Open Plans

[Nigel]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

regardless of the validity of the safety issue, few people seem to care about that at all -

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I think that's because few (read 1 or 2 inexperienced racers) think it is a safety issue. Name one race where a dog was injured by another dog going left or right within the first 6 strides from the traps.

 

[June Jonigk]

And of course the main gripe was that people will abuse this to gain an unfair advantage, the inference being tough luck if you are a person who has a prefered side runner - "your loss is our gain and why should you be allowed to do something about it."

You've hit the nail right on the head there Ian - exactly my worries. It's going to cause no end of arguements.

1) Didn't the Harvel club members know about seeding being on the Talk In agenda? If they did. Didn't the Harvel reps vote in line with their members views?

Another of my points Barbara - people go to these talk-ins and vote for what they think, and not always what the club members want. I was not asked my opinion on any of the subjects, although I'm a member of 2 clubs in attendance at the talk-in. That is why voting should be opened up to any person having a dog with a current passport - very easy to organise in these computerised days.

I think that's because few (read 1 or 2 inexperienced racers) think it is a safety issue. Name one race where a dog was injured by another dog going left or right within the first 6 strides from the traps.

Exactly right Nigel - if there was a valid safety issue here, I, and I know Judy and yourself would be first in the queue to put it into practice. It has been brought up by an inexperienced "do gooder" - who knows little of the rules of racing, or the safety facts. I wonder if she voted on behalf of Andover? Andover is a LARGE! club, and from the few members I have spoken to lately - not one of them agrees with it.

I don't think it's that bad an idea - just impossible to put into practice fairly - someone somewhere will lose out.

The rank and file whippet racers for the main part seem to be extremely annoyed about this and I would not be surprised at all to see the WCRA having to make a U turn with the implementation of seeding - or ask for it to be tested at club level.

Ian, I hope the WCRA will re think this idea. There are many ideas talked about, and voted in favour of at a talk in - not all of them are put into force. The WCRA probably only did this because they felt they had to, as they would look irresponsible by ignoring the issue. Caught between a rock and a hard place perhaps? I hope this committee after reading our comments will rethink (We know they all read these forums, even if they are not allowed to post in them!). They either make a handfull of "do gooders" happy, and upset the majority - or gain the respect of the majority from realising it is not at all necessary for safety.

 

[sue greenwood]

Hi June,

When they have the next 'Talk in' I will be asking for oppinions from all club members so that when I go down there I will have everyones support.As you know I only took over as Secretary in August When Mark stepped down so i'm new to a lot of things.If you wish to go to the next one please let me know as you will be quite welcome to join us.Dennis and myself went and we did try to vote on behalf of the club. I apologise if you feel that we didn't represent you fully and in future I'm sure we will try to do better.

Sue

 

[Scott Frodsham]

Hi June,
When they have the next 'Talk in' I will be asking for oppinions from all club members so that when I go down there I will have everyones support.As you know I only took over as Secretary in August When Mark stepped down so i'm new to a lot of things.If you wish to go to the next one please let me know as you will be quite welcome to join us.Dennis and myself went and we did try to vote on behalf of the club. I apologise if you feel that we didn't represent you fully and in future I'm sure we will try to do better.

Sue

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Sue please tell me you and Dennis didn't vote for seeding ? :b

 

[Mark Roberts]

This thread has taken some very interesting diversions from the original post.

So the question now seems to be Do club reps have the right to vote as they see fit on behalf of all their clubs members?

Well Officials are democraticly elected to run the clubs by all the members so the members must trust those officials elected to do whats best for them and the club they represent.

Surely then members must back their reps and they way they voted as being in the best interest of their club and it's members.

Surely members cant want to elect officials to run clubs and then take over the decission making from them? Members should be getting behind their officials and backing their decissions not having a go at them. (as always just my oppinion o )

 

[Judy]

Can't agree with you there Mark. Committees are elected to run the club, not make decisions for the members about non-club matters like this. Besides the club reps. don't have to be officials so might not have been elected to do anything.

 

[BeeJay]

You little Tory you Mark Roberts.

It depends on whether you want to have a paternalist committee or a representative one.

If you are a paternalist then you vote for people and trust them to make the correct decisions for you. Your decision making as you have suggested ends when you vote for the committee members. In this case the committee will decide who goes to the Talk In and then those who go will vote according to their own views.

If someone has voted in such a committee and they don't like what that committe then does they will have to vote them out if they can. Or of course simply join another club.

If on the other hand you believe that you are voting for a representative committee then you want them to represent your views as well as their own. So you would want to be consulted in the decision making process and once decisions have been made at club level the chosen reps then go and vote for the clubs decision even if they disagree with it.

Well that's how our democracy works anyway.

Of course in practice most clubs seem to be scratching around for committee members and those of us who won't be on one get the committee that we deserve.

As for the seeding issue. The way that I look at it is that it could have been voted down but wasn't. If people have a problem with the decision then they should start at that point. Why wasn't it? It had nothing to do with the inexperience or the do-gooding nature of the person who proposed it. There were plenty of very experienced people at that meeting who looking at the voting figures must have sat on their hands. Why? They voted in greater numbers on the other issues.

