RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
Yankiwi

LP Representative Vote

Recommended Posts

I see that the previous thread for this subject has disappeared.

 

In that previous thread there was some question as to what the wording was on the petition.

 

Following is how the petition read, when it was submitted to NZGRA.

 

 

"We the undersigned Licensed Persons, hereby give notice under clause 18.1f for the removal of Licensed Person Representative Mr Graeme Calverley, as he has failed in his duty to represent the interests of the licensed persons. This vote of no confidence in Mr Graeme Calverley stems from recent events including the kennel purchase and the reduction in the petrol vouchers."

 

 

He had voted against the the reduction to petrol vouchers as the voting form confirms.

 

In my opinion this has been a huge waste of funds, which is now no longer available to NZGRA to pay stakes or for petrol vouchers, for what appears to me to be an ill informed crusade.

 

 

 

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding was the same as yours Yankiwi in that Mr Calverley voted against the petrol vouchers being reduced - however the problem is that he is only one vote on the board and can easily be overturned despite his support of leaving the vouchers at $40.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing COULD be interpreted as an anti-Auckland campaign, which COULD result in a new representative from another region being appointed, which in turn COULD strengthen that regions input , which COULD result in Sunday racing taking place at another venue. Just saying- pure speculative thoughts of course, with no foundation in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us who aren't "in the know" about the reasoning behind this very poorly worded petition could someone please explain what this means:

 

This vote of no confidence in Mr Graeme Calverley stems from recent events including the kennel purchase.......

 

Does it mean that Mr Calverley went down to his local rural supply store & purchased a kennel that the petitioner didn't deem suitable to house a Greyhound, or does it mean something else entirely?? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What way to vote I'm Not sure.I own 5 race dogs 2 beakin and a brood bitch.I hear of all the people leaving the office and ask myself why?
All the dogs I have raced have gone through GAP wonderfull job they do.I will do so in the future.
PV don't bother me but by the looks of it they are needed.

So I ask someone to give me the answer to this and you may sway my vote... Did our LP rep vote to spend money we didn't have on this new property knowing there would have to be cuts made that would affect all LPS?

I am frustrated that there have been cuts to other areas and if someone can tell me otherwise im all ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody got the voting figurs for the last election of the L Person position ?.  In the past the Ass has put the result in the Journal, didn't see them this time. Thanks.

 

I do not know how the vote turned out, other than Graeme received the most votes therefore he was re-elected.

 

Does anyone know where the minutes of GRNZ meetings are available to be viewed? As it is our association surely they wouldn't be kept secret from us.

 

For those of us who aren't "in the know" about the reasoning behind this very poorly worded petition could someone please explain what this means:

 

Does it mean that Mr Calverley went down to his local rural supply store & purchased a kennel that the petitioner didn't deem suitable to house a Greyhound, or does it mean something else entirely?? :unsure:

 

The kennel purchase would refer to the association purchasing the Levin property for re-homing retired greyhounds.

 

I see this as a big positive because with it they actually have a tangible asset on the books. Isn't it better to have the asset on the associations books going forward, instead of only a large liability for payments to the current GAP agreement? As I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) GAP is to be running the operation on the associations new property.

 

What way to vote I'm Not sure.I own 5 race dogs 2 beakin and a brood bitch.I hear of all the people leaving the office and ask myself why?

All the dogs I have raced have gone through GAP wonderfull job they do.I will do so in the future.

PV don't bother me but by the looks of it they are needed.

So I ask someone to give me the answer to this and you may sway my vote... Did our LP rep vote to spend money we didn't have on this new property knowing there would have to be cuts made that would affect all LPS?

I am frustrated that there have been cuts to other areas and if someone can tell me otherwise im all ears.

 

I'm not aware, one way or the other, of how our current LP Rep voted on the property decision or his reasoning for which ever way he did vote.

 

It's of my opinion that the money was going to be spent re-homing greyhounds one way or the other, so I see it as an advantage that a portion of that money being spent is going towards an asset. In five or ten years we'll have something other than money spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason people seem to think that the L.P rep has a lot of power on the board, they only have 1 vote and no matter how hard you can agree or disagree with things being passed if the other members vote against you then it's all over.

I reiterate that the L.P's had their chance to vote someone else in only a few months back and didn't.

I also can't believe the petition organisers are against purchasing the GAP kennels, in a few years time they will look back and wonder what they were thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Following is how the petition read, when it was submitted to NZGRA.

 

 

"We the undersigned Licensed Persons, hereby give notice under clause 18.1f for the removal of Licensed Person Representative Mr Graeme Calverley, as he has failed in his duty to represent the interests of the licensed persons. This vote of no confidence in Mr Graeme Calverley stems from recent events including the kennel purchase and the reduction in the petrol vouchers."

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

This has now been confirmed.

 

https://www.thedogs.co.nz/News.aspx?NewsID=1293

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual people seem to be missing the most crucial principle in all this. The merits of the voucher scheme and the purchase of a GAP property (both of which I incidentally end up on Calverley's side on this), are not the relevant points. What is critical is the fundamental attempt to undermine further what limited rights and influence smaller owners and trainers have in the code. The petition is a misuse and abuse of the rule, totally setting out to undermine the concept of representation and democracy in the code and the Board should reject it unequivocally for just those reasons.

