BBKA: one member one vote?

[psafloyd]

Notwithstanding who or what is posting, the fundamental problems of poor monitoring, lack of transparency and difficulty of communication "up the ladder" require addressing. It's not easy and I wouldn't suggest it is.

These are all on our agenda and have been for some years.

We've also offered direct help on a number of occasions. Only, they haven't managed to get back to us on those matters, yet.

 

[Gilberdyke John]

As I read over this thread again and consider the responses, it reinforces to me that it is not the voting that should be fixed first, but the transparency. Both are broken, but every member voting in the absence of information is IMHO worse than where we are now.

Not only is OMOV prone to dominance by 'single interest' campaigns, but the absence of any real transparency amplifies this by causing many to switch off. How different would it be if any association member could look at BBKA meeting minutes, for instance, to see what was being discussed on their behalf and how their membership fees were being spent?

At the moment the only information that gets published is the current year's ADM papers, containig various reports and a summary of the accounts in a huge bundle, and we have seen how the disastrous Adopt a Beehive figures have successfully hidden in plain sight there for five years.

Wouldn't it be rather better if inerested members could follow what was happening through the year, and knowing this the various committees would think "what will the members make of this when they see it?". This in itself might help guide Trustees in their decision making. Furthermore, seeing what the trustees do might make more members feel that they could (or should!) step forward as trustees.

Only once that level of transparency is routine should we even consider changing the voting structure. So I'll be asking my Delegate to oppose OMOV when it is dicussed at the ADM next month.

I appreciate the situation is different from local council governance but perhaps lessons can be learned. All meetings are minuted and. PLACED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (having a council website gives easy access) once agreed and signed off as correct at the next meeting. For annual meetings this does mean a lengthy delay but monthly meetings are more "public friendly" (note any member of the public has a right of access to meetings to observe proceedings. You might like to attend the next meeting of your local council?)
Knowing the minutes and other information can be widely disseminated creates an atmosphere of responsible behaviour

 

[user 6228]

its now an extra £10 proposed to join on top of subs, and if you lapse for more a certain length you have to pay the extra £10

 

[psafloyd]

It has been unedifying, by all accounts.

It was an absolute disgrace, DanBee. It should never have gone as far as it did, but ineptitude and an unwillingness to deal with the matter square on in the fist place and bloody mindedness – to be fair, a bit on both sides –-resulted in a most disgraceful turn of affairs.

It was embarrassing to watch how some tried to defend their actions (this is not a reference to the actual dispute but due process) and compounded poor governance.

Let's hope the new administration builds on its promising start.

 

[psafloyd]

As I read over this thread again and consider the responses, it reinforces to me that it is not the voting that should be fixed first, but the transparency. Both are broken, but every member voting in the absence of information is IMHO worse than where we are now.

I don't agree about the representation, but certainly the lack of transparency (not to mention obfuscation and downright misdirection on a couple of occasions) cannot be tolerated.

 

[alldigging]

Wouldn't it be rather better if inerested members could follow what was happening through the year, and knowing this the various committees would think "what will the members make of this when they see it?". This in itself might help guide Trustees in their decision making. Furthermore, seeing what the trustees do might make more members feel that they could (or should!) step forward as trustees.

Only once that level of transparency is routine should we even consider changing the voting structure. So I'll be asking my Delegate to oppose OMOV when it is dicussed at the ADM next month.

This level of transparency could be good.
Delegates voted against their votes being transparent last year apparently though. Am not sure why.

Is there a reason the whole ADM history isn't online?

 

[Beefriendly]

If there's a bottleneck, why don't you unblock it?

Trite.
That presumes one knows how to unblock the bottleneck.
Not an assumption I'd make of anyone.
Reality tells me I've got better things to do than bang my head against a brick wall. I prefer to spent my valuable free time teaching on several bee related courses and mentoring novice keepers.
It's a shame that membership of ones local association comes with compulsory membership of the BBKA. It's not an organisation I'm proud to be a member of.

 

[DanBee]

its now an extra £10 proposed to join on top of subs, and if you lapse for more a certain length you have to pay the extra £10

Proposition
That, with effect from April 1 st 2017, a joining fee of £10 be introduced for new members and for
lapsed members who are re-joining more than 3 months after their membership has expired.
Supporting Notes
Many organisations levy a joining fee on members when they first join in order to defray some of
the costs of registering them and furnishing them with initial membership information. Similarly,
those members who allow their membership to lapse also cause significant costs in re-registering
them on the membership database. The BBKA is not alone in finding that the costs of such activity
are significant and wish to avoid those costs being a burden on existing members.
Costs
This proposition will not increase the BBKA costs – it is intended to be cost neutral with the costs
to the BBKA incurred through members joining or re-joining being covered by the £10 fee.

... and who does the majority of the admin for this? Local Associations, who as well as processing all the membership forms, reminders, and of course the recruitment of new members in the first place, send updated membership lists to the BBKA.

