BBKA ADM Proposals

[Roger Patterson]

BBKA Member Associations have recently been sent their papers for the annual delegates meeting (ADM) to be held in early January 2009. The full text of the wording of the propositions can be found on the members section of this website, and will also be appearing in the next edition of BBKA News. One of the propositions is a series of discussions to determine the BBKA's stance in relation to its dealings with Agro Chemical companies and suppliers of bee husbandry products.

These proposals will be discussed and voted on by elected representatives of Member Associations, and the result will become BBKA policy.

I am creating this thread so members can have their say, but please remember if you have any views that you wish to be taken into account, these should be made known to your ADM delegate via your local BKA committee. Views made on this thread can't be taken into account.

As this issue has proved to be quite contentious I must ask members to keep to the point and be polite and civil, and as it is a BBKA issue can I ask that only BBKA members take part. As with other ADM proposals no member of the BBKA Executive will take part in open discussion, As such no member of the Executive (including myself) will be participating in any debate that may take place on the forum.

Can I ask everyone to confine posts on pesticide endorsement, or the proposals to this thread please?

Roger Patterson.

[Chris]

please remember if you have any views that you wish to be taken into account, these should be made known to your ADM delegate via your local BKA committee.

If I was the ADM delegate for my local association (a small one), and because poison endorsement is such a contentious issue, I would actively canvass the opinion of the membership by telephone, email and post.

[brosville]

I don't think there is much point in going through the minutiae of precisely WHY all financial ties with any Chemical company should be cut forthwith - that is self-evident, but I would like to add a couple of points.
In view of the disreputable image of the BBKA that the Bayer tie-up has brought about, I would also suggest that those responsible for arranging it in the first place should resign, and I would suggest that any local association that votes in favour of the ties being severed forthwith should add the rider that the BBKA is not indispensable, is bringing the whole industry into disrepute, and should they choose to continue with the "wholly owned subsidiary of Bayer" way of doing things, that they can do so without the not inconsiderable contribution from that local society.

The BBKA is supposed to be the association for ALL British Beekeepers, not a lobbying group and mouthpiece for an agrochemical company!


Moderators Note.

"Brosville" has responded to a polite warning asking for the removal of an offensive element of this post.

Roger Patterson.

[brosville]

I have amended my post as requested, and am wondering whether I have removed sufficient, or whether it is still deemed "offensive"........
Some guidelines would be helpful as it is not my intention to offend - perhaps just a list of people who are above criticism, or if noone is above criticism, perhaps a suggestion as to how one should phrase one's grave disquiet over their competence and fitness for office...........

[Norm]

One of the propositions is a series of discussions to determine the BBKA's stance in relation to its dealings with Agro Chemical companies and suppliers of bee husbandry products.

These proposals will be discussed and voted on by elected representatives of Member Associations, and the result will become BBKA policy.

As I am no longer a BBKA member, I have no right and no representative to put my views to. I do think though that if the BBKA do not dissassociate themselves from the Agro Chem Co's after these discussions, they will loose all credibility and the membership would and should resign their membership in huge numbers. The BBKA days would be numbered!

[ChrisBroad]

the membership would and should resign their membership in huge numbers.

I doubt if this would happen Norm. The silent majority won't have a view either way and will accept any outcome except an increase in subs. of more than 25p a year.

[Steve Rose]

The BBKA is supposed to be the association for ALL British Beekeepers,

That's news to me. Countries of the UK other than England have their own BKA's. As far as I know Gwent is the only county outside of England that is affiliated to the BBKA.

Due to my recent move to Clwyd I will be leaving the BBKA in January. I should add though that I will not be leaving as a result their cooperation with agrochemical companies. When in England my bees benefited by this cooperation. The farmer who's land I kept my bees on used to spray his beans, rape and wheat but he always informed me beforehand, he used only BBKA approved pesticides and followed to the letter the instructions on the can. Without the BBKA guidelines my bees may be dead by now.

