OIA request and reply from the AFB PMP

[Grant]

Dennis, Would you be able to explain this bit to me please?
View attachment 723
With ApiNZ the organisation responsible for implementing the AFBPMP, where do they fit in?
I'm going from your explanation above and assuming its at board level and assume it may work as described below.
On the AFB board does anyone have different voting rights or a different vote weighting? I presume the MPI seats do not vote, it seems to be made up of 7 beekeepers,
Once accepted by the AFB board (which I am assuming has 2 of the 7 votes held by ApiNZ)
Is approval by majority vote or a percentage?
It sounds as though once passed by the AFB board, everything has to get signed off by the ApiNZ board.
So can they and do they veto things?
What are the red flags measured by and what things constitute red flags?

 

[Dennis Crowley]

Dennis, Would you be able to explain this bit to me please?
View attachment 723
With ApiNZ the organisation responsible for implementing the AFBPMP, where do they fit in?
I'm going from your explanation above and assuming its at board level and assume it may work as described below.
On the AFB board does anyone have different voting rights or a different vote weighting? I presume the MPI seats do not vote, it seems to be made up of 7 beekeepers,
Once accepted by the AFB board (which I am assuming has 2 of the 7 votes held by ApiNZ)
Is approval by majority vote or a percentage?
It sounds as though once passed by the AFB board, everything has to get signed off by the ApiNZ board.
So can they and do they veto things?
What are the red flags measured by and what things constitute red flags?

In a nutshell.
2 votes on the board are not held by APINZ, there is 1 seat for APINZ, which was the NBA before that, there are 2 members of the board who just happen to be APINZ members, a big difference.
As the board is only dealing with AFB there is no voting on different beekeeping type ideas/direction etc, we are not another beekeeping organization, we are there to just implement the AFBPMP. There is a 5yr plan that is being implemented that all levy payers had the opportunity to have a say on and voted yes to, so the boards job mainly is there to see that the plan is implemented as per the voters and minister's instructions. Just as the plan is now going through a review, the board will make sure that it to is progressed as per the ministers and levy payers expect. The Board does not determine the direction of the AFBPMP, levy payers do, the board just implement it.
As has been mentioned so many times on here, the day to day operation of the AFBPMP is run by the AFB Board. APINZ, as long as the AFB Board is not digressing from the legal plan in its direction and in the day to day running of the plan, has a "hands off" but "not disconnected" approach.
Yes APINZ can have a say/choice/veto in it's appointments and other topics etc. if it feels the AFB Board is working outside its mandate of running the AFBPMP.
MPI seats are there for advisory only whether it be ministerial, legal, scientific advice etc.
Red flags would be any legal, negative, detrimental, diverging from the plan, anything else etc. etc. reason.
Are you a beekeeper Grant?

 

[Grant]

Are you a beekeeper Grant?

I was but I'm not at the moment

 

[John B]

When I stood for the board a couple of years ago I did so because I believe I have a huge depth of knowledge of both AFB and probably more importantly beekeepers that have AFB. At the time I got the impression that they were more interested in people with governance experience. Governance is not one of my strong points. Governance is important but I don't believe every member of the board needs this skill. I was disappointed not be selected. I didn't want to make any radical changes to how the AFB PMS is run but I am deeply interested in implementing new science into the program and also auditing how things are done especially at the practical coal face level.
In retrospect I think they probably made the right decision picking someone else and I don't think I will put my name forward again.
As I have said before I have no problem with the way things are being run at the moment, they could be run differently and they could be run more democratically. Whether they would be run any better would be debatable but I would still prefer the Democratic route.
My main submission on changes to the AFB PMS was that they find themselves a sensible name that people can actually remember.

 

[StephenB]

My submission is that the AFB PMP becomes separate from ApiNZ - let it be run without beekeeping politics
Have an appointed governance professional to run the board.
Have elected people from the beekeeping industry, Length of appointment 3 years
Have a complaints process that enables complaints to be fairly dealt with

Keep governance and operations separate ie operations does the day to day Governance does the consultation on polices, 5,10 year review etc

 

[JohnF]

My submission is that the AFB PMP becomes separate from ApiNZ - let it be run without beekeeping politics
Have an appointed governance professional to run the board.
Have elected people from the beekeeping industry, Length of appointment 3 years
Have a complaints process that enables complaints to be fairly dealt with

Keep governance and operations separate ie operations does the day to day Governance does the consultation on polices, 5,10 year review etc

. . . Have the AFB levy tripled in order to pay for the separate organisation.

The same suggestion was made for the commodity levy Stephen - in that the levies be adminstered by a separate body. The problem was that the administration costs would eat up too much of the levy money.