The BBKA, already automatically getting £19 a year for each member recruited by the Associations, now wants to be paid a handling fee when it is presented with the details of new or renewing-lapsed members that those Associations have recruited for it!

Given that the BBKA (and therefore local Associations) has a 25% membership turnover per annum, that's going to work out at an awful lot of extra £10s for the BBKA for the majority of the work still done by the local Associations.

 

[DanBee]

I don't agree about the representation, but certainly the lack of transparency (not to mention obfuscation and downright misdirection on a couple of occasions) cannot be tolerated.

I could give a number of documented examples of how Trustees have either misled the other Trustees in meetings, or withheld key information from their peers, each of which has resulted in BBKA operational or strategic decisions being made on the basis of deceptions.

For instance, in the court case, one Trustee controlled all the court papers and interactions with the solicitors and insurers, withholding key witness statements from the solicitors, and withholding all the court papers from all the other Trustees, one of whom had written one of those witness statements. Instead, that one Trustee gave verbal assurances to the other Trustees that the Solicitors (who were ignorant of those key witness statements) believed they had a strong position and should proceed to court.

Had the Trustees have seen the papers, they would have queried why the BBKA was basing its defence on allegations already disproven with the evidence in common circulation, and the Trustee who had written one of the withheld witness statements would doubtless have raised that statement as seriously undermining the BBKA's case. Furthermore, had the solicitor have seen those witness statements, would she have advised so confidently regarding the BBKA's position?

This was done at the January 2016 Trustee meeting, when in reality that one Trustee had already filed the BBKA's flawed defence two days before the meeting. If the meeting had decided to take a different course of action, they would have been unable to do so anyway because the papers had already been filed. Thus the Trustees were deceived into rubber-stamping a course of action which they could not amend or overturn.

It is difficult not to conclude that the Trustee who held all the cards was deceiving all those around him in order to use the resources of the BBKA to pursue what was, by then, a personal vendetta.

Publication of meeting minutes would allow for greater scrutiny.

 

[user 6228]

... and who does the majority of the admin for this? Local Associations, who as well as processing all the membership forms, reminders, and of course the recruitment of new members in the first place, send updated membership lists to the BBKA.

The BBKA, already automatically getting £19 a year for each member recruited by the Associations, now wants to be paid a handling fee when it is presented with the details of new or renewing-lapsed members that those Associations have recruited for it!

Given that the BBKA (and therefore local Associations) has a 25% membership turnover per annum, that's going to work out at an awful lot of extra £10s for the BBKA for the majority of the work still done by the local Associations.

Equivalent to an increase of 13% in revenue

 

[DanBee]

bloody mindedness – to be fair, a bit on both sides

I understand and accept that comment.

Even in this thread we've heard "get stuck in and make it change then". Years ago, my father resigned from the BBKA in disgust at the pesticides sponsorship when it was exposed. He grumbled from the outside, and refused to have anything to do with them until they changed their ways. Sound familiar to anyone here?

He was talked around by a good friend, who convinced him that grumbling on the outside was not the way to change anything, and challenged him to get involved and make change happen. So dad put himself forward as a Trustee to do just that.

It soon became clear that there were two tiers of Trustees - those who made the decisions, and those who were expected to agree. Even in mid 2013 he was writing to fellow trustees asking for more information regarding the DEFRA funding "because it feels fraudulent". No reply.

For then challenging a Trustee of the upper tier - who was quite blatantly misleading the other Trustees - he was subject to hostility, further deceptions, cover-up, defamation, persecution, secret allegations, and attempted ejection from the Trustees. His ability to work as a Trustee was effectively taken away from him as the other Trustees would not listen or indeed include him in BBKA business.

All for saying "this is not right, he is not telling the truth". The fundamental thing about a trustee is that they should be trustworthy, no?

One key factor was the willingness of the Trustees to state that black was white, confidently and publicly.

In trying to suspend him, the Trustees had alleged that my father had improperly contracted me for paid work. This was defeated at the December 2014 SDM, in part based upon the testimony of two respected witnesses to the contracting of the work. Job done? No.

In March 2015, the Chairman and President circulated a report to the Associations which again stated - as fact! - that my father had improperly contracted me for paid work. My father duly obtained written copies of the witnesses' statements, and published these to the Associations. Eveidence, first hand, that the allegation of improper contracting was false. Job done? No.

In January of 2016, the former Chairman filed the BBKA's defence and counter-claim to my court action, in which the BBKA's key argument was... that my father had improperly contracted me to undertake paid work. The witness statements previously circulated were examined in court, and the judge ruled that I had been properly contracted by the BBKA, not by my father.

Job done? Perhaps... but I'm not counting my chickens.

Perhaps a little bloody-mindedness could be excused in the circumstances

It could all have been sorted out in a matter of weeks, of course, but the Trustees refused this

 

[psafloyd]

Perhaps a little bloody-mindedness could be excused in the circumstances

It could all have been sorted out in a matter of weeks, of course, but the Trustees refused this

I don't doubt it, DanBee. Having read all the documentation at length, there was a great deal lacking in the original complaint.

