More BBKA in-fighting

[madasafish]

What is IMYB?



PH

International meeting of Young Beekeepers.

 

[Erichalfbee]

What is IMYB?



PH

Indeed
I had to Google it

 

[Michael Palmer]

And me! I can stand with my hands in my pockets and supervise

You all crack me up. And, we don't eat grits in Vermont. You don't need no damn green card. Just come for a visit, stay for awhile, and we'll put you to work.

 

[charlievictorbravo]

To put yourself forward for a place on the Executive, you have to be confident and single-minded but the problems arise when a whole team of similar people try to work together. In Belbin-speak, there are too many Shapers and Plants and not enough Company Workers or Completer Finishers. I don't know how other charities manage their affairs but this situation, as described, is intolerable and really disappointing for the membership.

Maybe it's the result of Trustees being remote geographically so a natter round the drinks cooler or a conversation in the carpark to smooth the rough edges of projects is what is missing.

I don't want to see any exchanges of letters in BBKA News nor defamatory speeches at the ADM. Trustees - sort it out in private!

CVB

 

[psafloyd]

To put yourself forward for a place on the Executive, you have to be confident and single-minded but the problems arise when a whole team of similar people try to work together. In Belbin-speak, there are too many Shapers and Plants and not enough Company Workers or Completer Finishers. I don't know how other charities manage their affairs but this situation, as described, is intolerable and really disappointing for the membership.

Maybe it's the result of Trustees being remote geographically so a natter round the drinks cooler or a conversation in the carpark to smooth the rough edges of projects is what is missing.

I don't want to see any exchanges of letters in BBKA News nor defamatory speeches at the ADM. Trustees - sort it out in private!

CVB

 

[user 15607]

How about VBA? Vermont Beekeepers Association.



We'll put it to good use.

Can you send me an application form please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hebeegeebee]

So the original post was wrong..

Excellent news!

 

[Hebeegeebee]

Our government has had a bit of infighting and leaks and such-like recently which doesn't look good. Collective responsibility is the description of what any organization should have.

No washing of dirty laundry in public please.

 

[Gilberdyke John]

To put yourself forward for a place on the Executive, you have to be confident and single-minded but the problems arise when a whole team of similar people try to work together. In Belbin-speak, there are too many Shapers and Plants and not enough Company Workers or Completer Finishers. I don't know how other charities manage their affairs but this situation, as described, is intolerable and really disappointing for the membership.

Maybe it's the result of Trustees being remote geographically so a natter round the drinks cooler or a conversation in the carpark to smooth the rough edges of projects is what is missing.

I don't want to see any exchanges of letters in BBKA News nor defamatory speeches at the ADM. Trustees - sort it out in private!

CVB

It's not that long ago simoncav was saying the bad old days were behind and everything would improve.
I cant agree with CVB. Burying your head in the sand is not a sensible approach. If transparent governance is promised, transparent governance should be delivered.

 

[Anduril]

So the original post was wrong..

The word "peddling" before it!!

 

[Millet]

You all crack me up. And, we don't eat grits in Vermont. You don't need no damn green card. Just come for a visit, stay for awhile, and we'll put you to work.

Neither do i Micheal, i do not even know what it means, i think the fellow who mentioned it may have been inebriated at the time.

 

[fatshark]

I wonder if the SBA will start to accept English and welsh members now as there isn't going to be an independence vote for a while?

They do ... and did so before the independence vote was postponed.

 

[Nige.Coll]

I could not deal with that rubbish in a calm manner, thank the lord i am a brain dead loner.

Best way to be.

 

[bpmurray]

You all crack me up. And, we don't eat grits in Vermont. You don't need no damn green card. Just come for a visit, stay for awhile, and we'll put you to work.

Unfortunately when I spent a while in MA, I hadn't really realised there were bees - instead I spent my time chasing stripers around Marblehead and Plum Island. Had I been afflicted with the bee addiction at the time, I would have been delighted to take you up on that offer!

 

[Beefriendly]

- instead I spent my time chasing stripers around Marblehead and Plum Island.
!

As a fellow fisherman I know you didn't miss out the second "p" in stripers.
Any good ones? Fish I mean

 

[Michael Palmer]

I spent my time chasing stripers around Marblehead and Plum Island.