The rules provide a process for the election of an LP rep and it is up to the full electorate of all registered LPs to decide whether that rep has represented their interests adequately and vote accordingly. That is the time to debate those issues amongst the wider electorate of registered LPs entitled to vote.

If you believe that the petition should be acted on in the manner the petitioners ask, then you are stating firmly that you do not believe in the principle embodied in the current rules of giving LPs a direct say in the formation and decision-making of their governing board (albeit a small one); and secondly you are saying you want to do away with the concept of an elected rep and hand over all aspects of decisionmaking to the Board without any direct LP input.

Whether Graeme's vote was right or wrong in your eyes is not the issue. That is a separate debate that you should have anyway and especially leading up to the re-election of the LP rep. But what is the issue is whether a small unrepresentative group of petitioners and a Board that may not necessarily be representative of LPs in the code have the right to remove and/or impose a representative on the membership because they don't like the way he/she voted on an issue.

As I said the petition in my view is a misuse and abuse of the rule's intention. Such rules are there to deal with malpractice and inappropriate behaviour by Board members, not to make them vote in way a minority who have not been able to get elected themselves want and backdoor the democratic process (limited as it already is). 

There are appropriate mechanisms for calling an LP rep to account; they are called a vote, an election campaign, consultation and one that uses very complex technology - picking up a telephone. A petition to remove them because you don't like the way they vote is not one of them.

The petitioners in their reasoning on the petition have already shown they either don't believe in the provision for an elected independent LP rep or don't believe in any form of LP democracy - perhaps both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual people seem to be missing the most crucial principle in all this. The merits of the voucher scheme and the purchase of a GAP property (both of which I incidentally end up on Calverley's side on this), are not the relevant points. What is critical is the fundamental attempt to undermine further what limited rights and influence smaller owners and trainers have in the code. The petition is a misuse and abuse of the rule, totally setting out to undermine the concept of representation and democracy in the code and the Board should reject it unequivocally for just those reasons.

The rules provide a process for the election of an LP rep and it is up to the full electorate of all registered LPs to decide whether that rep has represented their interests adequately and vote accordingly. That is the time to debate those issues amongst the wider electorate of registered LPs entitled to vote.

If you believe that the petition should be acted on in the manner the petitioners ask, then you are stating firmly that you do not believe in the principle embodied in the current rules of giving LPs a direct say in the formation and decision-making of their governing board (albeit a small one); and secondly you are saying you want to do away with the concept of an elected rep and hand over all aspects of decisionmaking to the Board without any direct LP input.

Whether Graeme's vote was right or wrong in your eyes is not the issue. That is a separate debate that you should have anyway and especially leading up to the re-election of the LP rep. But what is the issue is whether a small unrepresentative group of petitioners and a Board that may not necessarily be representative of LPs in the code have the right to remove and/or impose a representative on the membership because they don't like the way he/she voted on an issue.

As I said the petition in my view is a misuse and abuse of the rule's intention. Such rules are there to deal with malpractice and inappropriate behaviour by Board members, not to make them vote in way a minority who have not been able to get elected themselves want and backdoor the democratic process (limited as it already is). 

There are appropriate mechanisms for calling an LP rep to account; they are called a vote, an election campaign, consultation and one that uses very complex technology - picking up a telephone. A petition to remove them because you don't like the way they vote is not one of them.

The petitioners in their reasoning on the petition have already shown they either don't believe in the provision for an elected independent LP rep or don't believe in any form of LP democracy - perhaps both.

welcome back and well said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing 77 votes invalid. That equates to about 25%. I have to question the IQ level of the electorate.

Well 25% of them perhaps. Many people from Oscar Wilde to Winston Churchil have been credited with the saying "Democracy is a very bad system of government, but remember, all the others are so much worse!" Irrespective of whoever was first to say it, it is true. Intelligence and reason doesn't qualify you to vote - being on the roll of electors is the only qualification you need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual people seem to be missing the most crucial principle in all this. The merits of the voucher scheme and the purchase of a GAP property (both of which I incidentally end up on Calverley's side on this), are not the relevant points. What is critical is the fundamental attempt to undermine further what limited rights and influence smaller owners and trainers have in the code. The petition is a misuse and abuse of the rule, totally setting out to undermine the concept of representation and democracy in the code and the Board should reject it unequivocally for just those reasons.

The rules provide a process for the election of an LP rep and it is up to the full electorate of all registered LPs to decide whether that rep has represented their interests adequately and vote accordingly. That is the time to debate those issues amongst the wider electorate of registered LPs entitled to vote.

If you believe that the petition should be acted on in the manner the petitioners ask, then you are stating firmly that you do not believe in the principle embodied in the current rules of giving LPs a direct say in the formation and decision-making of their governing board (albeit a small one); and secondly you are saying you want to do away with the concept of an elected rep and hand over all aspects of decisionmaking to the Board without any direct LP input.

