AFB plan review

[Dennis Crowley]

Dennis
The two government/MPI people are advisors that the committee can choose remove or ignore, as you know. Just a reminder APINZ exec is the responsible for the PMP not the sub committee

The committee as you call the Board, can choose all sorts of things to do, but with the good governance advice they are careful in what they do.

As for joining Api NZ I pay a levy to the AFB PMP why do I have to pay more to ApiNZ to have input into the AFB PMP governance , Scamming the levy payers comes to mind.

You don't have to join APINZ to have your say, remember consultation is happening now, put in a submission.

As you know Dennis, your the lawyers advice has been lacking and often over turned on OIA matter.

OIA is open to all levy payers.

Dennis are you offering to sponsor me to be a board member of the AFB PMP ?

You don't need me to sponsor you, if there are others that agree with your thoughts ask them.

Governance training does not cost $10 000s this is a misleading statement.
All good competent governance people/ scientist/managers understand the value of ongoing professional training/development brings to an organization. Really if you dont get that the mind can only wonder.

Courses range from $500/pp - $10000/pp, what level of governance training do you want, and that is ongoing for every new board member from now till ???? (Institute of Directors pricing)

We have just seen a 25% increase in levy's. I think revenue is creeping towards $1 000 000 or more . I think its only reasonable that the levy payers have competent people in charge

Agree about having competent people in charge, glad we have them in place.

Even the RMP holders are required to have some professional development to be called competent RMP operators

RMP nothing to do with AFB, go talk to AsureQuality

You stated that the AFB PMP board are elected. Another misleading statement. They are solely appointed by ApiNZ

Already explain how this is done, go back and reread.

 

[Dennis Crowley]

Apiculture NZ will never answer this question, no matter how many times it is asked - and I think your point in bold is the reason:

At this present time APINZ does have the mandate to run the AFB plan, this is not in dispute, even the GOVT acknowledges this, as it was passed on from the NBA to APINZ when it was formed. If industry wants to choose another entity to run the plan then have your say in this consultation period.

How many direct paying members does API-NZ consist of - explicitly excluding counting the members of clubs individually, rather counting a club as one single member?

So a union rep has no say on all the union members they represent?

my guess is in the low hundreds, a trivial percentage of new zealand beekeepers.

Your guess is a bit low sorry, and since conference even lower still

The refusal to answer this simple question, and hiding behind smoke and mirrors instead, including claiming high membership numbers by, e.g., claiming 400 members each time a club gets a single club membership, and that club contains 400 members, is at the heart of my distrust for the organisation.

If you were a member your answers were covered at the AGM.

It's a shame, there are very good people involved with and associated with API-NZ, and this is not meant as an attack on people such as you Dennis

I'm a big boy.

 

[Trevor Gillbanks]

@Dennis Crowley . I give you my thanks for the manner in which you have answered these questions and kept your end of the discussion very polite, factual and unemotional.

Thank you

 

[Alastair]

Alsadair I have re-posted post number 23 as you have mentioned that you can not find it

"I would set up a board of 5 people. 2 would be government appointments. These appointments would professional governance people and one would be the chairmen.

The other 3 would come from the beekeeping industry. There would be a rotation system in place. There would be mandatory governance training. May be the newbies would attend board meetings for 12 months for training before there term starts

Maybe a rotation of 3 years with re-election allowed only once. total term 6 years plus one year as a trainee
Election held once a year voters from registered levy payers. 1 vote for every 500 hives owned "

This gives all beekeepers a say,
The appointees keep the governance process on track

Oh thanks for that Stephen, you are right i did miss that as I started skipping through some of the hubris.

Sounds like a reasonable idea, possibly top heavy on bureaucratic requirements, training courses etc, but I would suggest present your idea, and if it can garner support from among the crowd of other ideas from people who also know how it should be done, (wink), your idea has as much chance as anyone elses I guess.

I think where my problem with your constant sniping at the AFBPMP comes from is that they are actually doing a good job. Your constant sniping gives others who know nothing of the inner workings, the impression that they are not doing a good job. This leads to non cooperation and in the end, makes the task of eradicating AFB harder.

I think your issue may boil down to you just have a problem with who is in charge.

 

[NickWallingford]

But the important bit you miss is that when it was set up it was compulsory membership of the NBA . As you and Dennis know that the mandate was removed by the beekeepers when compulsory membership of the NBA was abolished.

It is not true that there was 'compulsory membership of the NBA'. Under the old Hive Levy, there was a bit over 500 beekeepers with 50+ hives. So, yes, for those the membership was compulsory. For the other 5,000 beekeepers? No, they were not members of the NBA. So during the time of the PMP development, less than 10% of beekeepers were members of the NBA, as we developed the PMP.

