OIA request and reply from the AFB PMP

[StephenB]

That may be your system Grant, don't assume you know every way someone else's system work

Dennis
Computers store information binary format. each bit is stored was a word. each word may contain 8, 16, 0r 32 bits and so on
this means information storage is pretty stranded across all computers and software.

A CSV, TXT , DXF etc file formats can be used to transfer information between programs. so it doesn't matter how your system works it will have a basic information storage system

in Excel for example you have in the as save as menu a large selection of what file format you want to save your file as eg xls.CSV and so on

The AFB PMP recent consultation was done using mail chimp. Many many people and groups use mail chimp to connect with customers. So there is plenty of people who know how to use mail chimp

Once you have a basic understanding of computers it is pretty easy to jump from program to program

 

[tommy dave]

Dennis
Computers store information binary format. each bit is stored was a word. each word may contain 8, 16, 0r 32 bits and so on
this means information storage is pretty stranded across all computers and software.

it's not always easy to pull information though. I have no idea on what they are using, but at times i have had to write reporting code from some databases - there was one situation where data was being stored by being written to a type of form, and the way in which those forms were rendered then stored meant it was really, and i mean really, difficult to write reports over it - beyond me, and quoted by a vendor in the thousands of hours

i would have expected it to be easy to extract from an off-the-shelf tool like survey monkey, hence my suggested alteration to the OIA request to simplify things for everyone - hopefully still giving the requestor what they were after = the feedback that came in via the survey. I don't know though.

 

[Grant]

That may be your system Grant, don't assume you know every way someone else's system works.

The system referenced is SurveyMonkey. I know how that works. If ApiNZ don't know how to use it, then maybe they shouldn't be.

 

[Grant]

Can someone explain why my reasons for wanting to see the submission are misleading ?
You might not like them but they are my reasons and they are valid

Moderation of content is not up for discussion, never has been read the rules, read the guidelines.

Warning is disputed content. Some or all of the content within this post contains information the accuracy, truthfulness, or credibility, of which is contested

Clifton uses the law to force people to have hives inspected, fill in ADRs ETC and if you don't comply quickly sends in the bully boys.

ApiNZ use the law to force beekeepers to burn AFB infected hives. The Official Information Act is quite clear that ApiNZ must for-full reasonable requests for information.

Warning is for misleading content. Some or all of the content within this post contains information, which has been confirmed as false or misleading

ApiNz by withhold the information as acting like the Taliban, keeping everybody in the dark and suppressing free thinking


The warnings and the public notifications are clear enough

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws. You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content or your conduct.

 

[Dennis Crowley]

The system referenced is SurveyMonkey. I know how that works. If ApiNZ don't know how to use it, then maybe they shouldn't be.

My understanding is there is different levels you can purchase of survey monkey, perhaps you shouldn't be to quick to judge

 

[Grant]

My understanding is there is different levels you can purchase of survey monkey, perhaps you shouldn't be to quick to judge

And all 3 allow the process I suggested. Happy for you to bat for your team, like I said I have no vested interest, but generally I make sure I know what I'm on about before I get on my high horse. Specifically
All data exports (CSV, PDF, PPT, SPSS, XLS)

The main additions above that allow branding and style changes and filters and rules if you want SM to do it for you. However, the free version only allows 40 responses, so I'm sure they didnt go that route.

 

[JohnF]

My understanding is there is different levels you can purchase of survey monkey, perhaps you shouldn't be to quick to judge

Not with 10,000-odd recipients Dennis. But still work to remove any identifiers of others, made in the submissions?

 

[Alastair]

i would have expected it to be easy to extract from an off-the-shelf tool like survey monkey

I would agree. I suspect the problem may be they know they are being played, they are tired of being played, so they are playing back.

No opportunity has ever been missed to 1. waste their time and money, and 2. badmouth them.

Just my thoughts though could be completely wrong.

 

[StephenB]

You are completely wrong and misguided

 

[Dennis Crowley]

And all 3 allow the process I suggested. Happy for you to bat for your team, like I said I have no vested interest, but generally I make sure I know what I'm on about before I get on my high horse. Specifically
All data exports (CSV, PDF, PPT, SPSS, XLS)

The main additions above that allow branding and style changes and filters and rules if you want SM to do it for you. However, the free version only allows 40 responses, so I'm sure they didnt go that route.

It is not just a case of copy and past but without the names on it, under an OIA request, every submission has to been gone through and checked so that nothing in the body of the email/submission etc breeches privacy matters etc etc, so yes someone has to sit and read them all with a OIA requested hat on, as opposed to what is this submission really asking of the AFB plan.
We have employed on contract a lady that is collating the submissions, (its her specialty field) for the plan review, she is not employed to answer OIA requests.
Submissions run from a couple of sentences to several pages, some info in those submissions runs from stuff related to the plan to how can I be a beekeeper. So we have submissions with stuff that is "in scope" and stuff that is "out of scope".
At some point all will be revealed, but in a format that makes sense, as we have to to go onto the next stage of discussion based on the submissions received so far.
No its not just a click and collect job.

