KB is my father and I am also involved. I believe that an appropriate summary might be "lies, corruption, and cover-up".
Back in March, KB had reason to accuse another trustee of lying to fellow trustees. I also complained at the same time about the same person/allegations as a member of the BBKA and as somebody commissioned to undertake work for the BBKA. My invoices for work undertaken for the BBKA have been outstanding since 10th January due to this dispute.
The response of the BBKA Exec was to pursue KB for making such allegations by forming an investigative panel. That panel ruled out in writing any investigation of the alleged lying, concentrating solely on whether KB was correct in how he communicated the allegations. KB was told not to provide evidence of the alleged lying since it would not be considered. KB wrote to the BBKA chairman, Doug Brown, six times between May and September stating that the matter that they should be investigating was the alleged dishonesty, and he would not meet with the investigative panel until they did so. Six times the chairman replied but ignored the request for investigation. I wrote a total of four times, giving more detail of the allegations I had made, but this too was ignored.
In July that investigation panel reported back to the Exec, which voted to accept the panel's report's findings. Notable features of this include:
- Written complaints from myself, KB, and a second Trustee about the Trustee accused of lying had apparently not been considered by the investigation;
- A 45 minute meeting between KB and the chairman Doug Brown on this matter was apparently not considered;
- The investigation panel had apparently only taken/accepted evidence from the person accused of dishonesty, whom they then found not guilty of the charges;
- The panel had considered three further 'secret' allegations against KB; he had not been informed of these allegations and therefore had provided no defence or rebuttal;
- The panel claimed it had indeed investigated the lying (total about-face) and found the accused not guilty;
- Since KB had provided no evidence (as per earlier instructions) to substantiate his allegations of lying, KB was to be sanctioned for making those allegations.
The outcome was that KB and the accused Trustee should attend mediation to resolve the 'dispute'. KB declined since this was not a "play nicely together" matter but one that he believed required a factual investigation for resolution.
The Exec therefore suspended KB for not agreeing to mediation. To have him formally removed as a Trustee required a vote at the next Delegates meeting.
In the meantime, KB had decided after six months of frustration and various attempts to undermine him by the Exec that he should approach the Member Associations (the Counties). Thus in September he appealed for the support of the Associations in calling for a Special Delegate Meeting (SDM) to resolve the allegations. (This is the equivalent of an Extraordinary General Meeting, and reportedly the first in the BBKA's history.)
The BBKA constitution requires a call by 10% of Associations to force an SDM regardless of the wishes of the Exec; in total 18 of the 67 Associations supported this, each citing that the matter to be discussed was "an investigation into the allegations of dishonesty".
KB has been accused of bringing the BBKA into disrepute by appealing for the support of the Associations.
The Exec were not happy at having their hand forced in this fashion. They called the SDM as obliged by the constitution, but instead of including the "investigation..." as requested by the Associations, they substituted for this their own proposal to have KB's suspension approved by the Delegates.
Uproar ensued. The Exec were ignoring the call from the Associations and literally forcing their own agenda onto the meeting. The Exec further hobbled the SDM by trying to impose a restricted Agenda and a restricted subset of the Standing Orders (meeting procedures) that prevented deviation from the matter the Exec wished to see discussed.
The Exec apparently dismissed an approach from a number of Past Presidents of the BBKA to investigate and report on the underlying matter of the allegations of dishonesty. A similar proposition from a number of Associations was also apparently excluded from the SDM agenda.
At the SDM on Saturday 13th, whilst both the "investigation..." and the suspension appeared on the revised agenda, Delegates were told from the outset by the chairman that they would not be allowed a vote on the "investigation..." - the business the meeting was called for - but solely on the suspension.
Presentations were made by the Exec, then KB, then the trustee accused of dishonesty. Much questioning by the Delegates followed.
The Delegates voted against the suspension by a significant margin. KB was thus reinstated as a Trustee.
The Exec apparently believe that this was not a vote of no confidence against them.
The allegations of dishonesty have still not been investigated.
Other serious apparent mis-mangement which came to light as KB prepared his defence was not permitted to be discussed at all in the SDM.
The outstanding invoices and other incurred costs (e.g. legal advice) have not been addressed.
There are serious concerns amongst delegates at the sheer number of Governance failings that this matter has highlighted. All agreed that it should never have been allowed to come to this; that it should have been sorted out at the time the allegations first arose.
A delegate meeting costs circa £7,000 (according to the BBKA accounts for the Annual Delegate Meeting). This was a full day meeting of 10:30 - 17:30 for all involved.
The Exec have allegedly instructed the beekeeping press not to report on the SDM.
Nothing has been resolved.
Large amounts of documents and statements were circulated prior to Saturday's meetings. Your county association Chairman, Secretary, and Delegate should have copies of these and should be able to fill you in on more detail.