The Commodity Levies levy changed that, moving the 'compulsion' (ie, pay the levy) down to 10+ hives. It was this levy that was raised, in part, to fund the PMP (as well as the NBA and generic marketing). But even this increase in the number of beekeepers who would pay a levy meant that there would be 1,300 beekeepers who paid the levy for the PMP - about a quarter of the country's beekeepers. None of the rest paid a levy, but they were impacted by the PMP in the same way as all other beekeepers.

But even though that large number of beekeepers did not have to pay a levy, or get a 'chance to vote' they were still absolutely impacted by the PMS. And when, a year or so after the NBA got the Commodity Levy, the Minister was prepared to approve our PMP, he *did* offer all those affected beekeepers the opportunity to make submissions about the PMP. Remember - only about a quarter of NZ's beekeepers (yes, they were now compulsory members of the NBA) developed the PMP for the good of the entire industry.

And after the NBA lost its Commodity Levy in about 2002? The Minister chose to continue with the NBA as the Management Agency, and put into place a new levy to fund it.

Beekeepers - all these who have obligations under the PMP - have never had a ballot or vote for either the PMP or the Management Agency that administers it. And so far as I know, there have never been any such votes for any of the other pest management programmes, either regional or national. Effective biosecurity and the ability to respond to pests and diseases is just not something that can be sorted out by a 'vote of all those affected'.

Both the PMP and Management Agency are, ultimately, the decision of the Minister...

 

[StephenB]

Oh thanks for that Stephen, you are right i did miss that as I started skipping through some of the hubris.

Sounds like a reasonable idea, possibly top heavy on bureaucratic requirements, training courses etc, but I would suggest present your idea, and if it can garner support from among the crowd of other ideas from people who also know how it should be done, (wink), your idea has as much chance as anyone elses I guess.

I think where my problem with your constant sniping at the AFBPMP comes from is that they are actually doing a good job. Your constant sniping gives others who know nothing of the inner workings, the impression that they are not doing a good job. This leads to non cooperation and in the end, makes the task of eradicating AFB harder.

I think your issue may boil down to you just have a problem with who is in charge.

Reasonable reply. Did you also get a chance to look how google explained governance ?

 

[Alastair]

No.

I'm not big on bureaucracy.

To me, the job is being done right. That's what matters to me.

 

[Alastair]

Just to explain my position a little further (on bureaucracy) a little thing I read in the NZ Herald a couple weeks ago.

A study was done to gauge the effectiveness of HR people vs bosses hiring based on their gut.

The HR people and hiring agencies go through a box ticking excersize ( at great cost ), checking the CV and making the person answer a bunch of questions designed probably by an expert on psychology to assess the person, will they fit with the corporate culture, what is their personality type, etc.
This was compared against bosses who do none of that, but talk with the interviewee, and make their own assessment of the person, based pretty much on their gut.

The two business types were identified, and the success rate of the people hired was measured after set time periods to see which hiring method got the best people.

The study found that the difference in successfully hiring the right people between the two methods was exactly - none. Both methods achieved the same measure of success. But one method looked a lot more impressive, with box ticking, jargon, cost, and butt covering.

I feel it might be the similar with the AFBPMP. We could institute some bloated and expensive management system that ticks all kinds of corporate boxes. But would it get better results? I highly doubt it. And in fact I would be prepared to put money on that. The work is not being done by a corporate management sytem of people in suits and ties being paid megabucks, and attending expensive training courses about management. It is being done by a team of actual beekeepers, and their immediate superiors. Down to earth people doing the actual work better than anyone else could, and for the most part (everything has an occasional exception ) doing a fine job.

 

[John B]

I just sat in on one of the AFB webinars. There were a few questions asked and I think they all came from commercial beekeepers. Hobbyists are an important part of AFB control and I urge them to be heard on this issue. Even if it is something as simple as having trouble finding how to report an AFB or minor problems with hive hub.
I have have spent a lot of time over the years teaching hobbyists about beekeeping but I have also learnt things from them. Please don't think that you don't or shouldn't have any input into the AFB PMP.

 

[tommy dave]

Your guess is a bit low sorry, and since conference even lower still


If you were a member your answers were covered at the AGM.

shame about the deflection and not answering with a number. Heck, even an order of magnitude, hundreds or thousands, would be a start. I think its a shame that api-nz doesn't have the courage or the decency to publicly state these numbers when they claim to be an organisation representing a majority of nz beekeepers. \

Up to API-NZ though obviously if the organisation is too ashamed at its real membership numbers to publish them, but rather chooses to engage in deceit by continuing to misrepresent their actual membership by counting all members of member clubs as separate and individual members in its materials, publications, and submissions

 

[Dennis Crowley]

shame about the deflection and not answering with a number. Heck, even an order of magnitude, hundreds or thousands, would be a start. I think its a shame that api-nz doesn't have the courage or the decency to publicly state these numbers when they claim to be an organisation representing a majority of nz beekeepers. \

Up to API-NZ though obviously if the organisation is too ashamed at its real membership numbers to publish them, but rather chooses to engage in deceit by continuing to misrepresent their actual membership by counting all members of member clubs as separate and individual members in its materials, publications, and submissions

tommy tommy tommy, now you spitting your dummy, the numbers are no state secret.
But you not really interested in the numbers, you just want something to throw stones at, which I ain't going to help you.