 

[Grant]

It is not just a case of copy and past but without the names on it, under an OIA request, every submission has to been gone through and checked so that nothing in the body of the email/submission etc breeches privacy matters etc etc, so yes someone has to sit and read them all with a OIA requested hat on, as opposed to what is this submission really asking of the AFB plan.
We have employed on contract a lady that is collating the submissions, (its her specialty field) for the plan review, she is not employed to answer OIA requests.
Submissions run from a couple of sentences to several pages, some info in those submissions runs from stuff related to the plan to how can I be a beekeeper. So we have submissions with stuff that is "in scope" and stuff that is "out of scope".
At some point all will be revealed, but in a format that makes sense, as we have to to go onto the next stage of discussion based on the submissions received so far.
No its not just a click and collect job.

I'm referring to the submission posted in the OP, where there is a clear example specified, not the process generally.

 

[StephenB]

It is not just a case of copy and past but without the names on it, under an OIA request, every submission has to been gone through and checked so that nothing in the body of the email/submission etc breeches privacy matters etc etc, so yes someone has to sit and read them all with a OIA requested hat on, as opposed to what is this submission really asking of the AFB plan.
We have employed on contract a lady that is collating the submissions, (its her specialty field) for the plan review, she is not employed to answer OIA requests.
Submissions run from a couple of sentences to several pages, some info in those submissions runs from stuff related to the plan to how can I be a beekeeper. So we have submissions with stuff that is "in scope" and stuff that is "out of scope".
At some point all will be revealed, but in a format that makes sense, as we have to to go onto the next stage of discussion based on the submissions received so far.
No its not just a click and collect job.

Dennis
ApiNZ has had many contacts with the ombudsmen who has been diligently guiding ApiNZ though the process.

MPIs policy is to make submissions public. The AFB PMP is run under MPIs legislation and as you have said many times you have MPI reps, who are well versed in working within the OIA, sitting at your board meetings.

I have a request in from the last round of consultations, which the ombudsmen is currently working the ApiNZ with on

Why have ApiNZ, who is well aware by now (fact, I have an email trail), failed to run the consultation process in such a way that submissions can be easily provided, at the appropriate time in full, when requested ?

I asked the AFB PMP during the webinars will the submissions be made public. I received written the reply that only a summary will be provided. A" summary" or a "format that makes sense" is not open and transparent or follows the government of New Zealand laws

Once again Dennis, all I am asking for is and Open and Transparent AFB PMP governance board

 

[StephenB]

Another question Dennis
Since the AFB PMP is an industry wide plan have you involed the other main beekeeping, (eg SNI Beekeeping, NZ beekeeping ) groups in the consultation process ?

 

[Dennis Crowley]

Another question Dennis
Since the AFB PMP is an industry wide plan have you involed the other main beekeeping, (eg SNI Beekeeping, NZ beekeeping ) groups in the consultation process ?

Every levy paying beekeeper has the opportunity to have submissions on the review, this is not SNI or NZbeek or APINZ's plan review, it is the AFBPMP plan review, so have a say.

MPIs policy is to make submissions public. The AFB PMP is run under MPIs legislation and as you have said many times you have MPI reps, who are well versed in working within the OIA, sitting at your board meetings.

Yes, and we are running the review with this in mind and their guidance, as we have to for it to be acceptable to the minister.

Why have ApiNZ, who is well aware by now (fact, I have an email trail), failed to run the consultation process in such a way that submissions can be easily provided, at the appropriate time in full, when requested ?

It is not a APINZ plan review, its AFBPMP plan review, address your questions to the right place.

 

[Dennis Crowley]

I'm referring to the submission posted in the OP, where there is a clear example specified, not the process generally.

What is OP?

 

[yesbut]

What is OP?

Original post/er

 

[Trevor Gillbanks]

It is not a APINZ plan review, its AFBPMP plan review, address your questions to the right place.

I wonder how many times you have to point this out @Dennis Crowley.
This is AFBPMP not ApiNZ, SNI or NZ beekeeping Inc.

 

[Dennis Crowley]

I'm referring to the submission posted in the OP, where there is a clear example specified, not the process generally.

See my answer above

 

[StephenB]

Every levy paying beekeeper has the opportunity to have submissions on the review, this is not SNI or NZbeek or APINZ's plan review, it is the AFBPMP plan review, so have a say.

Yes, and we are running the review with this in mind and their guidance, as we have to for it to be acceptable to the minister.

It is not a APINZ plan review, its AFBPMP plan review, address your questions to the right place.

Dennis
Plane answer please ?
The order in council for the AFB PMP, which has recently been changed, spells out clearly that the management agency is ApiNZ
(this fact and can found on the government website which holds all the government orders)

Why can you not acknowledge that ApiNZ is responsible for the AFB PMP

 

[Grant]

The order in council for the AFB PMP, which has recently been changed, spells out clearly that the management agency is ApiNZ
(this fact and can found on the government website which holds all the government orders)

Most people would supply a reference link to back their claims, especially if this is a recent change that few maybe aware of