More individual BKA joining the BBKA direct - good or bad?

[alldigging]

http://www.-------------/files/library/volume_3_of_the_asdm_2017_pack_1479733954.pdf

Comments by BBKA

The application by this association is seen as being acceptable with the proposed constitution being compatible with that of the BBKA itself and the association accounts being sound.


There will be a marginal increase in costs incurred by the BBKA as the number of affiliated associations will increase (additional invitation to ADM meetings, additional capitation invoice, additional year book entries, etc.

 

[domino]

What's the domain name?

 

[Worldsend]

I think there are at least five local areas trying to break away from their county associations at the meeting this month

 

[For want of a better word]

I think there are at least five local areas trying to break away from their county associations at the meeting this month

​

Yeghes da

 

[alldigging]

What's the domain name?

bbka
org?uk

 

[alldigging]

I think there are at least five local areas trying to break away from their county associations at the meeting this month

Indeed,that is what the link is.

 

[simoncav]

It's not really good or bad, just a fact of life that many County Associations are struggling to find a purpose in a world where the Internet enables direct communication between individuals and their associations.

In the past Counties would act as a conduit between different members of individual associations and would pass information from the BBKA HQ out and back again. The county newsletters kept members informed of what was going on across different associations, ran county shows & conventions and managed exams etc.

Many counties are struggling to find volunteers to take active roles and so eventually the individual associations question the point of the county level association and several are indeed breaking up with their individual associations applying to join the BBKA directly.

This process if it carries on will create a few challenges in that there will inevitably be more individual delegates at the ADM, some representing counties and other local associations (assuming they all decide to create and send a delegate). That will create a two-tier system where some members will be represented by a "local" delegate and others more remotely via a county delegate representing the collected views of the member associations.

Some will say, "lets just move to communicating via FaceBook and email etc", but that excludes a relatively large group of members across all associations who don't have access to these facilities or who prefer written newsletters etc. It would also require more staff at the BBKA HQ to respond to all the individual requests via these electronic channels. Similarly, moving to a one member one vote sounds initially attractive but would again be disruptive to implement and hugely expensive to run for a number of reasons including the fact that we would have to run an online/offline model to communicate to all members as we simply cannot force everyone online.

It's up to the members of the BBKA to ultimately decide our future structure, so it would be useful for me as a trustee and member of the EC to get some reasoned views that we can then discuss and report back on. Is the two-tier process simply inevitable? How do county associations continue to offer a valued service to "their" associations and members? Would the members accept greater capitation fees to run much bigger delegate meetings, possibly running more of them across the year? I dont yet have any answers, but would like to hear your views?

 

[roche]

The two tier system already exists - there are quite a few associations that are not part of a county that are part of the BBKA - Twickenham and Thames Valley for example. The county associations really are an anachronism and should be gotten rid of, certainly in terms of representation at the BBKA. There should also be an ADM delegate for direct individual members of the BBKA; at the moment they have no voice.

 

[alldigging]

It's up to the members of the BBKA to ultimately decide our future structure, so it would be useful for me as a trustee and member of the EC to get some reasoned views that we can then discuss and report back on. Is the two-tier process simply inevitable? How do county associations continue to offer a valued service to "their" associations and members? Would the members accept greater capitation fees to run much bigger delegate meetings, possibly running more of them across the year? I dont yet have any answers, but would like to hear your views?

The capitation currently paid from branches to county ... if the same extra £ stayed with BKA to pay for the expenses of sending to ADM meetings?
Then there's no extra money taken from members, and the money they pay is spent more directly on representing them.

Is there a map of members showing how they are concentrated? and then how the associations and counties all divide up?
That'd be really interesting for your question of the future way to go.

If you were setting it up today how would you do it?

What's the smallest directly affiliates BKA to the BBKA?

I don't understand what obligations a representative has to ask their members for feedback before attending. Are there any? If there are none then the whole thing is reliant on those delegates attempting to ask for feedback or discussion on issues.

The lack of transparency in voting is a huge issue for me. It almost negates the need for any local feedback; if the vote of the representative is not known then they can vote how they like.

 

[Barbarian]

Thanks for the interesting thread.
Perhaps the question "What have the Romans done for us ?" should be asked in respect of my county association ?