"Plum" Island, indeed.

 

[Walrus]

And me! I can stand with my hands in my pockets and supervise

I'm just back from staying with Mike in Vermont, having performed exactly that task. It was good fun and I learned a lot.

 

[Erichalfbee]

I'm just back from staying with Mike in Vermont, having performed exactly that task. It was good fun and I learned a lot.

I'm green with envy!!!!

 

[DanBee]

I don't understand why the executive sent the first communication. It shows considerable lack of judgement...

I don't like the way this looks and has the whiff of a witch hunt about it.

The first communiqué from executive neither clarified nor satisfied any queries, and could be seen as an indirect attack against those organising the event.

It was an ill judged and ill timed missive that should –-and could –- have waited until the event was finished. It looks like arse-watching, rather than the actions of an executive in control, which is disappointing as I'd hoped we'd left the days of poor judgement and no-governance behind us.

I don't see how you get that reading of events from the letters circulated.

The BBKA support for IMYB was voted for by associations at the 2016 ADM; they would provide £1/member provided £30k of "industry sponsorship" had first been raised. Read the July 5th Exec letter, and it is clear that the £30k target had not been achieved, and that some associations were (arguably rightly) withholding their contributions, meaning that the even was going ahead without the agreed funding in place. That letter was an appeal to ask the associations to contribute regardless of the missed target; otherwise the BBKA would have footed the bill for the whole difference.

Look at both this and the Homers' reply, and the different budget summaries they provide actually agree - £25k raised (BBKA) vs. £27k raised (Homers).

Read carefully the Homers' figures and you will see that they have counted donations in kind - presumably hive suits, smokers - at their cash equivalent value, to be used to pay for incurred expenditure such as venue hire, transport, etc. You can't do that - a donation in kind may have a value but it doesn't pay other bills, all it does it stop you having to pay for the thing donated. So the £31K the Homers claimed to have raised wrongly included £4k of 'in kind' - hence £27k in reality.

How did the BBKA get to the point of having to send out a begging letter a week before the event? Look again at the BBKA letter. It heavily implies that the offer made by the Homers (to underwrite any shortfall in fundraising) prevented a trustee meeting from cancelling IMYB due to lack of funding. The BBKA exec were exercising good management, but what saved the project from cancellation was an offer to make up the shortfall. So legal advice was taken, agreements were correctly drawn up, but the Homers would not sign.

Then what happened? Despite Ruth and Ian Homer having made the offer to underwrite the shortfall in front of the other Trustees, the story changed. Apparently now they said that they hadn't actually agreed to underwrite it themselves, but they said they had found an anonymous donor who was willing to do so. OK, teeth were gritted, the repeatedly offered written agreement was offered yet again for signature, and still the Homers could not or would not produce a signature.

Now we hear from the Homers that this "aggression" and "bullying" from the BBKA caused the "anonymous donor" to back out, yet in the same letter they criticse the BBKA Exec for poor management of projects, and how they felt their "integrity was insulted" by the BBKA repeatedly trying to get a written undertaking for this offer to underwrite any fundraising shortfall. Surely a genuine "anonymous donor" who really was going to put up many thousands of pounds to ensure the project went ahead would have put something in writing, particularly when told it was the difference between the project happening or being cancelled?

I have spoken to four trustees who were in that meeting and heard the offer. The Homers didn't mention an anonymous donor, they were offering to underwrite it themselves, but they would not sign a written undertaking to that effect despite all the time and effort other trustees put into it.

By March 2017, essentially good management had been subverted and stalled - still a shortfall in fundraising, still no written undertaking from the Homers, but getting too late to cancel. Remember that the trustees are volunteers, there are many other projects and events ongoing.

Can I suggest you read again the Exec letter and the Homers' response? The former is a matter-of-fact 'mea culpa' - "we didn't hit the target but can you still contribute in the spirit of the original agreement"; the Homers' letter is a rant, full of insinuations and accusations, and the figures they present are massaged.