 

[StephenB]

Just to explain my position a little further (on bureaucracy) a little thing I read in the NZ Herald a couple weeks ago.

A study was done to gauge the effectiveness of HR people vs bosses hiring based on their gut.

The HR people and hiring agencies go through a box ticking excersize ( at great cost ), checking the CV and making the person answer a bunch of questions designed probably by an expert on psychology to assess the person, will they fit with the corporate culture, what is their personality type, etc.
This was compared against bosses who do none of that, but talk with the interviewee, and make their own assessment of the person, based pretty much on their gut.

The two business types were identified, and the success rate of the people hired was measured after set time periods to see which hiring method got the best people.

The study found that the difference in successfully hiring the right people between the two methods was exactly - none. Both methods achieved the same measure of success. But one method looked a lot more impressive, with box ticking, jargon, cost, and butt covering.

I feel it might be the similar with the AFBPMP. We could institute some bloated and expensive management system that ticks all kinds of corporate boxes. But would it get better results? I highly doubt it. And in fact I would be prepared to put money on that. The work is not being done by a corporate management sytem of people in suits and ties being paid megabucks, and attending expensive training courses about management. It is being done by a team of actual beekeepers, and their immediate superiors. Down to earth people doing the actual work better than anyone else could, and for the most part (everything has an occasional exception ) doing a fine job.

Alasdair
It is not bureaucracy I am taking about. Every business, club organization. SME, councils etc has governance. Bureaucracy is created by the operations department eg ADR, DECA

I understand you think I am being a pain but the success of the operatrions depends on good governance process. If you are wanting better understanding I am happy to talk about it. But if you are not interested I will just leave it

 

[StephenB]

tommy tommy tommy, now you spitting your dummy, the numbers are no state secret.
But you not really interested in the numbers, you just want something to throw stones at, which I ain't going to help you.

I am really really interested Dennis so PLEASE tell me

Dennis answer is an example to poor governance. One of the good governance rules on the google list is transparency

 

[NickWallingford]

shame about the deflection and not answering with a number. Heck, even an order of magnitude, hundreds or thousands, would be a start. I think its a shame that api-nz doesn't have the courage or the decency to publicly state these numbers when they claim to be an organisation representing a majority of nz beekeepers.

The 2020 Annual Report indicates a total membership income as about $450k. $223k of that relates to hive subscriptions, $5k of hobbyist.

"People" numbers were provided during the recent AGM but I did not take note of them.

 

[James]

I guess this sort of thread reiterates why I stopped going to Bee meetings years ago .
Just saying.

 

[JohnF]

I understand you think I am being a pain but the success of the operatrions depends on good governance process. If you are wanting better understanding I am happy to talk about it. But if you are not interested I will just leave it

I’m still struggling to work out where the bad governance has occurred @StephenB. And not just replying to posts in this thread saying ‘there it is’.
I can understand beekeepers complaining about ‘operational’ (without necessarily agreeing with them) but the governance issue has me stumped.
Once again, levels of AFB have leveled of (percentage-wise) after some years of increases in the mid 2010s. Therefore one could say that the governance has improved !

 

[Dennis Crowley]

I am really really interested Dennis so PLEASE tell me

Dennis answer is an example to poor governance. One of the good governance rules on the google list is transparency

As you are not an APINZ member, my APINZ Board governance responsibilities don't apply to you, just as the local golf clubs doesn't apply to me as I am not a member.
As a board member of AFB Board, they do as you are a levy payer.
If you can't tell the difference, as you have mentioned can I suggest you go read googles governance.
PS I don't hold "because its on google" to be the fountain of all knowledge

 

[Morporks]

I guess this sort of thread reiterates why I stopped going to Bee meetings years ago .
Just saying.

Know what you mean nobody taking the time and effort to understand the other points of view, which then just breaks down to childish game of who can get in the last word with the sharpest needle

Sack the lot of them I say

 

[Morporks]

I’m still struggling to work out where the bad governance has occurred @StephenB. And not just replying to posts in this thread saying ‘there it is’.
I can understand beekeepers complaining about ‘operational’ (without necessarily agreeing with them) but the governance issue has me stumped.
Once again, levels of AFB have leveled of (percentage-wise) after some years of increases in the mid 2010s. Therefore one could say that the governance has improved !

why dont you just get on the phone so you can get it cleared up. Face to face is the best

 

[Alastair]

What a silly post Morporks. JohnF has nothing to clear up on the phone.

He is asking Stephen to clear up whatever he is complaining about. That Stephen should be clearing up on the phone, but prefers to spend his time whinging on social media.

Methinks it is you not taking the time to understand the others point of view.