 

[MuswellMetro]

Most of the BKA joining direct are the BKAs that were in the Federation of Berkshire BKAs, That federation has folded as no one was prepared to run it rather than BKAs wanting to leave, they have no area structure to collect capitation

some counties have divisions but some counties are area association just collecting the captiation for a group of BKAs,

 

[alldigging]

some counties have divisions but some counties are area association just collecting the captiation for a group of BKAs,

So if the sub-group is capable of putting a return together to send to a bigger group, it is probably capable of sending a return direct to the BBKA and keeping the extra money, or reducing subs?

 

[psafloyd]

It's not really good or bad, just a fact of life that many County Associations are struggling to find a purpose in a world where the Internet enables direct communication between individuals and their associations.

Not so, Simon. Certainly in our case, we provide the kind of support that individual members will never get from the BBKA directly.

It cannot cope with the demands of administration for dealing with counties, so how would it hope to service a direct membership in the tens of thousands? It simply won't.

In the past Counties would act as a conduit between different members of individual associations and would pass information from the BBKA HQ out and back again. The county newsletters kept members informed of what was going on across different associations, ran county shows & conventions and managed exams etc..

Again, it still does all these things and more besides.

Many counties are struggling to find volunteers to take active roles and so eventually the individual associations question the point of the county level association and several are indeed breaking up with their individual associations applying to join the BBKA directly.

It is true that it is hard to find volunteers, but ever was it thus. And not just in beekeeping. This is a problem facing all voluntary organisations and people have always had to be cajoled into doing the jobs that most people don't want to do.

On your point about Facebook, I would argue if we move away from the current structure, there will be a great deal less democracy and more power will be placed in the hands of the executive. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the constitution is there for a reason – to provide structure, checks and balances.

Without considerably greater resources (which BBKA isn't going to secure), running a more fragmented membership will lead to even worse communication that we have now.

I would rather BBKA continued to focus on fixing the problems that have been apparent for some years –-the finances (good progress there under Howard Pool), governance (we live in hope, but I've heard some worrying rumbles about certain moves) and communication.

After all, we've spent a fortune on a website that a) doesn't work very well and b) isn't the fastest means of communicating important information to membership. Instead, we are expected to rely on BBKA News as the primary communication channel. That is not indicative of an organisation that wants to modernise/improve/change [delete as applicable].

 

[roche]

PSA - I think you might be missing the distinction between county and local associations - I believe the OP was referring to local associations as opposed to individual beeks...

 

[Nige.Coll]

The problem is travelling from what I can see, a county association could have it's meetings miles away from members so a lot don't go.
Same as for training apiaries located miles away.
Some of the associations may lose some voting power but if the result is more beekeepers using training apiaries and attending meetings then it can't be bad and will probably improve access to education if it's done right.

 

[DanBee]

From a voting point of view, there is no 'two tier' problem with delegates representing large counties/federations or small local associations. The constitution allows for standard voting as one vote per delegate, but upon request of the delegates a vote can be rerun as a membership vote - one vote per member per delegate. So a 500 member county carries 10x the weight of a 50 member association if/when a matter is controversial or a per-delegate vote is close-run.

The BBKA fundamentally should be an umbrella organisation, representing beekeeping associations and organising things that they can't organise individually - examinations, Spring Convention, insurance, etc.. Certain individuals had tried to take it in very different directions in recent years * - a campaigning charity appealing to the general public - but that is not what its members have asked for.

As an umbrella organisation, the BBKA should gracefully accommodate the ebb and flow of member associations as they fragment or re-group due to logistical or political problems locally. As PSA said, "t'was ever thus" and not just in beekeeping.

I also query the proposition for the BBKA to levy a £10 (re)joining fee for new or lapsed members, when it's the local associations who do the recruitment, administration and support (meetings, apiaries, mentoring & basic teaching etc.) of new or rejoining members. The associations currently pass lists of current members to the BBKA, so the admin overhead on the BBKA is relatively minor. Each new member recruited locally brings new capitation into the BBKA. I am not comfortable that the BBKA should charge £10 for admin that is predominantly done by others.

[* The BBKA used to have one charitable objective: "to further and promote the craft of beekeeping". I understand that the relatively recent addition of a second objective "to advance the education of the public in the importance of bees in the environment" was not done in accordance with the constitution. It appears to have been a fudge added by certain past trustees in order to validate moves to campaign to the broader public instead of supporting beekeepers.]