I'm sorry Carol - I have to disagree with your comments regarding the coaching program.
I don't buy any copyright infringement and if a board member was not aware that the driving coaching program was non-compliant with the EC programs, then the board member must be comatose. I was in the Sport Council meeting 3 years ago and I took the hit on the coaching program.
Like so many other differences between driving and the ridden disciplines, the driving coach program simply cannot comply with EC's programs which are mandated by Sport Canada on a cradle to grave concept.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
E-Bulletin MythDemeanours - Doublespeak
To continue, we (the three of us) were asked to come to a “meeting” the next day (again we were naive and stupid - expecting a reasonable discussion) which amounted to a grilling. Several of the directors stated that they had been receiving nasty emails - they not only wanted to know what the problem was - but also they didn’t know there was a problem. (I certainly don’t believe that nasty emails should ever be sent; I’ve not read any of the ones that were directed to the DC Board, but I have read them from members of the DC Board.) One director was very angry (and apparently still is) that she was a DC director and a member of High Country and that nobody had come to her regarding any problem or concern which, had they done so, she surely could have helped resolve. I did not respond. When I relayed this to the individuals who gave me their proxies, their response was exactly what came to my mind when I heard the complaint: “ Why bother - we tried that once before and found it to be a totally useless effort.”
At any rate - many of the Board members stated that they were offended and angry that we opposed the bylaw amendment scheme. Yes, we three agreed the Board needed to be expanded; yes, we agreed that there needed to be Bylaw reform, but not by being ram-rodded in the manner they were trying to do. Bylaws are sacrosanct.
Back to the e-bulletin:
“Although it was clearly explained how our meeting would proceed if the bylaw amendment was not successful, some proxy holders insisted they had a mandate not to support the change even though each said later that they did support the increase in Board, just wanted to force the election issue even though there was disagreement about regional representation. “
Although it was clearly explained how our meeting would proceed if the bylaw amendment was not successful,
and
some proxy holders insisted they had a mandate not to support the change even though each said later that they did support the increase in Board, just wanted to force the election issue even though there was disagreement about regional representation. “
A prime example of a non-sequitur - the first part of the statement has nothing to do with the other.
When I left for Toronto - I had a resounding “NO” from my proxy votes to the Bylaw amendment as presented. How many times do we have to state: ILLEGAL. Drive Canada has the list of the proxies I held. I challenge them to ask those people. I’ll go a step further and challenge them to ask the issuers of the proxies of all three of us.
Red Herring Statements again: as “just wanted to force the election issue even though there was disagreement about regional representation” Garbage - this is back to the adjectival comment I previously made.
E-bulletin: “Unfortunately the Special General Meeting became a political contest with a few individuals soliciting proxies, even outside their regions. There was misleading and insightful information being circulated and a campaign based on negative comments and promises of changes that are simply not possible.”
"became a political contest " - Again, garbage - maybe political on DC's part.
Since when is there a problem for someone going to the AGM - particularly one who has been nominated to the Board of Directors - to let people know they are going? There is absolutely nothing in the Bylaws preventing anybody from representing people in other locations.
I do admit I am guilty - I did send an email of solicitation and there were 2 people that were not from my “region.” But, they were Club Members and I thought they might also be Drive Canada members. (That is another matter)
This is the email I sent:
“If you are currently a Drive Canada member, you should have received your notice of the Drive Canada special meeting and the Annual General Meeting by now and I'm sure that you have discovered that Iris Davies and I are both nominated to the Board. We will be attending the meetings in Toronto.
We feel that it is important that ALL Drive Canada members exercise their right to vote. There are problems that arise from the agenda for the Special Meeting that impact the AGM and election.
If you will not be attending the meetings, please give your proxy to either Iris or I and if you have any specific instructions, they will be followed. Also, you may have noticed that there are TWO separate proxies for the two meetings - both proxies are required. Family memberships have ONE voting member who is designated on membership renewals. Proxies must be registered before November 7 so please do not delay."
Proxies can be emailed to me if you can sign and send electronically or faxed to me at ______. Any questions or comments please email me or call me at ________. Iris' email is above and phone number is ____________.”
