Auckland PIA meeting Tuesday 9th August

[kieran]

POST 2 of 4

The restructuring was overseen by an independent business advisor, who developed a business plan demonstrating its feasibility.

Interesting to see the new treasurer owns the company that produced the "independent" feasibility study?

Yes, we got told last Tuesday night that there was really no conflict as the new treasurer had nothing to do with the feasibility study... But I fail to see how this study was independent?
I have also since been told that David Whitburn in fact helped prepare this feasibility study – If that is the case then again where is the independence?

In respect of these matters I am appalled at the way the members were treated last Tuesday night with almost no disclosure and accusations by 'board' members that the general members would be holding back APIA if they didn't vote for this change.

We will put together a summary of the plan for members benefit.

This should never have been an afterthought?
A summary should have been presented at the SGM for members to consider before the vote was called for, not after the vote has been made.

An attendee of the meeting also asked that we move on to the vote because we were showing disrespect to our guest speaker.

Again this is surely no way to treat members. This meeting should not have been tried to be squeezed in between a guest speaker as it gave inadequate time for open debate to discuss this critical issue in detail.

Hence the rushed vote and Ron's need to 'interupt' proceedings. I still think this matter is 'unfinished' business due to the number of unhappy members who have contacted me since the meeting. It also appears that the meeting may not have adhered to the constitutional guidelines for holding a Special General Meeting...

[kieran]

POST 3 OF 4

Two of the people who spoke against the proposal could assume that they are competitors of APIA and would probably like to see exactly how we plan to operate.

Some people who may or may not have a vested interest would have liked more information and do not think it was well handled by the committee.

Andrew,
I trust you are not referring to me asuming my companies are a competitor?

My businesses have been a corporate sponsor of APIA since it's inception in 1995 and I'm not in the habit of sponsoring competitors! Please let me know if my businesses are now considered competitors of APIA and if so then my own Board of Directors will need to review my long term financial support of APIA.

I don't believe my businesses compete with any of APIAs activities (and I wouldn't be supporting the NZPIF as a guest speaker at this years conference if I was competing with the PIAssociations?).

I sat on the APIA committee for 7 years and don't believe there I was ever privvy to any "commercially sensitive" information that I could use to my commercial advantage.

It is public knowledge that my group of companies competes against several businesses owned and operated by members of the current APIA committee/board. It could be argued that those committee members now have a commercial advantage themselves (over the actual members who own competing businesses with theirs) as they know whats in APIAs business plan?

Anyway exactly who are the competitors that the committee think may use this info to their commercial advantage?

My concerns are about the apparent lack of transparency and disclosure to APIAs members which looks set to get even worse now that APIA has a commercial agenda which seems to be shrouded in secrecy to 'protect' APIA.

[kieran]

The new definition of transparency?

POST 4 OF 4

In respect of my question about how will members know if this works you state:

members will know if the restructure has worked if the extra costs of employing a CEO are covered by the activities they generate, through the level of discounts for members they acquire and the extra membership services they produce

Unless of course the 'board' decides in it's wisdom that any of those details are 'commercially sensitive' then I guess the 'board' have the perfect platform to not disclose such details.



This gives an interesting interpretation to APIA's definition of transparency, which now seems to have been re-defined as follows...



APIA's board will only be transparent if they decide it's not 'commercially sensitive' to do so.



This defies the definition of transparent!

Definition of transparent: letting light pass without distortion: that can be seen through.



If APIA's new 'board' are really keen to be more transparent then you will welcome the formal request I have already made for a copy of the newly amended constitution and access to view the committees minute book for all of the committee meetings held this year.



I look forward to receipt of the same.

[Dean@Massiveaction]

Hi all,
Just came across this thread.
May I suggest that this is not the best forum for this discussion. It brings our industry into disrepute and the people concerned need to get into a room together and sort it out. Given the number of new and potentially new investors who frequent this site, showing them that some of the most senior people in the industry can't get on is not helpful. Keep it in the boardroom!!

[kieran]

Thanks Dean but we had a 'public forum' last tuesday night to express concerns.

The time we were allocated was limited and inadequate so not all concerns were able to be freely discussed at that meeting and the APIA 'board' made it quite clear there would not be an opportunity to discuss these issues in the near future.

Hence this forum appears to be one of the few places an open public debate can be held.

For the 'board' to simply say "let us know your concerns" is inadequate to discuss these issues which involve the 'boards' decisions. Some of us have already raised our concerns but as has been evidenced, some communications with the 'board' have not even been responded to.

I still seek others opinions as it seems the only way to have an open communication line with some of APIAs members.

[kieran]

I have just had contact from new committee member Garth Melville who will meet with me next Friday so I can raise the concerns members have and get Garth to officially present them to the APIA board.

Please let me know if there are any points you want me to raise at this meeting (in addition to the points I and other members have raised on this thread).

