In recent years, the executive has painted the delegates as an unruly mob. In truth, they are there to represent the views of their association, but sadly, even associations don't agree, so this whole us and them business is something of a red herring.
It has been unedifying, by all accounts. There were some odd events around 2015 - the SDM that nobody actually wanted that was called for July, and at it the proposal from the Executive to change the ADM date to July - defeated. The summer SDM date showed how difficult it was for associations to send a delegate - slap bang in the middle of peak beekeeping, holiday season, etc. This was then followed by the withdrawal of payment of Delegate travelling expenses for ADM/SDM meetings - the subject of two propositions for next month's ADM seeking to re-instate this. It all reeked of efforts to discourage attendance at the ADM by making it difficult and expensive.
I know Admin gets twitchy when names are named, so let's just say that there are only four bad apples left in the Trustees now, and two of these will be gone by next month. This contrasts sharply with 2014, when 9 of the 13 trustees apparently favoured personal politics over documentary evidence or good management. There has been a steady shift in the balance of power as new Trustees have come along to replace them. Thankfully the constitution limits the length of time any trustee can serve; unfortunately, departing trustees sometimes move sideways into unelected posts and thus retain involvement long after their "best before" date has expired.
A "them and us" attitude
has been fostered by past BBKA Execs. My father's problems started at the 2014 ADM when, as a relatively new Trustee, he stood up and sided with the Delegates, IIRC noting that what was being presented as "the view of the Executive" was something he hadn't even been consulted upon, and certainly wouldn't have supported. At that point the efforts to silence or remove him began, leading to
the shameful Dispute Resolution Panel episode & the December 2014 SDM where the associations refused to see him suspended.
Each Trustee has a legal obligation to perform responsible management of the BBKA. My father, a Trustee, was refused in 2014 & 2015 - under the old regime - access to the accounts or to details of contracts with 3rd parties because he had started to ask uncomfortable questions regarding whether the money was being spent on the purposes it had been received for. Excuse me? One group of Trustees preventing other Trustees from seeing the books? Too many bad apples back then, see.
In another example, I understand that one of this year's new Trustees resigned after six weeks because he was refused access to the accounts. Presumably having seen what my father had gone through was a strong factor in deciding to resign rather than challenge this.
From what I could gather those opposing the £1 increase wanted to see more robust financial governance before more money was granted to BBKA.
That seems to have been done and things have greatly improved in that direction under Howard Pool's direction.
Yes, the accounts show that having made a consistent loss of tens of thousands under the last lot, this year it has been turned around to a surplus of tens of thousands. Reference my comments above re: balance of power shifting.