I apologise to those who were offended that I sent it. I didn’t find anything inflammatory in re-reading it; however, I didn’t complain when a DC Board member posted an announcement of attending the meetings and requesting proxies AND I didn’t complain that the proxy form itself states:
"I _______ a Voting member in good standing hereby appoint the ___ President, ___Secretary or _____________ (a current Voting member in good standing) to vote on my behalf at the ......”
So there we are - the President and the Secretary are also seemingly soliciting votes and also clearly doing so from those NOT IN THEIR REGION. Give me a break! The President had no complaints when he had huge numbers of proxies and they certainly weren’t all from BC.
I really, really love this one:
“There was misleading and insightful information being circulated “ - particularly the Freudian slip “insightful”
I imagine the writer was after “incite” - (“inciteful” is like “irregardless” - no such word) Incite means to provoke or stir up while insight means clear or deep perception of a situation: insightful- showing or having insight; perceptive.
Yes, there was clear and deep perception of a situation. Iris Davies sent a request to Drive Canada to please email her position in the form of an e-bulletin. Was it? - NO.
Iris’ position is here:
http://carriage-driving-canada.blogspot.com/
- Obviously inflammatory, controversial, and not reflective of Drive Canada's onespeak.
Though sometimes attributed to George Orwell, along with his doublethink, newspeak, and duckspeak, (1984- published in 1949) “doublespeak” was coined in the early 50's. The Doublespeak Award is an "ironic tribute to public speakers who have perpetuated language that is grossly deceptive, evasive, euphemistic, confusing, or self-centred." It has been issued by the National Council of Teachers of English since 1974.
It’s not too difficult to extend the Doublespeak Award to writing. The cumulation of the coloured and italicized phrases win the Doublespeak Writing Award and it’s one that will just keep on giving.
For interest sake, these are fun reading.
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Involved/Volunteer/Appointed%20Groups/Past_Recipients_Doublespeak_Award.pdf
At any rate - many of the Board members stated that they were offended and angry that we opposed the bylaw amendment scheme. Yes, we three agreed the Board needed to be expanded; yes, we agreed that there needed to be Bylaw reform, but not by being ram-rodded in the manner they were trying to do. Bylaws are sacrosanct.
Back to the e-bulletin:
“Although it was clearly explained how our meeting would proceed if the bylaw amendment was not successful, some proxy holders insisted they had a mandate not to support the change even though each said later that they did support the increase in Board, just wanted to force the election issue even though there was disagreement about regional representation. “
Although it was clearly explained how our meeting would proceed if the bylaw amendment was not successful,
and
some proxy holders insisted they had a mandate not to support the change even though each said later that they did support the increase in Board, just wanted to force the election issue even though there was disagreement about regional representation. “
A prime example of a non-sequitur - the first part of the statement has nothing to do with the other.
When I left for Toronto - I had a resounding “NO” from my proxy votes to the Bylaw amendment as presented. How many times do we have to state: ILLEGAL. Drive Canada has the list of the proxies I held. I challenge them to ask those people. I’ll go a step further and challenge them to ask the issuers of the proxies of all three of us.
Red Herring Statements again: as “just wanted to force the election issue even though there was disagreement about regional representation” Garbage - this is back to the adjectival comment I previously made.
E-bulletin: “Unfortunately the Special General Meeting became a political contest with a few individuals soliciting proxies, even outside their regions. There was misleading and insightful information being circulated and a campaign based on negative comments and promises of changes that are simply not possible.”
"became a political contest " - Again, garbage - maybe political on DC's part.
Since when is there a problem for someone going to the AGM - particularly one who has been nominated to the Board of Directors - to let people know they are going? There is absolutely nothing in the Bylaws preventing anybody from representing people in other locations.
I do admit I am guilty - I did send an email of solicitation and there were 2 people that were not from my “region.” But, they were Club Members and I thought they might also be Drive Canada members. (That is another matter)
This is the email I sent:
“If you are currently a Drive Canada member, you should have received your notice of the Drive Canada special meeting and the Annual General Meeting by now and I'm sure that you have discovered that Iris Davies and I are both nominated to the Board. We will be attending the meetings in Toronto.
