• 1. Opening Address – Don McKenzie, Chairman RNZFB
• Sandra Budd – Introducing the new Executive Team
• 2. Open Forum – Comments on Concept 7
• 3. Break-out groups: Who should be able to access RNZFB services?
• 4. Addition to Programme
• 5. Break-out groups: The RNZFB’s core business
• 6. Panel Discussion
• 7. Closing Speeches
• 8. Close

Opening

 The meeting opened with a Karakia led by Pura Parata.

1. Opening Address – Don McKenzie, Chairman RNZFB

Kia Ora and welcome, I am Don McKenzie, chair of the RNZFB. Thank you Pura for the karakia. I want to welcome those who are here for the first time. This is a really valuable kind of exercise that we have entered into and we invite you to participate as freely as you are able, because your opinion really counts.

To our new Executive Directors, a very special and warm welcome to you.  They will be introduced by Sandra a little later. Paulette Cotter, Sara Peary, Alison Wheatley, they are the new people on the block, although Gary Henry is also with us on a temporary capacity, but Neil Jarvis will be known to you, as will Gerard Rahman.

The purpose of the day really is to go back and think about what we are truly on about.

So let’s go back to basics, let's go back to where we came in to this conversation of possibilities.  In March, Gerard Rahman told us that the Foundation's costs are rising faster than our income. That the Foundation will be in the "red" if we don't act and that cash reserves will be gone by 2020. That there will be nothing left for future generations.  We have time to act but it must be now.  If we carry on the way we are, the Foundation will be in the red in the short order.

The challenge is to find the fix.  As Einstein said, "we can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them".

The signals are that the Foundation must change the way things are done without sacrificing our essential reason for being. That is to unleash the full human potential of people with little or no sight. To replace victimhood and welfareism with "can do" attitudes and equal rights Not only in the world at large but also within the blind community and to give blind and partially sighted people the tools and skills to fashion their own lives.

But change is hard and doesn't come naturally. In sailing terms, when we come to making change, the pessimist complains about the wind. It is someone else's fault and someone else must fix it.  On the other hand, the optimist expects the wind to change. But hope is not a strategy.  The realist adjusts the sails and determines their own destiny. 

Mahatma Gandhi put it this way, “we, each of us, must be the change we wish to see in the world”.

In June it was this latter direction of self determination that participants took in telling stories that captured new ideas and perspectives about the Foundation and its role. Stories that connected blind and partially sighted people with the various worlds in which we live.  There was a push for a flexible Foundation that provided a smorgasbord of vision related services from which members could choose, depending upon where they were at on life's journey.  You favoured a selection of services that saw the Foundation as a Core Service Provider, a core service provider that makes its greatest investment at the severe end of the vision loss spectrum and that enables people to get on with life. Providing services that fill in the gaps so that blind and partially sighted people might enjoy the same quality of life as their neighbours.

You have a copy of the analysis group report and today we want your comments on this review.  First though, I’d like to thank the Analysis Team for their thoughtful study, their commentary and recommendations.  The team led by Ruth Bijl and made up of Chrissie Cowan, Tony Duncan, Adrienne Henderson, Neil Jarvis, Clive Lansink, Alan Radford, Gerard Rahman, Dean Rea and Richard Wood have done us proud in collating and making sense of our conversations that we previously had. You will recognise that there are some names there that are new to the Foundation and these are external people who have come to help us bring a fresh and rigorous look at what we are all about. And I thank the external people in particular.

So let's look at what the Analysis group recommends. Essentially, they suggest that the future Foundation is about the provision of fully funded, intensive residential habilitation for people with 6/60 or less. It’s about the development of a Core Service Provider concept and access to services on a fee-paying basis for people with more sight.

The Analysis Group said that the Foundation should:

 1.  Keep focused on its core business.  That means:

­       providing intensive habilitation;

­       developing independent living skills for people with major sight loss;

­       ensuring information is available in accessible formats; and,

­       teaching fundamental skills to meet basic common daily living needs.

2. Operate as a lean organisation.
3. Develop a multi-skilled workforce for reasons of efficiency.
4. Decide who should be eligible for services and on what basis.
5. The Foundation should cost any changes before making decisions.
6. Work on transition plans, pilot changes and evaluate outcomes before going ahead.

The study group also put up for your consideration a seventh scenario that appears to centralise Government funded core blindness services and devolves to other agencies any other non-blindness-related need.  But they also opened up the door to people whose vision could not be corrected by lenses, who could benefit from specific services. This was done subject to these people paying a user charge. Adaptive Technology may be an area to explore within that context.

 The Analysis Group was undecided about campaigning for a more accommodating society. About influencing policy and pressing for inclusive design in the wider world.  What are your thoughts about including as the Foundations core business, social change, pushing the political machine to get a fairer deal for people with little or no sight?  Your clear direction on influencing society would help enormously.

The messages I got from the previous conversations so far go like this. Some of these are to do with our culture rather than key strategies which is why the Analysis Group rightly left such detail out of their commentary:

•  Run the business: be commercial, charge for services where appropriate, manage property for best returns, be tough on overheads.