You may email me direct if you wish at [email protected]

[RonHoyFong]

[QUOTE BY ANDREW KING]
Ron I disagree with you that anyone who disagreed with the proposed changes were knocked down Tit-for-Tat as you put it. We asked for comment and we respectfully listened to it. An attendee of the meeting also asked that we move on to the vote because we were showing disrespect to our guest speaker. Half way through reading the motion, you stood up and made a point of order only to accuse the committee of gambling. The other points you raised had already been dealt with at the AGM or previously at the SGM so you were adding nothing new to the discussion and appeared to be disrupting the meeting. You confirmed this when you apologized to me after the meeting had finished, saying that you had not attended the AGM and arrived late to the SGM. I accepted your private apology but your public post here seems to contradict it.
************************************************** *****************

Hi Andrew,

Sorry to say but many others who were at the meeting have, already confirmed your Tit for Tat approach, YES you listened but chose to give more time to those you wanted others to hear and interjected or cut short to those you didn’t want to hear with Tit for Tat replies.

Similarly, I was still standing on the floor speaking with the microphone when you interjected “Tit for Tat”, and chose to hear some-one else’s, which by the way was out of order, not even motion or seconded and I was seeking “a point of order” to be allowed to finish what I was saying. I am sorry to say that you as president personally broke meeting protocol to again pick and choose who was or wasn’t allowed to speak.

It wasn’t any wonder why many members were afraid to speak against the proposal because of this intimidating approach of the committee and in particular by the secretary in his Tit For Tat replies. (He should have been busy recording minutes instead.)

As APIA president, members have elected you and the committee, to represent them, and that is exactly where your duty should focused. There were discussions of risk, and self-destruction of the organization and what would happen in the event of winding down. The generic replies of “Commercial Sensitivity” “Trust me..” “We are the committee and should know what we are doing…”. after several members asked about transparency or accountability, are unacceptable replies in a public non-profiting organization, The committee and yourself were asked several times to no avail by several members what business plan or accountability (if any) of how $115,000-00 was being expended, so the mention of gambling the Association $115,000-00 funds is an appropriate word in the absence of informative answers.

The phrase “Trust Me” is an incomplete answer in anyone’s books.

It is grateful that you and the committee put in large amounts of time voluntarily and I am sure all the members of the APIA are appreciative of that, however we all know when seeking the role of committee that we are there voluntarily anyway.

My apology to you is meeting protocol when one is absent or late, and is out of respect to you as president, but still is not an excuse for you in that role to break meeting etiquette on how meetings should be fairly conducted. It is the duty of every president, treasurer and secretary, to report transparency, accountability and openness, at each and every meeting and from my observation that is what members on the night wanted to know, in particular to $115000.00 to be able to make an informed decision to vote on the matter.

The facts that this thread on P/T has happen are evident of other member’s dissatisfaction of the events of that evening.

Please note that the above as an observation of the President of the APIA meeting etiquette of Tuesday nights meeting, and nothing to do with Andrew King the person.

Regards
Ron Hoy Fong QSM + JP

[kieran]

Just to give you an update on this thread.

I met with new APIA Board member Garth Melville on Friday 26th August which was nearly 3 weeks ago.

Garth listened to my concerns and assured me the board are interested in hearing such concerns but rather than him present them to the board he advised me the board had offered to arrange a meeting for concerns to be aired (together with any other concerned members).
If you wish to be at this 'proposed' meeting please email me and once the APIA board confirm a suitable date and time I will advise you.

I understand the board is co-ordinating a suitable time to hold such a meeting but I have not yet had any further correspondence from APIA since my meeting with Garth.
I will continue to keep you updated via this forum.

[Marc]

Hello Kieran,

Yes please keep us posted.

Cheers

Marc

[kieran]

At last nights APIA meeting we were informed of a Feedback Meeting to discuss matters.

I would encourage every APIA member to attend to clarify the issues some members would like to see addressed.

I don't believe all members have been formerly invited or even advised that this meeting is to take place but those who attended last nights meeting were told about this proposed Feedback meeting and a flyer was left out for those interested which states:

Members are invited to a meeting with the APIA Board as an opportunity to have your say on the direction APIA is taking, the way the Board operates and any other aspect of APIA that you would like to raise. This could include:

• Restructuring of APIA Management
• The member services APIA provides
• Management activities
• Lobbying activities
• Communication with members
• The NZPIF

If you believe that there are changes required with the way APIA is run or if you think we are doing a good job, we would like to see you at this meeting. APIA exists for its members and this is an opportunity for you to have your say without the time constraints of the regular meeting.

When: Wednesday 21st September
Time : 7-30 to 9-00 pm
Where: The Athol Syms Community Hall, 11 Griffen Ave, Epsom (Griffen Ave is off Ranfurly Rd which is off Market Rd, Coming from the South take the Market Rd offramp)
Registration: RSVP to [email protected], or call Karen on 379-9692

I am pleased we now have an opportunity to discuss matters and I will be there to present some suggestions.
All APIA members are welcome.

[Marc]

Hello Kieran,

If we can help spread the word then please ask - we can send out emails via Firemail.co.nz which is our email marketing business which can bulk email 10,000's of emails at a time.

Cheers

Marc

[kieran]

Thanks Marc for the offer,

The meeting is for APIA members only so I don't belive a bulk email would be appropriate.

[kieran]

I don't believe all members have been formerly invited or even advised that this meeting is to take place but those who attended last nights meeting were told about this proposed Feedback meeting and a flyer was left out for those interested

Today I see an email has been sent to members (I presume it went to all members) advising the details of the meeting so that's good news.

See you there.

[Oopsick]

Kieran, I received that e-mail too and I will be coming too

See you