Whether Graeme's vote was right or wrong in your eyes is not the issue. That is a separate debate that you should have anyway and especially leading up to the re-election of the LP rep. But what is the issue is whether a small unrepresentative group of petitioners and a Board that may not necessarily be representative of LPs in the code have the right to remove and/or impose a representative on the membership because they don't like the way he/she voted on an issue.

As I said the petition in my view is a misuse and abuse of the rule's intention. Such rules are there to deal with malpractice and inappropriate behaviour by Board members, not to make them vote in way a minority who have not been able to get elected themselves want and backdoor the democratic process (limited as it already is). 

There are appropriate mechanisms for calling an LP rep to account; they are called a vote, an election campaign, consultation and one that uses very complex technology - picking up a telephone. A petition to remove them because you don't like the way they vote is not one of them.

The petitioners in their reasoning on the petition have already shown they either don't believe in the provision for an elected independent LP rep or don't believe in any form of LP democracy - perhaps both.

So did you boycott the vote Philocon2? Just curious. Sounds like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the previous thread for this subject has disappeared.

 

In that previous thread there was some question as to what the wording was on the petition.

 

Following is how the petition read, when it was submitted to NZGRA.

 

 

"We the undersigned Licensed Persons, hereby give notice under clause 18.1f for the removal of Licensed Person Representative Mr Graeme Calverley, as he has failed in his duty to represent the interests of the licensed persons. This vote of no confidence in Mr Graeme Calverley stems from recent events including the kennel purchase and the reduction in the petrol vouchers."

 

 

He had voted against the the reduction to petrol vouchers as the voting form confirms.

 

In my opinion this has been a huge waste of funds, which is now no longer available to NZGRA to pay stakes or for petrol vouchers, for what appears to me to be an ill informed crusade.

 

 

 

 

.

How about we get some facts right. The clubs voted (Wanganui called for Members to have a vote,about 10 turned up)for the GAP place and G Calverley vote to keep PV at $40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% correct with the GAP comment Popa Gas - whether or not Mr Calverley was for or against the purchase doesn't mean anything as rule 21.2cc says that for any capital expenditure over $250,000 that the clubs have to vote and approve such expenditure (this rule came in because of the world famous in NZ 'Rocketship' debacle) - so essentially the LP rep or indeed the board didn't make the call on purchasing the property it was a club decision.  

 

I also heard that he was against reducing the petrol vouchers from $40.  If the voting for the vouchers was done in committee then theoretically no one should know how anyone voted - but the LP rep probably knows as well as anyone that information tends to get out and conclusions are jumped to and he would know that by voting against it would mean a death knell for him so I tend to believe what I have heard and that is that he didn't vote for the change.

 

My biggest concern here is that a great deal of money has probably been spent (assume legal opinions, etc) and probably going to be spent (re running the election - unless the board invoke rule 18.2 B).  Money that would surely be better spent on other things (such as stake money).

 

I seem to remember a similar approach around the South Island rep a few years back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the previous thread for this subject has disappeared.

 

In that previous thread there was some question as to what the wording was on the petition.

 

Following is how the petition read, when it was submitted to NZGRA.

 

 

"We the undersigned Licensed Persons, hereby give notice under clause 18.1f for the removal of Licensed Person Representative Mr Graeme Calverley, as he has failed in his duty to represent the interests of the licensed persons. This vote of no confidence in Mr Graeme Calverley stems from recent events including the kennel purchase and the reduction in the petrol vouchers."

 

 

He had voted against the the reduction to petrol vouchers as the voting form confirms.

 

In my opinion this has been a huge waste of funds, which is now no longer available to NZGRA to pay stakes or for petrol vouchers, for what appears to me to be an ill informed crusade.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

How about we get some facts right. The clubs voted (Wanganui called for Members to have a vote,about 10 turned up)for the GAP place and G Calverley vote to keep PV at $40

 

And what facts are you suggesting I've posted incorrectly?

 

I've stated that Graeme voted against the reduction of PV's.

 

I've made no claim whatsoever as to his standing on the Levin property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a talk with Jim Leach at head office today to get a few things cleared up about the vote & things.

 

1) When Voting if you cross out "YES" then you are saying that you want Graeme Calverley to stay in his job.

 

2) As for the petition it is to do with the deduction of the Petrol Voucher cost & the purchase of the kennels to be used for GAP dogs.

 

When I ask for more information & any evidence to support the claims to be sent out so we can make a fair & legal decision on what we want. I was told that there wasn't any because the people behind it never sent it. I was also informed that the petition was started up not long after Mr Calverley had been re-elected into his position on the board.

 

I personally think this whole petition & vote is a waste of LP's time & NZGRA time & funds. The people who are behind this or any petition should should provide LEGAL EVIDENCE of their claims to support the petition so that when it comes to voting people can make a fair decision when voting. If they can't provide LEGAL EVIDENCE of their claims then they should think about what could happen if the matter was taken to court & put before a judge. The judge would ask them for any evidence they have to support & back up their claims & when they say they don't have any the judge would laugh at them & then they could be charged with wasting the courts time & get hit with a massive fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why entertain the whole petition thing if there is nothing behind it.

 

That's what we want to know but because the people behind it haven't provided any evidence all we can do is speculate as to what the reasoning behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.