Is this what you refer to?
OIA request and reply from the AFB PMP
- Thread starter StephenB
- Start date
Just checked the AFB PMP website looks like the board miniutes have not been updated for a while
"Board Meeting Summary Minutes
Please click the date below to view the Board Meeting Summary Minutes from the AFB PMP Board Meetings.
6 Nov 2020 – meeting held in Wellington
Governance Reports to ApiNZ
January 2020"
"Board Meeting Summary Minutes
Please click the date below to view the Board Meeting Summary Minutes from the AFB PMP Board Meetings.
6 Nov 2020 – meeting held in Wellington
Governance Reports to ApiNZ
January 2020"
Perhaps you could put an OIA in for the ones post Nov 2020? I'm sure you will tell us they are supposed to be made public within a certain timeframe.
I think from your submission you need to understand what a governance report is. As opposed to governance reporting to ApiNZ which is what you appear to want to make the wording read
insights.diligent.com
However, my previous submission is much clearer in terms of backing your claim and uses the terminology you used.
APINZ may be the management agency responsible but I presume its like a holding company operating for a trading company, your complaint would be with the trader, not the holding company. As Dennis has alluded to already
I think from your submission you need to understand what a governance report is. As opposed to governance reporting to ApiNZ which is what you appear to want to make the wording read
Corporate governance reporting: Definition, requirements & best practices
Corporate governance reporting is vital for gaining the trust of stakeholders & shareholders to provides equity, accountability and transparency.
However, my previous submission is much clearer in terms of backing your claim and uses the terminology you used.
APINZ may be the management agency responsible but I presume its like a holding company operating for a trading company, your complaint would be with the trader, not the holding company. As Dennis has alluded to already
Grant
This is the policy from ApiNZ that allows the afb pmp to operate Delegation of authority if you like
The Delegation of authority from the government to Api NZ is the order in council document, which I was just looking for the link to post
A company is a legal entity so is legally separate.
Api NZ has agreed with the government to run the AFB PMP.
When the AFB PMP kicked off the Exec of the NBA, who was the management agency run it.
Recently the Exec formed a sub committee to run the AFB PMP, and thats all the AFB PMP board is, a sub committee.
The Order in council makes Api NZ the reasonable group
Last edited:
Grant
Hope that answers enough of your questions and you can rectify the false/misleading posts
Nobody can contract out of the law
Hope that answers enough of your questions and you can rectify the false/misleading posts
Nobody can contract out of the law
Last edited:
Yeah, now your just posting duplicates of what I already used on your behalf in post #41
nzbees.net
OIA request and reply from the AFB PMP
Is this what you refer to? https://afb.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/APolicy-012-on-Governance-Document-with-attachment.pdf
nzbees.net
Not true. When the original PMS was created by the Order in Council, the NBA was the Mgmt Agency. It was the NBA that designed, created, and brought it into fruition. The NBA, and APINZ after it was created, was the Mgmt Agency. But throughout that time, there was a committee of the NBA actually doing the work. Not the NBA Exec, but a committee selected by the NBA Executive. I guess you could say that is still the case, though I would suggest the appointment and operations of the Mgmt Board is more formalised.
The Minister has clearly indicated satisfaction with APINZ as the Mgmt Agency. I'm still not sure of why you are doing all of this, @StephenB
I'd be quite happy for you to keep your ongoing political witchhunt against APINZ in check
I disagreed with Dennis reply as I considered it false information. Grant then asked for proof which I provided
All i am am asking for is open and transparent AFB PMP as is required by the laws of New Zealand. It seems some dont like the idea,cant accept it or perhaps don't understand the concept or try to hide it.
Also if someone does not standup and say hang thats wrong and heres why, our freedoms will quickly disappear.
On this form, with I assume hundreds of members its the same four people who try to shout over the top of the open and transparent AFB PMP idea,
So just to be clear all I want is for the AFB PMP to comply with the laws of the New Zealand Government and in particular the official information Act.
