some sense,and we start putting the fun back into our sport ,instead of dragging it down

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

[/quot

how would you speak sencible about it all then jeff please tell :blink: it wasnt really such a big deal then is that what you mean :blink: and if you wouldnt of banned them at all then what would you of done the members dicided it remember not just the committee

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

gary just got back on computer been to work all weekend sorry i never replied earlier i did,nt say it was the committee that banned bruce and di i was at the meeting and the members there voted to ban them. What di did was wrong we all agree on that,when i said the ban from the fed should never have been that long if at all what i was refering to was it should never have been brought up at bwra meeting there were supose to be 2 different meetings but that didnt happen on the day

I agree a ban of some kind for di was always likely but the length of the ban i did not agree with on the day but the majority voted thats democracy but the ban by the bwra i disagree with altogether anyway thats another matter lets just get on and enjoy the new season

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

the situation with the Bellwoods was not brought up at the BWRA AGM because the NNWRF had a meeting on the same day a letter was put to the BWRA executive committee from a BWRA rep/ member so it was allready on the cards for it to be raised , the question is should it have been the answer is NO as it comes under a disciplinary matter and an AGM is not the place for a disciplinary hearing especially when the accused is NOT asked to attend. We all know the Bellwoods did wrong regarding the NNWRF and they have been severely punished for their actions and have now paid back everything that was asked for . I know we are all members of both organisations BUT they are two seperate organisations with different rules and constitutions and looking into the legal side of things as our committee have done the Bellwoods havn't done any wrong within the BWRA and as with the previous case the NNWRF if needed could only have requested support from the BWRA as we did whilst the case was in progress as soon as a court agreement had been reached that support was lifted so WHY should anyone else be treated differently.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO TAKE A STEP BACK HERE AND CONSIDER THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES THIS COULD HAVE ON THE BWRA if Bruce and his solicitor decide to take this further

 

[mutley]

the bwra is a fairly new committee just starting to work together . they should be given a chance to sort things with some backing from members, I'm sure all this will be resolved and we can all look forward to racing in 2008 :thumbsup: we all know mistakes were made at the agm but surly they can be put right given the chance :thumbsup: as far as Bruce and DI are concerned they did nothing wrong regarding the bwra maybe it should be left at that ) the fed dealt with it and i think there punishment from the fed was enough this is just my personal opinion

 

[Karen-Coral]

Quote--

I know there's people out there that think the Bellwood's should be banned from the BWRA but as many have said it was after all a NNWRF problem and we have dealt with it .. personally i wouldn't show my face again , but everyones different-----

Yes i agree the NNWRF have dealt with the matter with the best possible outcome

The couple in question as yet have had no criminal proceedings instigated against them as far i am aware--- if it stays like that they should be more than Happy with the outcome--

But do we as members of either the BWRA or NNWRF really want to compete with the sort of person who would steal from us ??

I do not think I really want to --

but we all have that choice --- don't we?

steve

 

[mutley]

people still did last time steve

 

[weathergirls]

Quote--
I know there's people out there that think the Bellwood's should be banned from the BWRA but as many have said it was after all a NNWRF problem and we have dealt with it .. personally i wouldn't show my face again , but everyones different-----

Yes i agree the NNWRF have dealt with the matter with the best possible outcome

The couple in question  as yet have had no criminal proceedings instigated against them as far i am aware--- if it stays like that they should be more than Happy with the outcome--

But do we as members of either the BWRA or NNWRF really want to compete with the sort of person who would steal from us ??

I do not think I really want to  --

but we all have that choice --- don't we?

steve

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

they are still competeing with the last 2 who were taken to court and renaged on the agreement reached with the mediators had to be a lot more in that kitty :rant:

 

[springer]

I THNK A YEAR BAN IS ENOUGH AT LEAST THE MONEY AS BEEN RETURNED I KNOW SOME WILL SAY THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE DIPPED INTO THE FUNDS IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT THATS JUST MY OPINION

:- "

 

[gary farmer]

NICE TO SEE YOU ARE BACK ON K9 JOHN

GARY :- "

 

[ahorsnall]

Quote--
I know there's people out there that think the Bellwood's should be banned from the BWRA but as many have said it was after all a NNWRF problem and we have dealt with it .. personally i wouldn't show my face again , but everyones different-----

Yes i agree the NNWRF have dealt with the matter with the best possible outcome

The couple in question  as yet have had no criminal proceedings instigated against them as far i am aware--- if it stays like that they should be more than Happy with the outcome--

But do we as members of either the BWRA or NNWRF really want to compete with the sort of person who would steal from us ??

I do not think I really want to  --

but we all have that choice --- don't we?

steve

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

just what i think too :thumbsup:

 

[mutley]

everyone is entitled to there opinion

 

[mutley]

i agree with what steve says about having the choice

 

[ahorsnall]

i agree with what steve says about having the choice

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

ys i do gaz and maybe the postal vote the fairest way to see what the majority want and if they want too thats fine by me as ill go with the majority :thumbsup:

 

[BWRA MEMBER]

Any one else got the postal forms to day

How come both there names are separate they were on a joint membership

To many options to choose from

 

[hellbound]

Any one else got the postal forms to day
How come both there names are separate they were on a joint membership

To many options to choose from

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

because they may have separate membership with the bwra,

 

[suzie]

Any one else got the postal forms to day
How come both there names are separate they were on a joint membership

To many options to choose from

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The problem is Die was treasurer, therefore she was in charge of the money.