We feel that it is important that ALL Drive Canada members exercise their right to vote. There are problems that arise from the agenda for the Special Meeting that impact the AGM and election.
If you will not be attending the meetings, please give your proxy to either Iris or I and if you have any specific instructions, they will be followed. Also, you may have noticed that there are TWO separate proxies for the two meetings - both proxies are required. Family memberships have ONE voting member who is designated on membership renewals. Proxies must be registered before November 7 so please do not delay."
Proxies can be emailed to me if you can sign and send electronically or faxed to me at ______. Any questions or comments please email me or call me at ________. Iris' email is above and phone number is ____________.”
I apologise to those who were offended that I sent it. I didn’t find anything inflammatory in re-reading it; however, I didn’t complain when a DC Board member posted an announcement of attending the meetings and requesting proxies AND I didn’t complain that the proxy form itself states:
"I _______ a Voting member in good standing hereby appoint the ___ President, ___Secretary or _____________ (a current Voting member in good standing) to vote on my behalf at the ......”
So there we are - the President and the Secretary are also seemingly soliciting votes and also clearly doing so from those NOT IN THEIR REGION. Give me a break! The President had no complaints when he had huge numbers of proxies and they certainly weren’t all from BC.
I really, really love this one:
“There was misleading and insightful information being circulated “ - particularly the Freudian slip “insightful”
I imagine the writer was after “incite” - (“inciteful” is like “irregardless” - no such word) Incite means to provoke or stir up while insight means clear or deep perception of a situation: insightful- showing or having insight; perceptive.
Yes, there was clear and deep perception of a situation. Iris Davies sent a request to Drive Canada to please email her position in the form of an e-bulletin. Was it? - NO.
Iris’ position is here:
http://carriage-driving-canada.blogspot.com/
- Obviously inflammatory, controversial, and not reflective of Drive Canada's onespeak.
Though sometimes attributed to George Orwell, along with his doublethink, newspeak, and duckspeak, (1984- published in 1949) “doublespeak” was coined in the early 50's. The Doublespeak Award is an "ironic tribute to public speakers who have perpetuated language that is grossly deceptive, evasive, euphemistic, confusing, or self-centred." It has been issued by the National Council of Teachers of English since 1974.
It’s not too difficult to extend the Doublespeak Award to writing. The cumulation of the coloured and italicized phrases win the Doublespeak Writing Award and it’s one that will just keep on giving.
For interest sake, these are fun reading.
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Involved/Volunteer/Appointed%20Groups/Past_Recipients_Doublespeak_Award.pdf
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
More E-Bulletin MythDemeanours
Congratulations, Drive Canada (board) the following is a masterpiece of (let me see how many adjectives I can use) slanted, distorted, manipulative, biased, colored, contorted, and perverted writing!
E-bulletin: "Based on the members actually present, the motion would have passed, however there were three individuals who came with sufficient proxies to deny the 2/3 required vote so the motion was defeated.
Of interest was the recent signups for proxies including family members, non-drivers and some people who have not been members for many years."
FACT: The motion was illegal. Period. Every other aspect of the meeting was stated as conducted “per Bylaw [insert applicable bylaw article & number]” . Those aspects were very minor and immaterial, for example as to whether a quorum was present per bylaw such and such - the point was that a quorum was present. However, the argument was made regarding the bylaw changes - an item of immense importance - that a Special General Meeting was required and that there was a precedence in that Bylaws had previously been amended in the morning and the AGM took place in the afternoon.
I stated in the meeting that the procedure was not legal because it could not be approved by Industry Canada prior to the AGM and “acceptance of the new Directors.” An attendee specifically asked if what I said was true. The reply was again, that there was a precedence, and also that the intent to send the amendments to Industry Canada for approval was sufficient.
I knew this information was wrong but had to wait until returning home to find my records. I sent a correction to the “Board” and involved individuals. Not surprising, I received not one word in return except from Iris and Sue.