 

[Alastair]

Hi Stephen, your idea is reasonable, and very pleased to hear what you actually want, instead of just constant critisism with no solutions.

However I have 2 counterpoints. The first, is would the different governance actually change anything at the coalface? I think not. At this time there is a team of AP2's who do hive inspections. I know some of them personally and they are hard working, honest guys, with a desire to help beekeepers eliminate AFB. It is not police work or guys with a big stick as you like to portray, mostly their work is much appreciated by those they can assist.
The second thing is cost. Such a corporate structure would be nice, but such professional oversight usually comes with massive consultancy fees. Might be worth it if it would improve anything, but, I don't see how it would improve anything, at the grass roots.

The current system is working just fine. You, like anyone else, are able to submit alternative ideas, and you have done so. All of us though have to realise that we may not get what we want, and it is impossible for everybody, with their different ideas, to all get what they want.

 

[StephenB]

The current board gets paid as for the government boards standard schedule of rates. Last time I looked it was around $400 per day per meeting for board members and a bit more for the chairman (maybe 600) I am sure Dennis can give us the figures. If he doent I will get them

So no extra costs to pay members

Recruitment costs I see no difference
Office cost will be the same
admin will be the same

There are plenty of gains to be made such as


Levy payers have a say where the money is spent
ApiNZ rids itself from the OIAs (saves money)
ApiNZ will no longer be tainted by the AFB PMP (might get a few more members)
Like wise the AFB PMP will no longer be Tainted by ApiNZ
ApiNZ will no longer has access to using the data base as laid out in the AFB PMP policies

All beekeepers have a say not just AnpiNZ members (Remember ApiNZ currently has overall responsibility)

All levy payers can have a say in the make up of the board. It will no longer be restricted to the elite few.
For those who dont have governance experience it will give them the opportunity to gain experience

I can go on all day about the advantages for the AFB PMP being a stand alone body

Also what will be a huge gain is a complaints process that gets complaints acknowledged and resolved

. . . Have the AFB levy tripled in order to pay for the separate organisation.

The same suggestion was made for the commodity levy Stephen - in that the levies be adminstered by a separate body. The problem was that the administration costs would eat up too much of the levy money.

There commodity levy was never going to go any where due to the distrust of the group who promoted it. Completely different fish

Hi Stephen, your idea is reasonable, and very pleased to hear what you actually want, instead of just constant critisism with no solutions.

I have been pushing this for years. Take time to understand what I am saying, ask relevant questions, dont be negative, thats how ideas are develop

 

[Dennis Crowley]

$400 per day per meeting

$395 and a day lost on the bees, if you went to a stand alone organization expect these prices to rise.

Office cost will be the same

Wrong, at the moment AFB and APINZ share an office space due to hi cost of rental space, that would change heaps if AFB found it's own office space.
Not saying it can't, or shouldn't, that's levy payers decision, but don't kid yourself that it will be cheaper, there are also other cross over benefits all to do with the way it goes dealing with and access to Govt and MPI in WLG.

Levy payers have a say where the money is spent

They do now, but they might not get asked if we should buy the yellow pen or the blue pen, as there is some sense of knowing that as long as they are not unreasonable that the office just runs.

ApiNZ rids itself from the OIAs (saves money)

No issue with OIA a good process of the democratic process.

ApiNZ will no longer be tainted by the AFB PMP (might get a few more members)
Like wise the AFB PMP will no longer be Tainted by ApiNZ

No tainting, except in a couple of other people's heads, most can understand how things work.

All beekeepers have a say not just AnpiNZ members (Remember ApiNZ currently has overall responsibility)

All levy payers can have a say in the make up of the board. It will no longer be restricted to the elite few.
For those who dont have governance experience it will give them the opportunity to gain experience

Yawn, not this old chestnut.

Also what will be a huge gain is a complaints process that gets complaints acknowledged and resolved

That happens now, but sometimes the complainer is in the wrong, and don't like the answer so feel it hasn't been resolved.
Perhaps this is you Steve?

I am not wedded to the AFB staying where it is, If levy payers wanted a stand alone organization then they would have to be prepared for a big increase in their levy's and more bureaucratic layers to go through, and you won't get anymore bang for your buck I would suggest. Based on where APINZ, and the NBA before that, was renting office space, talking to others in WLG who rent now, knowing the process APINZ went looking for the space they have now.

But its good you sent in your submission Steve, let me ask you this.
If no one else agrees with you and it stays the same, are you able to accept that and move on.
I do not have any info as to what the answer is, I am not hinting/suggesting to others that this is the case, just asking a question.