Why it wasn't dealt with immediately and in a proper fashion, we will probably never know as I never got a straight answer to that question myself.

But let's not reopen that particular can of worms. The problems with BBKA were/are systemic and extend far beyond your father's problems.

With any luck, things are on the mend beyond the finances and we can look forward to a happier and healthier ship.

 

[Gilberdyke John]

I don't doubt it, DanBee. Having read all the documentation at length, there was a great deal lacking in the original complaint.

Why it wasn't dealt with immediately and in a proper fashion, we will probably never know as I never got a straight answer to that question myself.

But let's not reopen that particular can of worms. The problems with BBKA were/are systemic and extend far beyond your father's problems.

With any luck, things are on the mend beyond the finances and we can look forward to a happier and healthier ship.

I'm interested to know what access you have had to the documentation you have read and more to the point is it freely available to everyone?
Your turn of phrase makes me think you are close to the BBKA trustees hierarchy but I can't see any obvious link between your forum identity and the trustees listed on the BBKA website. Perhaps you could elucidate?
I think from what has emerged in the forum we should be grateful for the efforts of the Basterfields, both father and son and it behoves all of us to press our local association committee and the regional bodies to exert pressure to ensure the hoped for improvement is driven through to completion and does not end up in the long grass. It may be that some regional bodies also require close scrutiny and the exercise may yet be far greater than initially thought?
For what it's worth I've made sure that the information in this forum has gone to each member of my local association committee to balance the somewhat slanted addendum which was included in the BBKA magazine.

 

[domino]

its now an extra £10 proposed to join on top of subs, and if you lapse for more a certain length you have to pay the extra £10

To be honest, I'm at the point with the BBKA that I'd simply stop paying for it if they raise the subs again.

Most of my beekeeping is done with my friends, I enjoy going to the BBKA shows but I could do that anyway.

I'm really not in the mood to feed ten pound notes to a bag of bickering ferrets.

 

[DanBee]

The problems with BBKA were/are systemic and extend far beyond your father's problems.

Agreed. It is a symptom of the problems. I think we are also agreed that greater transparency will help move things forwards. Changing the 'systemic' problems - structure, representation, voting, apathy - is a big and messy task.

As a general point and not aimed at you in particular, what puzzled me with the Delegates/Associations was that having given them all the evidence of deceit, cover-up, failure to investigate, wrongful accusations, financial mis-management, and possible fraud, the general feeling was "steady as she goes" rather than "something must change".

I remember at the December 2014 SDM, a number of Delegates stood up very keen to clarify that a vote against the suspension of KB should not be taken by the Trustees as a vote of no confidence. It was as if they feared that the alternative - new Trustees - would be worse.

I wondered afterwards what would actually make the Associations demand a significant change either of strategy or of Trustees? How much further did it need to deteriorate?!

 

[domino]

I wondered afterwards what would actually make the Associations demand a significant change either of strategy or of Trustees? How much further did it need to deteriorate?!

You assume the local associations care about the BBKA, I'm only a member because I have to be if I want to be in my association.

I finally got around to reading the BBKA news and the four page court case insert made me wonder how much of members money was pissed away producing it?

 

[linoleum bonypart]

No wonder Sheffield withdrew from BBKA.... I think a vote of no confidence in trustees is appropriate

 

[madasafish]

Peanuts compared to the Court Costs (£17k)

 

[alldigging]

Peanuts compared to the Court Costs (£17k)

This is the same BBKA who said they wouldn't publish the names of people who had passed the basic assessment in the BBKA news last year because it would cost too much.

 

[oxnatbees]

I was a delegate for a couple of years. The key thing to note about One Member One Vote is: most of the association delegates prepare thoroughly for the annual delegates' meeting. For example we read the cv's of the people standing for office (these are in the delegate pack prepared by the BBKA) and we think thoroughly about ALL of the motions put forward. In my case I sent a summary of everything I need to vote on to my BKA committee with how I intended to vote and why, and asked if they wanted me to vote this way or some other way (for example on the neonics issue). A normal member may go to this amount of trouble but I think most will either abstain or just vote as the EC recommends. By appointing your own delegate you get an enthusiast who researches the side issues, goes along and discusses with other delegates to gain insight, and (hopefully) reports back to your BKA what they learnt.

...Even becoming a Delegate is challenging and time consuming....BUT how many actually truly represent the wishes of the associations they speak for or report back accurately to these associations? How many actively pursue matters on the simple guy with a hives behalf? How many have the management and accounting skills to detect anomalies in reports?

I didn't have the accounting skills, that was my key deficiency, but to be honest I wasn't too bothered by a £20k loss in a £1m budget. Several of the county delegates did have such skills which is sufficient.

The main effect of OMOV would be to place more power in the Exec Committee's hands because there would no longer be specialists with some actual power acting as a check and balance. OMOV would be a disaster.