It would have been better, of course, if my farmer had been totally organic but to achieve that you need to work on consumers and supermarkets - not the BBKA. While we are stuck with pesticides it's better, in my opinion, to point out and even endorse the best whilst condemning and trying to get the manufacturers to eliminate the worst.

I accept there are 2 legitimate and disparate points of view regarding pesticide endorsements but the only people who deserve to be pillaried are the ones who cannot see the other viewpoint and use immoderate language and engage in personal attacks.

By the time the subject has been debated at the ADM I will no longer be a member of the BBKA but I would have accepted the resulting policy, whichever viewpoint happened to prevail, in the knowledge that it had bee arrived at democratically.

Steve

[V8landy]

The BBKA is supposed to be the association for ALL British Beekeepers, Brosville,



If you are a member!

Why dont you join and then voice that way?

"If you names not down, your not coming in!"

[brosville]

I am - through my local association.......;)
Therefore if I am asked to shell out my hard earnt, I want to know that I am properly represented, and that a small coterie of people will not take it upon themselves to make decisions for everyone in the association without making absolutely 100% sure that all those members know precisely what goes on in their names, and the ramifications thereof..........:D
Must say, a quick straw poll amongst local association members revealed several ghasted flabbers when the Bayer sponsorship was mentioned.......seems noone had gone out of their way to tell them, and yet the BBKA is very happy to take their donations (in ever-increasing amounts).........funny that!:rolleyes:

[ChrisBroad]

...seems noone had gone out of their way to tell them

That's probably a little unfair. These things have been in BBKA news, though perhaps not on the front page. And information has been slow, but that's par for the course in beekeeping circles. But well done in raising the topic. Whether folks are for or against they need to be aware. It has long been claimed that the majority of BBKA members support the endorsement policy. The reality is the policy was accepted at a previous ADM, which is not the same thing at all.

[V8landy]

...seems noone had gone out of their way to tell them, :

Yes Martin, I remeber you saying now, Great.

But your straw poll mentioned above is typical of beekeeping full stop!

I bet some of them still have not heard of Varroa?!

Its a fact! Beekeeping is prdominatly "an old retrired mans hobby"

Look at you, you have done all this reasearch before even getting your bees (well done), I dont think anything will shock you (new that is) and I bet you are well up on IPM etc.

The thing is all the information is out there (internet) but are people using it it? Do they know what a computer is?

[brosville]

there are times I sincerely doubt it! Rest assured, noone in my local association will be under any delusions about the sponsorship deal. I did also get quite a lot of "fees keep going up, get the feeling we could do without the BBKA" - totally unprompted :D
I must say, it's quite amazing the way all the disparate parts of the UK are disassociating themselves from the BBKA in this thread......."oohh no , nothing to do with us" - I'm sure I heard bargepoles being deployed!

[V8landy]

"fees keep going up, get the feeling we could do without the BBKA"


Its mi pension yer see!

We should all get together down the pub for a chat!

[Chris]

Time to get a new ADM delegate. You need to motion for a replacement at the next AGM.

[dramsden]

Over the summer, this behaviour was highlighted, (not least because of the major Bee losses in Germany) and a lot of members of the BBKA became aware of this policy for the first time. As a result the BBKA endorsement of pesticides has now been included as an agenda item for the Annual Delegates Meeting. The Annual Delegates Meeting is virtually the only opportunity for the membership of the BBKA to influence BBKA policy. In this context, I would like to put forward my views about the BBKA and endorsement.

The first thing is that because it has been tangled up with pesticides and agricultural chemicals, people may tend to feel that it is a complicated and technical issue. It isn’t. It is as simple as this –
Should the BBKA endorse products (of any type) and receive payments (of any amount) for doing so?

