Backbarrel wrote: » Search this thread and others for the info.. Contact your local delegates. they have all the annual reports. all the resolutions and the accounts. If you have not got them by now contact yer delegate and get on to him. AGM is saturday and your delegate need to know how you would like them to vote.
grassroot1 wrote: »
bluezulu49 wrote: » So in a nutshell the representatives of 5 RGC'S called for an egm. Correct.The egm was in direct opposition to the interests of the NARGC and its members. This is your interpretation of the facts and appears to be the current official line. My understanding is that the EGM was called for as a result of disquiet in the RGCs at the financial and HR operation of the organisation.Those calling it had a list of questions and they did not even finish asking all of them. I do not know if this is correct as I was not there. However given that it has been reported that the questions they did ask were stonewalled by the top table they may have seen that it was futile to continue.There was nothing untoward discovered by the EGM. Due to the refusal of the top table to answer questions / provide information?.It cost the NARGC members somewhere in the region of 90 to 100k and no one is to be held responsible? Neither the NARGC nor the regional game councils are legal persons, so they cannot sue. The injunction to prevent the holding of an EGM was taken personally by four officers of the NARGC against the representatives of the RGCs personally. If you do not oppose an injunction which has been granted against you, you are held liable for the legal costs of that injunction. If they had not opposed the injunction the RGC representatives would have had to personally pay its costs. Given that all they had done was to request an EGM in accordance with the rules of the Association they had no option but to oppose it. The injunction was overturned and the costs have rebounded on the NARGC officers who were instigators of the case. In my view responsibility for legal costs lies with them. Were they indemnified by the NARGC?.The 5 RGC,S involved should pay the fees or account for the actions of their delegates. Not in my view. See second item above.
grassroot1 wrote: » Yes they are the facts and as you say yourself you were not there! It cost NARGC members 90k plus to find out what exactly
bluezulu49 wrote: » The officers of the organisation incurred a cost of 90k plus to attempt to stop an EGM. Ask them why they applied for the injunction.
bluezulu49 wrote: » The egm was in direct opposition to the interests of the NARGC and its members. This is your interpretation of the facts and appears to be the current official line. My understanding is that the EGM was called for as a result of disquiet in the RGCs at the financial and HR operation of the organisation..
bluezulu49 wrote: » Those calling it had a list of questions and they did not even finish asking all of them. I do not know if this is correct as I was not there. However given that it has been reported that the questions they did ask were stonewalled by the top table they may have seen that it was futile to continue.There was nothing untoward discovered by the EGM. Due to the refusal of the top table to answer questions / provide information?.
bluezulu49 wrote: » There was nothing untoward discovered by the EGM. Due to the refusal of the top table to answer questions / provide information?.
Perfectstorm wrote: » i did not intend to suggest that their individual professions on which their income depends is that of "professional delegate"
berettaman wrote: » This has been done to death. The advice give to the Executive (The people charged with running the Association between Governing Body meetings) was that there was a huge risk of defamation arising if an EGM was allowed to take place. Hence the need to stop the EGM. As you will have read in Justice Murphys judgement a by product of the case was that the Assoc could be allowed to discuss its business in a meeting without fear.. Happy Days as the Exec had loads to say. (If you were at the EGM you would know what I mean.) If you are going to ask why the Executive had to take the legal advice, that rule was brought in under a previous regime so there ya go..
Sparks wrote: » I'm sorry, but the idea that you can take someone - even from a demanding profession like, say, a doctor - and just have them wade into a situation where they would need legal knowledge and possibly training in relation to the Defamation Act which they do not have, and not consider it a risk -- that's just unconscionable and reckless. Almost unethical. It would expose any association or group to serious losses from any subsequent legal action. I'm deeply unsurprised at the legal advice they got, given the context where the decision got made.
cavan shooter wrote: » Thank fcuk for this answer, Jesus I was about to loose it again.
Perfectstorm wrote: » It seems the High court judge didn't agree with the legal opinion and then with an unknown amount of training the egm passed by defamation free...hindsight is always marvellous though
Resistance is futile wrote: » A debate needs to be started on quite a few things I think a portion of the increase is suggested to be ring fenced towards members services . Lots of increases recently in rebates to members/associated members
Perfectstorm wrote: » I don't think an increased is justified with so much money already in the bank account..more is being banked then spent
Perfectstorm wrote: » Might well be time to agree to disagree on the recent past. In my view both sides could have acted better...... instead debate why some want an increase in the fees and hen pheasants on the open order
cavan shooter wrote: » That Cavan resolution goes in every year going back to 2014/2015 when we were being told how broke the Association was and the ex treasurer standing up bemoaning how he didn't get an increase since 19xx. In fairness and talking to my neighbor last night who is a delegate of long standing what the main aim of that resolution is to ensure if ever there was a suggestion of an increase that a portion of the increase is ring fenced to member services and not fall into what used to be the balck hole. I also see that Cavan actually explain the reason behind there resolutions in plain language underneath, so if you have a copy of the resolutions you would see that.
Resistance is futile wrote: » And in regard to the hen pheasants issue it appears to be an issue at every game development meeting, vermin control meeting and G.B and agm and probably every gun Club meeting in the country that pheasant numbers are at an all time low. That might have something to do with only cock birds/ majority cock birds being released . For a healthy pheasant population there has to be some encouragement for clubs to buy hens so a balance can be reached . Hens are being shot on estates ,private shoots and little syndicates all over Ireland already . Again I think this proposal has been explained under the proposal according to a guy I was discussing it with . Nice to see a few proposals on shooting issues that strike a chord with hunting men .
Perfectstorm wrote: » My club releases hens every year. I have not heard about wild clutches in a few years despite this. Do clubs have bag limits. ..am thinking of the Facebook pictures that will appear with one lad having shoot 4 ,5,6 plus birds on a day... Release hens for a few years and then maybe put them on the order
cavan shooter wrote: » 50: 50 cock and hens with us. Don, t do bag limits but i have two wild clutches near me.
Perfectstorm wrote: » Fair play. How many birds does your club get? Poults or adults? How many active members
cavan shooter wrote: » How did the meeting go anyone there?