And on this forum, with I assume hundreds of members, it seems to be only you pushing this barrow...
If the Minister did not think that the AFBPMP was complying with the laws of NZ, don't you think he might do something about it?
Nick
The saying goes play the argument not the man
I have provided the information, how about discussing the argument than trying to personalize it
While I am happy with the way the AFB PMS is being run at the moment I am not completely happy about how the board is appointed. While Apinz do not directly appoint the board they do select the people who select the people and they also set out the criteria for how they are selected. I don't have a problem with that either but I do have a problem with New Zealand beekeeping Inc and also the great unwashed having no say in how and who is selected . I am a great believer in democracy and have put forward my ideas on this in my submissions.
I have no urge to read all the minutes and submissions that Stephen wants but if he wants to read them and he is legally able to obtain them then I don't see why he shouldn't be able to along with anyone else who wants to. I don't believe anything is being hidden from the general beekeeping population and I sympathise with the people at have to do the extra work to provide information when requested.
Some obviously see Stevens requests as vexatious while others will see them as truth seeking.
I suggest that if the board was made up of a wider cross-section of New Zealand's beekeeping community most of the problems would go away.
For the record I am a member of Apinz, NZ beekeeping Inc and have a lot of friends who are both great and some of them are unwashed.
I have no urge to read all the minutes and submissions that Stephen wants but if he wants to read them and he is legally able to obtain them then I don't see why he shouldn't be able to along with anyone else who wants to. I don't believe anything is being hidden from the general beekeeping population and I sympathise with the people at have to do the extra work to provide information when requested.
Some obviously see Stevens requests as vexatious while others will see them as truth seeking.
I suggest that if the board was made up of a wider cross-section of New Zealand's beekeeping community most of the problems would go away.
For the record I am a member of Apinz, NZ beekeeping Inc and have a lot of friends who are both great and some of them are unwashed.
The saying is 'play the ball, not the man'. And this ball is bouncing all over the place.
You seem intent on creating work that does not contribute to the reduction of AFB in the country. And given the current income of beekeepers then I'd suggest they do not want to see levy funds going toward activities that take time and where the activities are not considered to be of value to many of the payers
Given the comments in this thread, it would seem you find it of value Stephen - others do not.
Has this played the argument satisfactorily?
This is the way to constructively make a case and state your point of view. Nicely done John
There is a saying, in politics, you can never please all the people, all the time. Something like that anyhow.
This is such a case. A guy is unhappy, very much so.
But end of day, we did it his way, whatever that is cos he didn't say, somebody else would be unhappy. That's how it works when you are dealing with thousands of people.
My view, I just want AFB dealt with in the most effective way, within the levy money we pay. That's happening and I'm less interested in the politics or nitpicking over legalities.
Another saying. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
This is such a case. A guy is unhappy, very much so.
But end of day, we did it his way, whatever that is cos he didn't say, somebody else would be unhappy. That's how it works when you are dealing with thousands of people.
My view, I just want AFB dealt with in the most effective way, within the levy money we pay. That's happening and I'm less interested in the politics or nitpicking over legalities.
Another saying. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
Last edited:
The AFB board, puts out nominations for board members with a set of skills they may be looking for to either compliment the other board members or a particular project going forward. Those that put their names forward are interviewed by the Chair, deputy Chair and an independent person, they are checked on the skill set, police check etc and also have they acted legally in their responsibilities under the AFB plan, when decided the short list is presented to the AFB board and if if OK then presented to the APINZ board, if the APINZ board doesn't see any RED FLAGS it is given the tick of approval. The only board seat that doesn't go through this is the APINZ seat (that I hold) it is determined by the APINZ board. Any levy paying beekeeper can submit a nomination when they come up.
The AFB Board has on it at the moment: 4 commercial beekeepers, 3 Hobbyist Beekeepers. And we have 3 advisory type seats from MPI.
Only 2 of these board members are APINZ members, Myself and one other, I think you have a very good cross-section of the beekeeping community.