Now that is really two questions – the endorsement of products is one, and the receipt of payments another. Let me give my views on each in turn: It is reasonable for the BBKA to endorse products if some conditions are met. These are that it is in the interests of Bees and Beekeeping to endorse the product and that the product is independently and conclusively tested to ensure the previous condition. The first condition is straightforward and complies with paragraph three of the BBKA constitution. The second is more difficult as it requires an assessment of what tests are required to ensure that they are conclusive, together with an objective view being taken on the independence of the tests. It is important to consider that even Government agencies are not necessarily testing with Bees in mind. It is the responsibility of the BBKA, as a special interest group, to ensure that evaluation which is used for the basis of product endorsement properly considers the life cycle and social peculiarities of Honey Bees. If this results in the BBKA having to commission original research at considerable expense then that is worth considering.

That leads into the second question – should the BBKA receive payments or donations for endorsements. For me the answer is a resounding and unequivocal no. The important thing about the endorsement is that it is bestowed, unencumbered by any financial regard. This is vitally important for various reasons. The first is transparency – the actions of the BBKA in giving an endorsement should, absolutely beyond question, be in the interests of Bees and Beekeeping, without a hint of having done it for reward. Even if it was not done for reward, and the money used for the most principled objectives, it still leaves the action open to misinterpretation and compromises the voice of the BBKA. The second is independence. If the BBKA has endorsed one product by a company and at a later date is asked to consider a second for endorsement, what then? If it refuses will it jeopardise the endorsement income from the first? If it does endorse, was it because it was afraid to risk the loss of income from the second endorsement?

Not accepting cash or donations for endorsement would put the BBKA in a far stronger position.

One of the reasons given for the BBKA to endorse products is that it influences companies to produce bee friendly products and has reduced poisoning incidents. Whether or not that is true, there is anecdotal evidence that it does influence buying decisions by end users. That is important, because it increases the responsibility of the BBKA to ensure that the products it endorses are not harmful to Honey Bees. This can only be achieved by assessment of research and, if necessary independent tests, possibly lasting several years. This would possibly cost significant amounts of money. However, the tests and research would have their own value, and possibly attract external funding. Initially though, it would be likely to need funding internally, from an increase in capitation.

I would be happy to see a significant increase in capitation if it resulted in the BBKA conducting independent tests and ceasing to accept cash or donations for endorsement.

The existing situation is not desirable – it opens the BBKA to accusations, which, whether or not founded in fact, could cause its integrity to be questioned. Although the position was probably arrived at with the best of intentions, I believe the implications may not have been considered fully.

Some elements of this discussion are on the agenda for the Annual Delegates Meeting in January. It is important that the delegates attending that meeting know what we as individual members feel. The delegates cannot guess at those feelings, so it is up to us all, as individual members of the BBKA to let our association, or area association delegate know our views so that they can vote accordingly.

[brosville]

Now if I were running something, and I arranged sponsorship from an ethical company to the benefit of all the members, I'd be very happy to display a large banner on my website telling the world of our wonderful relationship........
Could I perhaps suggest that the BBKA sports a very large banner at the top of each and every webpage saying something like "proudly sponsored by Bayer, to the tune of £20k pa"? - then noone would be in any doubt, and of course, those in charge should be entirely happy for this cosy and mutually beneficial relationship to be loudly trumpeted, as it is of course, purely for the benefit of the BBKA and it's members........:rolleyes:

Or on the other hand, this is exactly the sort of story that Private Eye revels in........... the "Old Muckraker" column loves stories like this one!:D

[Bcrazy]

PDCambs,

Ref post No. 14
The attitude of one of my local ADM delegates is he will do what he thinks is right regardless of what his association's committee votes for (and this would not be the first instance of ignoring the committee's decisions either). As far as I'm aware the membership has not been asked for their opinion on the matter.

You are correct in saying the membership has not bee asked, but it has been discussed at committee level. The chairman read out the proposals from the BBKA and asked for votes on the 5 proposals.
I do not have the minuets of that meeting but as soon as I have them I'll inform you of how the votes went.