If you are interested, my correction is here:
http://carriage-driving-canada.blogspot.com/
Bylaws are sacrosanct! I find no integrity in a group that would so cavalierly willingly subvert the bylaws under which an organization operates. I would truly like to think that the board members had not thoroughly thought about their actions; I would like to think that, but it is difficult to do so. Moreover, they were offended that the 3 of us and our proxy votes were not willing to be complicit.
Isn’t it ironic everyone else is required to sign this statement on their membership applications/renewals:” I hereby agree to uphold the bylaws and membership policies of Drive Canada” One must assume that the Drive Canada Board has special renewal forms because they surely wouldn’t sign that.
Isn’t it ironic everyone else is required to sign this statement on their membership applications/renewals:” I hereby agree to uphold the bylaws and membership policies of Drive Canada” One must assume that the Drive Canada Board has special renewal forms because they surely wouldn’t be so dishonest.
"Based on the members actually present, the motion would have passed" 27 Members that were present are going to make that decision for the entire membership? I recall a meeting in which the DC president had 109 proxies. The "Board" had no complaint then.
Now this is a real fun comment:
"Of interest was the recent signups for proxies including family members, non-drivers and some people who have not been members for many years."
That is a bizarre statement. “Signups for proxies”? How does one signup for a proxy? A member may give another member his proxy, but signup? The notice was mailed out October 15 - 30 days prior to the meetings, and “Membership on record 45 days prior to the date on which the General or Special Meeting is to be held shall be entitled to receive notice.” Since nobody knew the topic of the Special Meeting, and there was not a notice of election, where was the landslide of new memberships that this statement implies?
“Family Members?” And the “Board” doesn’t have any “family members”? Oh, and I really like the term, “non-drivers.” Again, look to the “Board”.
“Some people who have not been members for many years” The “Board” doesn’t get it - this was supposed to be an election year and many, many Drive Canada members had been increasingly unhappy with the actions of the “Board” and wanted to effect change (that can be done in a democracy) and put forward a total of 5 nominations. Now just why would you think some people have not been members for many years and rejoined? Maybe because they saw a glimmer of hope of inclusion?
Iris’ report on the meetings is here
http://carriage-driving-canada.blogspot.com/
It gets better - stay tuned for the Double Speak awards.
E-bulletin: "Based on the members actually present, the motion would have passed, however there were three individuals who came with sufficient proxies to deny the 2/3 required vote so the motion was defeated.
Of interest was the recent signups for proxies including family members, non-drivers and some people who have not been members for many years."
FACT: The motion was illegal. Period. Every other aspect of the meeting was stated as conducted “per Bylaw [insert applicable bylaw article & number]” . Those aspects were very minor and immaterial, for example as to whether a quorum was present per bylaw such and such - the point was that a quorum was present. However, the argument was made regarding the bylaw changes - an item of immense importance - that a Special General Meeting was required and that there was a precedence in that Bylaws had previously been amended in the morning and the AGM took place in the afternoon.
I stated in the meeting that the procedure was not legal because it could not be approved by Industry Canada prior to the AGM and “acceptance of the new Directors.” An attendee specifically asked if what I said was true. The reply was again, that there was a precedence, and also that the intent to send the amendments to Industry Canada for approval was sufficient.
I knew this information was wrong but had to wait until returning home to find my records. I sent a correction to the “Board” and involved individuals. Not surprising, I received not one word in return except from Iris and Sue.
If you are interested, my correction is here:
http://carriage-driving-canada.blogspot.com/
Bylaws are sacrosanct! I find no integrity in a group that would so cavalierly willingly subvert the bylaws under which an organization operates. I would truly like to think that the board members had not thoroughly thought about their actions; I would like to think that, but it is difficult to do so. Moreover, they were offended that the 3 of us and our proxy votes were not willing to be complicit.
Isn’t it ironic everyone else is required to sign this statement on their membership applications/renewals:” I hereby agree to uphold the bylaws and membership policies of Drive Canada” One must assume that the Drive Canada Board has special renewal forms because they surely wouldn’t sign that.
Isn’t it ironic everyone else is required to sign this statement on their membership applications/renewals:” I hereby agree to uphold the bylaws and membership policies of Drive Canada” One must assume that the Drive Canada Board has special renewal forms because they surely wouldn’t be so dishonest.
