The south african alpaca breeders’society
Yüklə 121,35 Kb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Proposal 1: Matter Arising from 2007 AGM Vote 1.1 – Inspection Checklist
- Accepted: For: 48 Votes – Against: 0 Votes Vote 1.2 – Male Certification.
- Vote 1.2.1 Male Certification be postponed. It is hereby proposed that Male Certification as accepted by members at the 2007 AGM, be postponed and its merits be re-considered
- It is hereby proposed to adopt the Male Certification Inspection Schedule for certifying males as suitable for breeding.
- 2.0.1 Confirmation of the postal vote
- Accepted: For: 31 Votes – Against: 17 Votes Vote 2.1 Council Meetings and discussions via email
- Cyber meeting
- Vote 2.2 Participation by Council Members in Council discussions and votes
- Accepted by required 75% of members: For: 36 Votes – Against: 12 Votes
- Vote 2.3 Imposition of Penalties and Fines
- Vote 2.4 Importations – Application to Import
- , application requirements, rules, procedures, fees, levies, surety, deposits, fines, penalties and documentation
- Vote 2.5 – 2.7 Definitions for inclusion in the Constitution – Vote 2.5 – Cyber Meeting Definition – to support Vote 2.2
- Vote 2.6 – Application to Import Definition– to support Vote 2.4
- All Accepted by required 75% of members: For: 48 Votes – Against: 0 Votes Proposal 3: Title of Birth Notification certificate Vote 3
- Accepted : For: 48 Votes – Against: 0 Votes
- Proposal 4: Society Logo Vote 4 It is hereby proposed that the new Society logo be selected from designs presented by James Brodie in May 08.
- No resolution referred back to Council for review and modification Proposal 5: Import Levies Vote 5.1 Increase to Import Levy
Secretary’s ReportActivities
Landskroon – attended by 14 people
Membership We have 7 new members join during the year and 3 resigned due to them selling all their alpacas. Communications a. Website The website is currently being hosted by Dynamic IT at a cost of R171 per month. This is the cheapest hosting fee we have been able to find. At a meeting in March Lee and I requested the following changes:
After many emails requesting action and the excuses ranging from a new baby, a burglary, a holiday, sickness etc. we have the following answer: “I have had a meeting with Mexcom and their development team. They are in a position to assist with the current site and can make changes /additional pages etc. I have made it clear to them of the history with regards to the site and the people involved over the last months/year. They know that their services needs to be economical and the turnaround must be of a fast nature. They normally charge R 550.00 per hour for development work - However as a preferred business partner they will extend an hourly rate of R 350.00 ex V.A.T to Alpaca Society. “ We have also attached a quote from another company for comparison. b. Listserve I created a Alpaca Chat list-server in February 2008 and 20 members signed up. However, only two people (PJ) ever posted anything apart from me. Over a period of 6 months I posted 42 articles that I thought would be of interest to the members. Then I was blocked when trying to load new articles so stopped but now it is allowing me to do so again – possibly there was a lack of activity from the members due to their mail being blocked too? (Members agreed that they had not received the articles) c. Publicity It was decided not to advertise in SA Studbreeder again as there was very little response to last years advert and it is costly. There were five articles featuring alpacas in the local press which have been added to the website. Studbook In order to learn how to use Logix as an administrator I visited Studbook in July and met Marietjie Delport and Chantal Germishuizen. Chantal is the person who loads most of our information and the person that I communicate with most. It was a very interesting start for me as administrator of the registrations and certificates. There were 3 categories of members 1. Those who just went ahead and continued to deal with Studbook by themselves 2. Those who dealt with me – thank you for your patience (!) 3. Those that mixed and matched and did a bit of both – causing great confusion when animals suddenly popped up on inventories that were not on my lists and created lots of to-ing and fro-ing of emails in order to sort out what was going on.
22/10/2008 Lorna thanked Di for her input with the registration process.