Regards;

[Adam]

The attitude of one of my local ADM delegates is he will do what he thinks is right regardless of what his association's committee votes for (and this would not be the first instance of ignoring the committee's decisions either). As far as I'm aware the membership has not been asked for their opinion on the matter.


Peter
Cambridge UK

Thats a shame. Our delegate canvassed the membership at the recent AGM. Although not formal votes, we were given the opportunity to do a series of "hands-up" on a variety of options and through this, the overall view of the membership was collated. Members were given the opportunity to speak on the topic, so that notes could be taken and our delegate could accurately forward the stance of the members. As it turns out, I think it was unanimous, but also representative, accurate and democratic.

Adam

[Chris]

The existing situation is not desirable – it opens the BBKA to accusations, which, whether or not founded in fact, could cause its integrity to be questioned. Although the position was probably arrived at with the best of intentions, I believe the implications may not have been considered fully.

There's a lot of sense written in this previous post. I suspect that is from someone who holds at least some sway in the BBKA.

I, for one, sincerely hope that our fine organization severs its links with the poison-making companies.

[Captain Chaos]

Roger,
As a matter of interest, how does someone who joined the BBKA directly (not via an association) enter the debate at the ADM and cast his vote?

[Roger Patterson]

Captain Chaos,

Only AAM's through their delegate can vote.

Regarding speaking I copy from the Standing Orders:-

"Speaking at the ADM.
Only Delegates, Officers and members of the Executive shall have the right to speak at the ADM. If any other person wishes to speak he or she should request permission from the Chairman, preferably before the meeting, and stating the Proposition or subject, and whether it is in lieu of a Delegate. It is important that each speaker should identify himself or herself both by name and affiliation."

Roger Patterson.

[Captain Chaos]

Thanks Roger but..... for the avoidance of doubt, even though I pay my annual subs to the BBKA it appears that there is no mechanism for an individual member to vote on any resolutions put to the "membership"?

Decisions are made following the ADM when delegates representing the affiliated associations have voted and so unless a member is also a member of an affiliated association, he/she is effectively disenfranchised.

Surely I am mistaken? Is the BBKA so undemocratic?

[Chris]

No, you are not mistaken.

However, I think in practice there aren't many 'private' members at all. Perhaps a few abroad.

I understand there have been discussions to give private members more influence, in terms of input at ADM's and the like.

[real cedar]

perhaps thats what they need is some more private members,they may hear whats going on in the real world then.

[real cedar]

Chris,i have a lot of respect for your comments,at least you have the manners to reply to any questions,which is more than i can say for those higher up,who seem to think they are above all,i think its called ignorance. of the worst kind.

[Roger Patterson]

Captain Chaos,

You are correct. This is in the constitution that has only recently been passed.

Roger Patterson.

[admin]

Hi all,

The BBKA Constitution is publicly available here:
http://www.britishbee.org.uk/constitution.php

Regards Steve

[brosville]

is there a "plain English" translation available somewhere?:rolleyes:

[dramsden]

Peter, remain a member, study the constitution of the CBKA, find out how to cause an exceptional general meeting, and force a vote. It is much easier and more effective to cause change from within an organisation than from without. It takes effort, but if the BBKA is going to be worth anything, it needs people to make an effort; the same applies to local associations.