"Based on the members actually present, the motion would have passed" 27 Members that were present are going to make that decision for the entire membership? I recall a meeting in which the DC president had 109 proxies. The "Board" had no complaint then.
Now this is a real fun comment:
"Of interest was the recent signups for proxies including family members, non-drivers and some people who have not been members for many years."
That is a bizarre statement. “Signups for proxies”? How does one signup for a proxy? A member may give another member his proxy, but signup? The notice was mailed out October 15 - 30 days prior to the meetings, and “Membership on record 45 days prior to the date on which the General or Special Meeting is to be held shall be entitled to receive notice.” Since nobody knew the topic of the Special Meeting, and there was not a notice of election, where was the landslide of new memberships that this statement implies?
“Family Members?” And the “Board” doesn’t have any “family members”? Oh, and I really like the term, “non-drivers.” Again, look to the “Board”.
“Some people who have not been members for many years” The “Board” doesn’t get it - this was supposed to be an election year and many, many Drive Canada members had been increasingly unhappy with the actions of the “Board” and wanted to effect change (that can be done in a democracy) and put forward a total of 5 nominations. Now just why would you think some people have not been members for many years and rejoined? Maybe because they saw a glimmer of hope of inclusion?
Iris’ report on the meetings is here
http://carriage-driving-canada.blogspot.com/
It gets better - stay tuned for the Double Speak awards.
Friday, January 22, 2010
total agreement
I completely agree with Gaye's interpretation of the bylaws and having been around when the Canadian Driving Society used to beg people to put their names forward for the board I understand the rationale for these bylaws.
In an ideal world everyone in Canada that drives horses would see the value of joining a national organization. There would be a large pool of interested members and therefore it would not be a struggle to encourage nominations from all regions.
In reality there are very few members of DC. $40 is expensive. I made a formal request to the board to lower the 2010 membership fees in the hope that more people would join and that was turned down. I guess the possibility of new members was not appealing.
There were just over 150 possible votes at the Nov. 14 meetings. When you subtract the affiliate club votes and those members who must belong to DC (coaches, officials, CET members) there aren't very many voluntary individual members. Last fall there was a request sent to DC for a breakdown of the membership numbers by region. That doesn't sound like an outrageous request does it? It was turned down.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Myths - The Very Colourful E-Bulletin
(I may be boring everyone with facts, but so be it.)
The January 2010 E-Bulletin States:
- A membership meeting was held on November 14, 2009 to consider a proposed bylaw change that would increase the size of the Board of Directors from the current 7 members to a maximum of 15 and to clarify election procedures when more than one candidate was put forward by the voting members from any region. No one spoke against the increase in the size of the board, only that there should be an election first rather than have all the current nominees become directors. The opinions on the regional issue remain diversified and needs further review.
FACT: Nominations were submitted mid-summer. More nominations than Director Vacancies were, in fact, received . Article V - d and e were REQUIRED to be followed. They were not.
FACT:
Sep. 11: request was made for date of AGM
Sep. 15: second request was made to Drive Canada stating:
“A member must belong to Drive Canada 30 days in advance of the AGM. In order to get the notice of the meeting, they must join 45 days in advance. Nominations for Director must be received by the Secretary 75 days in advance. If the meeting is on November 7, new members have little time to join and Nominations have long since closed. I assume there are not more nominations than there are Director vacancies, otherwise the Secretary will have to send out ballots 60 days prior to the meeting (now past). The website shows the 2008 Directors but I was told that, since they are two year terms, the list is good through 2009. "
Sep. 16: Reply:
“The Board met last evening and has set Saturday, November 14, 2009 for a Special General meeting at 10am and the Annual General Meeting at 1pm. Notice for the meetings will be circulated to all voting members as of September 30, 2009. The number of nomination have not exceeded the anticipated vacancies, so an election is not required. ““nominations have not exceeded the anticipated vacancies". Right - anticipated by only eight people. (The audacity was that after this deception they thought that the rest of the members would roll over and accept an illegal process.) I do have to admit, given previous subterfuges, we were very stupid and naive to fall for the “anticipated”
Sep. 16: Request as to purpose of Special General Meeting
Sep. 21: Second Request made
Sep. 22: Reply:
“The Board is preparing a notice with all the details and will be sent to all voting members on record within the alloted time. We have been waiting for EC to finalize agreement with the provinces and see how that will affect relationships with members in each region and more specifically our driving community. It is in everyone's interest to have all the facts in hand prior to any speculation or e-mail debtates (sic)"
"waiting for EC to finalize agreement with the provinces and see how that will affect relationships with members in each region and more specifically our driving community. It is in everyone's interest to have all the facts in hand prior to any speculation or e-mail debtates"
- WHAT a red-herring -
the topic of EC's agreements had nothing
the topic of EC's agreements had nothing
to do with the Special General Meeting & Bylaw Changes
Despite requests, NO information whatsoever was made available until the 30-day notices were mailed out on October 15 and the mail being as slow as it is, many did not receive this until October 20 - 21. As an aside - the October E-Bulletin was mailed.