 

[Mark Roberts]

The decission making should be done at club level before the talk in but then clubs must trust & back the reps as they are the ones that have took the time and trouble to attend the talk in.

Things that are decided at club level to be voted on by the reps can change once descussion has taken place at the talk in so what should reps do follow what was decided at the club meeting or use common sense and change the vote to what they feel is right after the descussion has taken place (nothings Black & White)

 

[BeeJay]

What about reps who don't vote then Mark? How do you feel about that?

Is it a waste of a vote? Or is it a comment on how they feel?

 

[Mark Roberts]

What about reps who don't vote then Mark? How do you feel about that

My view is reps who don't vote is that it is a total waste of time them being there and they have let the members they represent down.
it makes me laugh when people abstain from a vote, surely they have an opinion good or bad and they should use their vote the way they feel is right rather than loosing it.

Lets say a Club descusses an issue and decides to vote a certain way but then at the meeting the descussion covers issues not thought of and covered when how to vote was decided at club level? does the rep change their vote to what they feel is right or stick with the agreed vote even though it would be detrimantal to the members they represent?.

or they could abstain? but by abstaining arn't they by the very act of not voting for the item showing they don't agree with it so should have voted against it?

 

[June Jonigk]

Firstly my sincere apologies Sue, I wasn't getting at you, just the fact that someone can vote on your behalf. I was making the point that most clubs do not ask their membership their views before voting. I know the Northern is generally good about that sort of thing. I don't believe anyone will go to a meeting and vote against anything they strongly believe in, to vote on behalf of their membership.

it makes me laugh when people abstain from a vote, surely they have an opinion good or bad and they should use their vote the way they feel is right rather than loosing it.

Sorry Mark, I don't agree - how can you presume to know what is best for your members - we all think differently - which is why I can't mention enough that WE SHOULD ALL HAVE A VOTE!!!!!! :rant: (just for Beejay!)

Can't agree with you there Mark. Committees are elected to run the club, not make decisions for the members about non-club matters like this. Besides the club reps. don't have to be officials so might not have been elected to do anything.

CORRECT Judy

 

[Mark Roberts]

Yes June, I agree that everyone with a valid passport should have the right to vote (by post ect) but thats not an option at this time so we have to deal with what we have got.

So what does a club rep do if while at the reps meeting somthing is descussed and an important issue is pointed out that changes the whole perspective on the matter do they vote as told to or do they use common sense and vote the way they feel the membership would want them to?

there again they could abstaine and let a rule like seeding be brought in by not voting.

 

[June Jonigk]

So what does a club rep do if while at the reps meeting somthing is descussed and an important issue is pointed out that changes the whole perspective on the matter do they vote as told to or do they use common sense and vote the way they feel the membership would want them to?

Reps should not be put in this position Mark - how can they possibly vote against what the membership has decided, just because they "think" they would want to change their vote?

or do they use common sense

Depends if they have got any common sense doesn't it!!!!!! :blink:

 

[sue greenwood]

The 'Talk in 'was very well done and if you want to watch a chairman do a damn good job you should visit the 'Talk in'.This issue was bound to get a conversation going and some members want it for personal gain. It's surprising how many little Hitlers there are out there.The Wrca I'm sure will do a sterling job on your behalf.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Depends if they have got any common sense doesn't it!!!!!!

ummm i'm sure most have.

if we dont trust club reps then what are they doing there? why arn't we there instead

 

[June Jonigk]

Mark - my comment re common sense was a bit tongue in cheek - but there must have been a few without common sense, because they voted it in!!

if we dont trust club reps then what are they doing there? why arn't we there instead

I don't know - why weren't you there?

I didn't go because I don't believe in voting on people behalves, when I don't know their feelings, and I certainly don't want to go and vote for something I don't agree with. I have already said, I thought this would get thrown out as something that would not be worth talking about. Personally, I don't think it is necessary for anyone to vote on anyone's behalf - the WCRA have issued questionnaires before - that would have been more sensible in this case. I don't know if everyone knows, but something voted in at a talk-in doesn't automatically mean it will happen - it is supposed to help the WCRA guage the feelings of the racers - that will never happen whilst they allow reps to vote on their behalf.

 

[Mark Roberts]

I don't know - why weren't you there

I was Hare Coursing.
But I think all of us that didn't go have learnt a valuble lesson from this, next year we must attend and make our views known so that daft changes like seeding dont get brought in. :thumbsup:

I don't think it is necessary for anyone to vote on anyone's behalf - the WCRA have issued questionnaires before - that would have been more sensible in this case.

I agree we could put that idea forward for next years reps meeting, o

 

[Scott Frodsham]

OK, I hold my hand up I was hare coursing to! :- "

BUT.... my understanding is;

"this was not a meeting where we could change existing rules but only to give our opinions for the WCRA to consider"

So at the end of the day, does the decision not ultimately stop at the WCRA? :unsure:

 

[BeeJay]

Of course the decision rests with the WCRA. But in the past they have been slagged as a body who don't listen and just make up their own rules despite what others think. This time they did listen. :- "

 

[Mark Roberts]

This time they did listen.

Yep and they still get slagged off.