[brosville]

Perhaps we're all going at this from the wrong angle - there are two different approaches which I'll put forward for consideration.
Firstly, good old-fashioned economy - we face a massive recession, and the prospect of tumbleweed blowing across the infertile prairies of East Anglia.......having done a few "back of the envelope" sums, I have come to the conclusion that the BBKA could be run on under a half of the fees presently demanded - rather than demand extra, I would suggest that wholesale economies should be made throughout. If done properly, and fully embracing internet technology, the service given could actually significantly improve.
Before anyone screams that not all beekeepers are on the net, that does not hold - all you need is one member per local association, OR one who can get to a library.........
Then we have "what price for a soul?" - traditionally, 20 pieces of silver, but in these inflationary days, I would suggest that the BBKA has sold itself to the agrochemical companies far too cheaply. It has given the companies a licence to print money, all for the price of a few curtains for the office and a few good dinners.........I don't know who was responsible, but it is FAR too low a figure - poor souls probably had the wool pulled over their eyes by the professional negotiators. £17k - pathetic! - Go for half a million per annum minimum!
May I humbly suggest that if they are going to play in the shark pool that they employ a suitable negotiator who actually knows the true value of what they are selling, and the cojones to wring it from the evil empire!;)
(Perhaps Jonathan Woss's agent):D

[ChrisBroad]

There is another angle....

The BBKA research funding campaign is all about pressuring government with the weight of public opinion to give it enough momentum to succeed.

Favourable public opinion relies to a large degree of the image of the BBKA as a reputable "green" organization.

The clean image of BBKA is very vulnerable due to pesticide endorsements. It doesn't matter that we are only endorsing the instructions which are designed to reduce bee losses. The only thing people will see is we take money from Bayer, the logo goes on the packet, sprayers don't read the instructions and bees die anyway. It just doesn't look good. It's a PR nightmare just waiting to happen. It's the trump card that DEFRA can play against us if ever the research campaign looks likely to succeed.

In my view it's extremely naive to risk our public image for a mere £1.50 per member. There is a fear that such a hike in subs would be strongly resisted by some beekeepers, but to be honest they tend to be the ones looking to get as much out of BBKA as possible, and not looking to put anything back in.

Chris

[walter 88]

I agree with Chris, but in fact the amount the BBKA get from Agrochem. is less than £1.50 a member and way short of the £100.000 Rowse honey is planing to put into bee reserch.
So if grass roots beekeepers were to lose the sale of one jar of honey because of the selling of our BBKA logo and good name by the executive, we would be losing more than they are gaining.

[Chris]

If Bayer want to do something positive for beekeeping, let them donate to bee research. Otherwise, get their filthy hands off our logo.

[Bcrazy]

Hi Members,

I have read and re-read the posts pertaining to BBKA Exc committee and Bayer Crop Sciences. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that our beekeeping association should have nothing to do with these companies, I have now become fed up with all the posts about this topic.
I feel there is nothing we can do until the outcome from the ADM in January.
Once a decision has been reached then will be the time for action if necessary.
I do believe that everything has been said about this situation has been said.

Regards;

[brosville]

I can concur with your "I'm fed up with it" emotions - however, should the decision be taken in January to get even further in bed with several chemical companies, what action is left to the rank and file? - Mass de-affiliations of local clubs?, refusal to pay the portion of local club fees that go to the BBKA?
Is it not all a bit late by then? :rolleyes:

[Roger Patterson]

Bcrazy,

The EC have all said we will not make comment on this issue, but to let the members decide. With my Moderators hat on I feel I must break cover.

I accept that many people have had enough of the issue, but there was an item in Dec BBKA News encouraging members to have their say on this forum, and I believe they should have. I believe they should also speak to their ADM Delegate, because it is them who will vote on their behalf.

Roger Patterson.

[brosville]

There is one very simple way to end this farrago - for those in charge to break cover, and issue a statement to announce that due to the moral aspects, and the high principles of the BBKA that they have decided to end all financial ties with all agrochemical companies forthwith, and apologise profusely to all the members who may have been discomfited by these associations........;)
Not hard, could be seen to be occupying the moral high ground, would probably get re-elected.......

[Chris]

I have now become fed up with all the posts about this topic.

Precisely. The issue has now become just too big and all consuming. Time to end our links with Bayer and their ilk. Time to get the BBKA focused back on what our organization should be about.