It is interesting to note from the E-Bulletin statement that election procedures needed to be clarified when more than one candidate was put forward by any one region. The proposed amendment was “when more nominations than Director vacancies in a region have been received “ballots would be mailed to members in that region."
FACT: I worked on the original bylaw amendments, Article V b states that there shall be 6 regions and that members in each region may nominate any other member within their region.
It DOES NOT state that a particular region must have Directors from that region or that members in that region may vote only for a Director in that region.
This was deliberate and I fully supported it. It was deliberate because at one time in the old CDS, members in each region elected four Directors - one representative for each of: Combined, Draft, Pleasure, & Recreational Driving plus one additional Director at Large for each 250 members of the Society resident in that region. Some regions had none or only one or two, In many cases, to say the least - warm bodies were appointed (some people like titles) and those individuals never went to meetings. Therefore, a quorum was never achieved and the Executive committee was hamstrung.
The philosophy was that the regions could put forward nominees, but if there was little or no interest from a region, or if there were some very enthusiastic, dynamic individuals who were interested, they could be nominated regardless of the region. There would actually be a universal election - the entire Drive Canada membership would be able to vote including those from regions which had no nominees.
I know many, including the other authors of this blog who hold different views. I applaud them for their opinions and certainly would never suppress them.
I can come up with several MythDemeanours in the preceding, but stay tuned for the really interesting ones.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Myths: Jan 2010 E-bulletin
Myths: Background
Drive Canada is incorporated as a not-for-profit
corporation under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act through Letterrs Patent and subject to the regulations of Industry CanadaI will start with noting relevant Articles of the Drive Canada Constitution & Bylaws and have been edited for brevity. The full document is available at http://www.drivecanada.org/attachments/dc-constitution-bylaws-official-en.pdf
ARTICLE IV - MEMBERS
3. Dues:
a. Annual dues for each class of membership ... shall be due and payable on the first day of January. A grace period of sixty (60) days shall be permitted after which any member who has not paid annual dues shall cease to be a member.
b. Initial dues paid prior to October 1st shall apply to the current year without prorating or rebate. Initial dues paid after October 1st shall cover the balance of the current year and the succeeding year.
c. ... No applicant may vote at an General or Special meeting unless he has been a current member in good standing for the preceding thirty (30) days.
5. Voting :
a. Each: ...(member)... is entitled to one vote at a General or Special Membership Meeting; except that only Canadian Members may vote on amendments to the Constitution.
e. All members entitled to vote may cast their ballot by proxy. Completed Proxy forms must be received by the Secretary prior to the meeting. Such Proxies shall be considered in the calculation of a quorum. Proxies may be hand delivered, sent by mail, fax or e-mail, provided the Proxy is dated for the intended meeting and any adjournment thereof, and signed by the member or originates from the member’s e-mail address on file with the Society.
f. Proxy forms shall be provided with the Notice of an General or Special Meeting and shall contain sufficient rationale for the proposal(s) to allow the members to cast a reasoned vote.
h. Proxy votes shall be counted for business arising from the floor and for amending constitutional changes provided that two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast are in favour of the proposed amendment to the Constitution and Bylaws.