All members were called to declare the proxies they held. Gavin stated that he had a proxy belonging to Gareth Harris who no longer had alpacas. There was discussion about whether a person who no longer owns an alpaca should be allowed to vote. Lorna said we need to look at the principle rather than particular cases. Gavin clarified that the proxy issuer intended to leave the country and therefore it was not probable that he would own alpacas in the country again. Lorna said what happens to the members rights if an alpaca dies and the breeder is looking to buy a new one? Manfred asked whether the constitution offered any direction on members voting rights. PJ stated that per our Constitution and Studbook, a person must be actively breeding alpacas to be a member with full voting rights. The status of a paid-up member who sells his animals, immediately changes from an Ordinary Member with full voting rights to an Associate member with no voting rights. In terms of the constitution the definition of an ordinary member requires that they be actively breeding alpacas, a person who does not physically own alpacas at the time of the AGM cannot be regarded as actively breeding. It was ruled that this proxy was not accepted. All proxy voting was declared by proxy holders and verified by the Secretary. Proposal 1: Matter Arising from 2007 AGM Vote 1.1 – Inspection Checklist It is hereby proposed to adopt the Inspection Checklist. Each breeder shall be allowed to inspect their own South African born alpacas and only those that do not have the disqualifying traits shall be accepted for registration. Proposed by : Matters Arising from 2007 AGM Lorna said she had not received it so people were given time to read through it. PJ explained how it would work and that the vote was to accept the principle of the document, minor amendments could be enacted by Council in the future. Gavin asked how is it marked – PJ told him to write where you needed to or tick the box, Lorna commented that recording weight is a problem as not all breeders have scales. Members requested that it be minuted that council must review the checklist as it is used as a measure for registration of all RSA born alpacas. There are many RSA born alpacas that are birth notified but are not yet registered and this checklist provides the inspection criteria for acceptance for registration. All RSA born alpacas that meet with the requirements stated in the checklist shall be accepted for registration. Accepted: For: 48 Votes – Against: 0 Votes Vote 1.2 – Male Certification. PJ – male certification is not mandatory. If a breeder wishes to take the next step and conduct a more detailed assessment of their males, the male certification schedule provides a measurement tool for this. Each breeder would be allowed to use this tool themselves. It is a baseline – a starting point from which to move on. If it is not working then council will review and amend it further. Male certification is carried out a 3 years of age. Gavin said that in Australia – they warned against doing it too early and stated that it was too early to start this in South Africa – must only do in another 4 years time. Also has a cost implication as inspectors are not in the area. James – it is voluntary – a tool for breeders to use to evaluate their own stock and therefore there was no direct cost for this.
Proposer: G Lindhorst Seconder: L Ramsden
Proposed by : Matters Arising from 2007 AGM Accepted: For: 31 Votes – Against: 12 Votes – Abstention: 5 Lorna thanked Kirsten for her work on this. Proposal 2: Constituional Changes It is hereby proposed that the Constitution be amended to facilitate smoother operation by Council in the areas of Council Meetings and Importations. The proposed Constitutional changes are broken down into individual votes. Additions or amendments are highlighted in red Proposed by : P J Garbutt Seconded: Di Kruger, James Brodie, Lee Ermen, Dietmar Kriel
Proposed by : Matters Arising from proposal accepted by vote during the period. PJ - Although we already had more than a 75% acceptance of this - any constitutional change has to be confirmed at an AGM. Sally said that the proposal wording that was issued for vote was not what she had put forward. PJ replied that if she was not happy with the wording she should have raised this point when it was first sent out to members and there had been plenty of time for her to raise any objections and to have presented her case. The proposal had been sent out in good faith and had been voted upon by our members. Gavin said if a member is not happy then they should vote against it. The proposal required a majority vote to be ratified.
10.2.3 Not less than 21 days prior to the holding of a Council meeting, written notice of the time, date and place of such meeting shall be posted by the Secretary to each member of Council. In respect of a Cyber meetings, not less than 7 days prior to call for a Council vote in respect of any matter, the Secretary or President shall post a written notice of such proposal to each member of the Council. 10.7.1 Ten members of the Society personally present at the commencement of any general meeting and entitled to vote shall form a quorum for such meeting and four Council members personally present at any Council meeting or participating in the Cyber meeting and entitled to vote shall form a quorum for such Council meeting.
PJ replied that several council members had supported these changes and any Constitutional change has to follow a specific process that requires a 75% vote. Lorna said that she would support tele-conferencing rather than email as it is not reliable. PJ said that proposal formally allows another less costly means of communication, without this being allowed it will cost the Society much more if Council were only allowed physical meetings. Sally said there is a lot of value in meeting face to face. PJ said it doesn’t mean we don’t have meetings – we have the option to use technology to facilitate our meetings and allow greater communication between all members. Vote 2.2 Participation by Council Members in Council discussions and votes – 8.7 Members of Council absenting themselves from two consecutive meetings or failing to participate and respond to two consecutive cyber meetings without leave, or other satisfactory reasons, shall following a majority Council vote of “no confidence”, automatically vacate their seats. Accepted by required 75% of members: For: 36 Votes – Against: 12 Votes Gavin said that it is too prescriptive and regulatory. Lorna said that the secretary must phone to confirm that they are informed. PJ said that people vote members to Council and expect them to be active on their behalf. If they don’t participate actively then they should step down. Manfred – email should be supported, there is no proof in a telephonic meeting that the meeting took place, all council members must respond and participate. Vote 2.3 Imposition of Penalties and Fines – 9(n) to impose and exact such penalties as may be prescribed from time to time for contravention or infringement of the Constitution of the Society, its rules, requirements, procedures and regulations; 5.3 Any member whose subscriptions and animal levies are in arrears, or who is indebted to the Society in respect of any fees, penalties, fines or dues for a period longer than 60 days, shall cease to enjoy any of the rights and privileges of membership until such time as such indebtedness has been liquidated 6.2.1 Council may expel, and/or terminate its services to any member who – (a) despite due notice and demand directed to him by registered letter from the Secretary continues to remain in arrear in respect of any fees, penalties, fines or dues for a further period of 60 days;
PJ – We use Studbook and their constitution as a basis for our own constitution, this amendment increases the scope of these clauses. Lorna was happy with the fee increase but not with penalties and fines. PJ said that any dispute can end up in a court case, it is not always not necessarily money related. Gavin said that it would be more appropriate to have a list of penalties. PJ agreed with this - Council must compile a Penalty Schedule. Lorna was not happy with section 5.3.