[ChrisBroad]

Brosville,
I'd very much like to see the same outcome that you do. But the only way out is via a policy decision at the ADM. The exec. can influence things as they see fit but they can't actually make the decision you are asking for because a previous ADM voted in favour of endorsements. Only an ADM can undo it all.
Chris

[walter 88]

Web-based membership register
Expected drawbacks
2 errors
"If new members are entered incorrectly as County Members they will not be insured."
A similar comment was made last year in a letter from Tim Lovat to List Secretaries saying that, the list was the last arbiter of who and who was not a member of BBKA.
I would say that when a local member pays his subs to a branch treasurer he is then a member of the branch, area association and a member of BBKA with the rights of membership including 3rd party insurance.
The membership lists are a clerical device, not a membership device, but the executive keep pushing the membership connection which undermines the democracy of the BBKA. This foolishness is a greater threat to the BBKA if not to local members, unlike the Agrochemical alliance which could have a great effect on local beekeepers.

[jimbeekeeper]

Good Evening.

Am I correct in reading about the ADM proposals, that I as a member of the British Beekeping Association will not be personally getting a voting slip, but my voice is heard through the local association?

Jim

[Chris]

Yes. An ADM Delegate is the man/woman with the job of representing their local association membership at the Annual Delegates Meeting. (The BBKA do not have a 'referendum' on anything).

There also exists a small number of 'private' BBKA members who join the BBKA direct and who do not join through a local association. For their money, this lot does not have any say in the running of the BBKA. They do not even have a say in what curtains get put in at BBKA HQ.

[jimbeekeeper]

Thanks Chris

I better get on to my local association because they have not been very (non existent) in coming forward with this information.

Jim

[Captain Chaos]

Thanks Chris

I better get on to my local association because they have not been very (non existent) in coming forward with this information.

Jim

A cynic may suggest that this is how the BBKA executive maintain control.
Disenfranchise individual members (who may be free thinkers and raise difficult questions) and then manipulate the representatives of local BKAs.

I suspect that few (if any) reps would have an instructions as to how to vote on any particular issue.
Also the constant banging on about an increase of £1 will undoubtedly cause reps to vote in favour of the execs proposals because few will have the cojones to go back and say that as a consequence of the vote the subs will have to go up.


Jim, you may to consider what (if anything) you get for your individual subscription to the BBKA and whether it is worth the money.

[adamsm]

I would just like to add.

In Warwickshire we have about 8 branches. My branch was asked to provide answers to each proposal. This was discussed and as many opinions sought as possible. These where all passed up to Warwickshire for a debate and agreement. Our representative on the BBKA is then given his instructions on how to vote etc.

A ballot paper for each member is a great idea but costly and timely to do. The local association method is currently our only way of voting. (Like the Euro/pound referendum we all voted on I guess). It probably needs changing but that is a separate thing.

I know our delegate and he will vote as Warwickshire have mandated. Unless he was given the scope to listen to the debate and vote on new information provided etc.

I am only a branch committee member and not an Exec member so this is just to tell you what happened in voting for my branch. Above is what I know so I think Warwickshire have given their members a fair chance to vote.

[Captain Chaos]

Martin,
Respect to the Warwickshire BKAs. that is how it should be done.

[Richard Bache]

I can't speak for all associations, but Somerset also votes on each proposal at the meeting of Council a week before the BBKA ADM. Similar to Warwickshire, our 12 divisions are all entitiled to send delegate(s) to the council meeting (and most do) to vote on these issues, having previously discussed them at divisional committee level.

The Ballott paper theory, although good in principle, would fall down where modifications to propositions are tabled at the ADM and then voted upon: you wouldn't be able to pre-print the ballott papers and I think possibly accomodating for 10,000 people being present (although I know it would be a small fraction of this) would be difficult. Sometimes our delegate is instructed to vote one way unless the 'feeling of the meeting' reveals a different stance (i.e. if we had totally mis-understood the implications of the porposition).