ARTICLE V – DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS
1. Board of Directors
a. The affairs of the Society shall be managed by a Board of Directors ... There shall be a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of seven (7) .... Nominations shall be in writing and signed by the Nominator and two Seconders, all of whom shall be members in good standing of the Society. Nominations must be in the hands of the Secretary no later than seventy-five (75) days prior to the meeting.
b. There shall be six (6) regions: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan/Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. Prior to the Annual General Meeting of the Society, ... member resident in each region may nominate any other .... member in good standing within their region for Director.
d. When more nominations than Director vacancies have been received, the Secretary shall prepare ballots and mail to each: ...(member)... in good standing as of seventy-five (75) days prior to the Annual General Meeting. Ballots shall be sent by e-mail ...; by fax,.....; or by 1st class mail to the address of record, sixty (60) days prior to the.. (AGM). Only those ballots received ... by the Secretary, forty (40) days prior to the Annual General Meeting will be counted.
e. The Secretary shall cause ... ballots counted and all nominees informed of the results thirty (30) days prior to the ...(AGM) .... Directors so elected shall take office at the close of the ...(AGM) .... immediately following their election.
ARTICLE VIII – BYLAWS
2. These Bylaws shall not be altered or added to except by Special Resolution.
3.. Amendments to the Constitution or By-Laws shall not be enforced or acted upon until the approval of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada has been obtained.
Is there anything above that is vague or unclear?
Monday, January 18, 2010
Drive Canada - the mist
To try to unshroud the mists of Drive Canada, this blog has been created because we care a great deal about Driving in Canada and the organization of Drive Canada. Unfortunately, it would seem that the board of that organization cares only for the “Board.” I cannot write all of this in one sitting so it will be gradual.
(I cannot resist one “catty” remark - I totally resent & despise “folksy” missives that are sent from said organization that start with “Your Board of Directors” It is not “My” anything - it is “the Board of Directors of Drive Canada.” There - now I’ll behave.)
Ten years ago Drive Canada (then CDS) was inclusive, dynamic and showed promise of great things to come. Support was strong. Members were consulted and included in proceedings, but gradually have NOT been included.
Rules have gone amok. Rule change proposals have not been discussed and voted on by the membership (this year, for the first time I did discover in the September 8 directors’ minutes (not posted until November) that Rule proposals for 2010 for Sections C and H as approved by the Board were posted on the EC website for member input - unfortunately they conveniently didn’t inform the members of that fact and I happened to find them by accident)
What rule changes were being contemplated was specifically asked at the 2007 AGM in Toronto. The answer was that the rule changes were minor housekeeping changes to comply with EC’s new LTAD changes and that “all would be revealed.” All certainly was revealed - the massive rule changes finished much of my support.
Questions have been evaded, holders of dissenting opinions dismissed and denigrated. This “Board” operates as a Star Chamber - decisions have been unilateral and no information is ever forthcoming except after the fact.
Next posting will deal with the last e-bulletin and other myths.
(I cannot resist one “catty” remark - I totally resent & despise “folksy” missives that are sent from said organization that start with “Your Board of Directors” It is not “My” anything - it is “the Board of Directors of Drive Canada.” There - now I’ll behave.)
Ten years ago Drive Canada (then CDS) was inclusive, dynamic and showed promise of great things to come. Support was strong. Members were consulted and included in proceedings, but gradually have NOT been included.
Rules have gone amok. Rule change proposals have not been discussed and voted on by the membership (this year, for the first time I did discover in the September 8 directors’ minutes (not posted until November) that Rule proposals for 2010 for Sections C and H as approved by the Board were posted on the EC website for member input - unfortunately they conveniently didn’t inform the members of that fact and I happened to find them by accident)
What rule changes were being contemplated was specifically asked at the 2007 AGM in Toronto. The answer was that the rule changes were minor housekeeping changes to comply with EC’s new LTAD changes and that “all would be revealed.” All certainly was revealed - the massive rule changes finished much of my support.
Questions have been evaded, holders of dissenting opinions dismissed and denigrated. This “Board” operates as a Star Chamber - decisions have been unilateral and no information is ever forthcoming except after the fact.
Next posting will deal with the last e-bulletin and other myths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)