14.1 An application to import animals, semen or ova shall be made in terms of the Act. Application forms available from the Registrar shall be submitted to the Registrar. The Registrar shall refer these to the Society for verification. A copy of the import’s application shall be forwarder to the Society by the importer. The importer shall complete the Societies “Application to Import” document, pay all prescribed fees and levies specified therein and submit the application to Council for consideration. The Society shall forward its recommendation thereto and the required documents reflecting the details referred to in Bye-law 14.2 to the Association and Registrar. 14.2 Council shall determine the Minimum Breed Standard, application requirements, rules, procedures, fees, levies, surety, deposits, fines, penalties and documentation for the importation and exportation of animals, semen and ova in terms of Clause 9(y) of the Constitution, and no such importation or exportation shall be recommended to the Association by the Society unless the said requirements are complied with.
Udo said that people who don’t know about imports must not be able to decide, it must be a council decision as to the regulations re-importation. Dietmar asked whether the specifications could be changed at a council meeting. PJ replied that they can but it would necessitate a change to the minimum breed standard. Lorna commented that too many items had been put together. Some she agrees with and some she doesn’t. She said that 14.5 is not clear enough – how do you know whether they have supplied wrong information? PJ explained that it would give Council the authority to enforce its rules & regulations when things were not done correctly. Sally said that if you want to import you have to have the Societie’s permission. Lorna – But can’t the society refuse it anyway whether they are wrong or not? PJ – then the applicant would go to court to find out why, if there is no legal justification for stopping an applicant then the Society cannot do so. Verena – how can someone who is not a member import? PJ – there is nothing stopping them as long as they meet the minimum breed standard. The animals would have to be registered in buyer’s name as only members are allowed to register animals. Gavin asked whether the society is not duplicating what livestock improvement already does. PJ – the importer does not need to be a member but needs approval for the importation. Udo - if we have no regulations then they can import anything. Lee – referred to loopholes – Mike Bester a “zoo animal keeper” is bringing in alpacas now without any reference to the Society. Studbook need to be told and they will go to animal improvement to ask them to stop it.
24) “Cyber Meeting” means emailed correspondence or teleconference discussions and interactions in which Society business is debated, proposals voted on and resolutions enacted. Vote 2.6 – Application to Import Definition– to support Vote 2.4: 25) “Application to Import” is a document that details all the Societies requirements with respect to importations. Vote 2.7 – Penalty Schedule Definition – to support Vote 2.4:
All Accepted by required 75% of members: For: 48 Votes – Against: 0 Votes Proposal 3: Title of Birth Notification certificate Vote 3 It is hereby proposed that the title on the certificate that is issued when a birth of a cria has been notified, not contain the words registration as it does presently. Rather, that it simply be called "Birth notification certificate". It contains the same details re the rest of the form. Proposed by: Sally Kingwill Seconded: James Brodie
Lee - The certificate will be titled Birth Notification with the all the same pedigree & details, once the alpaca has passed inspection it would then be titled a Registration Certificate. This would all be issued by Stud Book. In-house certificates would create too much work for our secretary. Proposal accepted, Council was requested to review the optimum way forward. Proposal 4: Society Logo Vote 4 It is hereby proposed that the new Society logo be selected from designs presented by James Brodie in May 08. Proposer: G Lindhorst. Seconder: L Ramsden
For certificates and faxes – C1, A1 & A4. Manfred suggested that the solid border be replaced with lines. For other usages – A4 – with these changes
There was not a unanimous decision, it was resolved that James would make some amendments to the logos. One logo shall be suitable for inclusion on registration certificates and letterheads (C1) and the other A1 with parts of A4 for advertising brochures, leaflets and stickers. No resolution referred back to Council for review and modification Proposal 5: Import Levies Vote 5.1 Increase to Import Levy Yüklə 121,35 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|