[bruce wasnt ] That is why they are both seperate on the voting forms. I hope people take this into consideration when voting.

 

[salvageman]

Any one else got the postal forms to day
How come both there names are separate they were on a joint membership

To many options to choose from

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The problem is Die was treasurer, therefore she was in charge of the money.

[bruce wasnt ] That is why they are both seperate on the voting forms. I hope people take this into consideration when voting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

the money was nothing to do with the BWRA & they both spent the NNWRF,s money not the BWRA,s you are voting to say if you want un-trustworthy people as members .mick

 

[BWRA MEMBER]

A big round of applause for the BWRA Top Table

Yet again another wasted AGM members spending their well earned wages on unnecessary fuel money to be a part of votes taken that day

How come members that attended the AGM are been dictated to once again .

Who says that the chairman has to take full control over the meeting , has he not proved at the previous 3-4 years AGM he has no control and make decisions that he know too well he has no intentions of keeping

If the BWRA Top Table can not fulfill the requests-votes-wishes of the members then lets hope they will consider resigning with some dignity .

With the AGM in mind votes were taken whether mistakes were made or not, by the majority of members that at their own expenses (not funded by the BWRA funds unlike the top tables) and should be carried out, not swept under the carpet because they dont want to or they can not be bothered with the extra work, no body forces them to take these positions, the re-elections proved that was done wrongly as well.

The BWRA can only say that in the light of what they have done they are not a good role model for the sport and refuse to do as there members wish

AOB

1.Paul Jennings asked if a BWRA member had asked for a dog to be tested at the straight champs, quite a heated discussion followed. Alison Armstrong informed Paul, that no dog was going to be tested & as usual, it was all down to certain people who dont give their names, spreading rumors, trying to cause trouble.

2. Vicky Harper was then put forward to take over as the new top gun compiler, this was agreed by everyone. The top gun format was then discussed and it was agreed that each BWRA region would be allowed 2 opens to count for top gun points, plus all BWRA national events, more information will follow from Vicky.

3. L.Broom asked if the 36lb & 40lb scratch could be added to the regional team events, no objections were put forward, so these will now be included in team events.

4 The veteran championships, were then discussed, it was agreed that these would now be held on separate days. The sidewinder saunter remains for racing champions only, and the veteran champs is open to all veterans, dogs can only enter one event.

5. Tony Cooper then expressed how sick he was of all the rubbish being put on the internet by people that do not back up what they say, with a name, and he though moderators should take it off as it was just causing trouble. Tony Taylor said he had no control over it.

6. Rita Young then expressed her disgust in Mr and Mrs Bellwoods taking the NNWRF funds, as this money belongs to all of us. Tony Cooper said the BWRA is a democratic organisation, and it was up to the members to decide what to do about the situation. A letter was then read out from wallsend wrc, stating that anyone currently under a ban from either the BWRA or NNWRF would not be allowed to race at Wallsend WRC. Rita Young then proposed that Bruce and Di Bellwood be banned from the bwra for life, this was seconded by P.Johnson. Votes for 28... Against 7.

7 Gary Bailey then asked if this also applied to Tony Weatherson & Yvonne Ragnolli. Erica redshaw stated that tony & Yvonne had served their BWRA ban and it should not be discussed any further. L.Broom said the tony and Yvonne situation should have been dealt with 3 years ago. The whole discussion got very heated with a lot of personal comments being made between both members. C.Brekin then said she was new to the sport & thought the situation was like children in the playground fighting to which a round of applause followed. L.Broom then proposed that anyone under a ban from the BWRA could not be a BWRA regional rep, seconded by M.Cahill. For 32 against 1.

8 Mark warren then asked for a hard line to be taken on people using drugs for personal use, as this is a family sport. Anyone proving to be using drugs, the police to be informed and the said person/s involved would be immediately banned, everyone agreed.

9 Drug testing was then discussed. P.Jennings proposed to reinstate testing, seconded c.horsnall. For 38 against 0. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that random drug testing would now take place, members would need to sign a disclaimer, and £10 would be added to the membership to help cover the cost of this.

10 A. Armstrong said that she thought the 28 day rule for membership & registration applies to all, and not just the new ones, and if that was the case when was it changed? It was agreed that the 28 day rule from 2008 applies to all.

11J.Meades asked if anything had been done about the letter he sent in March, he was told that it had.

12 M.Warren said that he did not agree with workers getting expenses, no other comments were made on this subject.

Meeting closed...3.20, proposed C.Cornish, seconded D.Bailey.

A straight answer BWRA please are numbers 6-7-9 still standing or are they not and if these questions are not answered what the feeling of k9 members about an on-line petition been set up to get as many signature as we can to ask the Top Table to do their jobs and reconsider the above

If for what ever reasons the top table are not carrying on with 7-9 why did they not added them both to the postal vote that is out now

 

[suzie]

,Salvageman, that is wishful thinking, how do you know they both spent the money. Like i said Die was in charge of the money.[you will never know whether they both spent it.] so whos to say Bruce is untrustworthy.

Some people are just hellbent on banning them both whether they are guilty or not.