The BBKA would have been damned if they had said nothing, and simply plugged the shortfall out of BBKA funds. They would have been damned if they had waited until after the event and asked the Associations to help plug the shortfall. They would have been damned if they had cancelled the event in March 2017. In my view they took the least worst option, and appealed for association funds whilst being up-front about why the funds were needed.

There is much more to this than I am willing to divulge now, as you know I have some insight into what happens but I give my own opinion of the matter and do not speak on behalf of the trustees. Let the BBKA present their report and all will see what has gone on. It is a sorry tale, good people are being wrongly maligned for the actions of others.

 

[For want of a better word]

I don't see how you get that reading of events from the letters circulated.

The BBKA support for IMYB was voted for by associations at the 2016 ADM; they would provide £1/member provided £30k of "industry sponsorship" had first been raised. Read the July 5th Exec letter, and it is clear that the £30k target had not been achieved, and that some associations were (arguably rightly) withholding their contributions, meaning that the even was going ahead without the agreed funding in place. That letter was an appeal to ask the associations to contribute regardless of the missed target; otherwise the BBKA would have footed the bill for the whole difference.

Look at both this and the Homers' reply, and the different budget summaries they provide actually agree - £25k raised (BBKA) vs. £27k raised (Homers).

Read carefully the Homers' figures and you will see that they have counted donations in kind - presumably hive suits, smokers - at their cash equivalent value, to be used to pay for incurred expenditure such as venue hire, transport, etc. You can't do that - a donation in kind may have a value but it doesn't pay other bills, all it does it stop you having to pay for the thing donated. So the £31K the Homers claimed to have raised wrongly included £4k of 'in kind' - hence £27k in reality.

How did the BBKA get to the point of having to send out a begging letter a week before the event? Look again at the BBKA letter. It heavily implies that the offer made by the Homers (to underwrite any shortfall in fundraising) prevented a trustee meeting from cancelling IMYB due to lack of funding. The BBKA exec were exercising good management, but what saved the project from cancellation was an offer to make up the shortfall. So legal advice was taken, agreements were correctly drawn up, but the Homers would not sign.

Then what happened? Despite Ruth and Ian Homer having made the offer to underwrite the shortfall in front of the other Trustees, the story changed. Apparently now they said that they hadn't actually agreed to underwrite it themselves, but they said they had found an anonymous donor who was willing to do so. OK, teeth were gritted, the repeatedly offered written agreement was offered yet again for signature, and still the Homers could not or would not produce a signature.

Now we hear from the Homers that this "aggression" and "bullying" from the BBKA caused the "anonymous donor" to back out, yet in the same letter they criticse the BBKA Exec for poor management of projects, and how they felt their "integrity was insulted" by the BBKA repeatedly trying to get a written undertaking for this offer to underwrite any fundraising shortfall. Surely a genuine "anonymous donor" who really was going to put up many thousands of pounds to ensure the project went ahead would have put something in writing, particularly when told it was the difference between the project happening or being cancelled?

I have spoken to four trustees who were in that meeting and heard the offer. The Homers didn't mention an anonymous donor, they were offering to underwrite it themselves, but they would not sign a written undertaking to that effect despite all the time and effort other trustees put into it.

By March 2017, essentially good management had been subverted and stalled - still a shortfall in fundraising, still no written undertaking from the Homers, but getting too late to cancel. Remember that the trustees are volunteers, there are many other projects and events ongoing.

Can I suggest you read again the Exec letter and the Homers' response? The former is a matter-of-fact 'mea culpa' - "we didn't hit the target but can you still contribute in the spirit of the original agreement"; the Homers' letter is a rant, full of insinuations and accusations, and the figures they present are massaged.

The BBKA would have been damned if they had said nothing, and simply plugged the shortfall out of BBKA funds. They would have been damned if they had waited until after the event and asked the Associations to help plug the shortfall. They would have been damned if they had cancelled the event in March 2017. In my view they took the least worst option, and appealed for association funds whilst being up-front about why the funds were needed.

There is much more to this than I am willing to divulge now, as you know I have some insight into what happens but I give my own opinion of the matter and do not speak on behalf of the trustees. Let the BBKA present their report and all will see what has gone on. It is a sorry tale, good people are being wrongly maligned for the actions of others.

There is always a good fight when a BIG Fish gets hooked!

Yeghes da