• Prioritise services to those with greatest vision-related need and consider user charges to those beyond the registration barrier.  Stick with access and coping skill services that are core to adapting to blindness. 
• Match services with the individual's journey.  Kick out "one size fits all".  Offer people the tools to take charge of their own lives and to develop their full potential so that they become contributors to the wider world.
• Work with others to limit the effects of vision loss.
• Recognise and combat internal and external biases, parochialism and old style blind-sighted enmities.  Our greatest gift to each other is unity reached through mature conversations.
• Build a vibrant, "can do", flexible culture.
• Work to collaboration and partnership and alliances with other agencies.
• Value peer contact and well trained flexible staff - currently we are not capturing institutional wisdom.  Workforce planning, training and deployment is critical for paid and non-paid staff. I pay tribute publicly to the skills and the way that our staff acquire and deploy every day. And also to the volunteers who make our lives so much more effective.
• Adapt to the changing demographics of vision loss and the changing nature of the NZ population which is aging, becoming more ethnically and economically diverse and prone to chronic debility.  Health and social service economics will impact on dealing with this debility. We have some advocacy to do in that area.
• Nurture all stakeholders.
• Review the rules of governance to enhance accountability, Board-Member dialogue, commercial viability and connectedness.
• Grow young leaders in the blind community; develop internal capacity.  Succession planning is important.
• Take care of the vulnerable groups in our midst: children, the elderly and those with additional disabilities whose life challenges are compounded by blindness. That may seem to conflict a little with the seventh scenario that you will read in the Analysis Group report, but I don’t think that it is necessarily the case because it is a matter of timing and a matter of degree.

Once the outcomes from these 2020 conversations have been settled, it will be time to re-state the Foundation's vision and mission in more clear terms.

Today will be the last time we come together under the heading of "conversation on possibilities" but these conversations, the ideas and the spirit in which discussions have been carried out have been so useful that I would like to suggest that the Foundation continues to run semi-annual conversational assemblies that extends the dialogue between strategists and members.  Engaging in mature and informed conversation about end strategies will take us to where we need to be.  Make no mistake, the key objective is, better services, better use of resources.

Critics and sceptics of the current process, and there are a few, must be heard.  Everyone's contribution is valued.  The Foundation expects to be challenged, informed and sometimes led by alternate views.  We are committed to being an effective, learning organisation.  I know that the Board and Chief Executive are committed to a member-client focus; to a culture that facilitates and enables; to growing professional talent and future leaders.

The future of blindness-related services is ultimately in our hands.  There is strength in unity, power in solidarity, progress in presenting a common face to the world on the factors that will enable us to "change what it means to be blind and to take our rightful place in the world.  No one will do it for us; we must take charge of our own destiny.

As I said in June, at the end of this 2020 project those of us who have accepted responsibility for making decisions on the basis of your input will have to convert ideas into practical strategies.  Today's feedback on the analysis group report will help to firm up on future directions.  It is likely to take some time to come up with final directions as more modelling, testing and transition planning needs to be done.  We also must be sure that the voices of members for whom this forum doesn't work have been heard.  But be sure that you, the members, will be kept posted.  The Board wants this consultation process to be successful and for strategies to emerge that will be effective for today's blind, and yet enable future generations to benefit as well.

If we are to cut the cloth according to the pattern we must find common ground through mature and dignified conversations, collaborate in living partnerships, be clear about our vision and our mission and recruit the best people to our cause.

Sandra Budd – Introducing the new Executive Team

Thank you Don. What an exciting stage we’ve got to today.

The Analysis Group, which has met and produced their report, which we are going to have a conversation about today, between this workshop and the last one in June, did a tremendous job. I’m sure you will all agree. I spent some time last night re-reading it and I became incredibly excited by what I read and by the conversations that I know we will enjoy today. I was particularly interested in reading their seventh concept that Don has talked about. I also appreciated the evidence-based approach they recommend going forward where we pilot and market test approaches before ‘burning any bridges’.

I was also interested to note that they stated that we need ‘a mechanism to keep the Foundation focused on the most important aspects of our business.  It’s very easy to get pulled this way and that – to want to do more and more, especially when it’s all for such a good cause. But of course the cost of doing more is often doing it all less well. Ultimately, that is in no one’s best interest, not the members or clients (as you know I call them), not the staff, and not the other stakeholders. That is one of the issues that drove me to look at the structure of the Foundation. I wanted a team that was focused on working as one team and wasn’t pulled in different directions but worked as a united force.

Last time we held a RNZFB 2020 Workshop I told you about the management re-structure, which I announced on 27 May.  Today it is my great pleasure to be able to introduce the full Executive Leadership team to you; and please remember, that includes me as well (though you’ve met me a lot before).

As you know, my vision for the restructure has been to build a leadership team that will work as one to deliver the Foundation’s future direction and sustainability. I see an organisation where our clients are at the centre of everything we do. Everything we do must add value to our clients. Around the clients are our staff.  Beyond that are our management team who support the work with them in making everything that our staff do easier for our clients. We all want a high performing organisation.  Crucial to this is a strong leadership team working together. This new structure and we the new team will deliver that.

I trust you will all take the opportunity to meet the new team today during the course of the day.  At this stage I would like to ask the new team to step up formally and I will introduce you. As I say their names, they will get a microphone and they can say just a few words about themselves. You will hear their voices and will know who you are talking to next time. And I see Gerard Rahman in his usual fashion is right at the back of the room so we are going to have to bring him forward in a minute.

I will start with our very own, Neil Jarvis (who is being very good and sitting at the front of the room).  Neil, as you know, is now Executive Director of Access, Innovation and Enterprise. Neil if you would like to step forward and say a little about yourself.

Neil Jarvis

I have been at the Foundation for four years. Came here in 2005 when I came to New Zealand with my wife, Lisette Wesseling.  Some of you will know her more than you know me. We are members of the Foundation. Lisette since a school girl in the 80’s and I joined on day one when I got here. A bit of background about myself, I went to special school at the age of four years. Escaped that when I was around 12. I was one of the guinea pigs of mainstream education in that part of the UK, and so in my secondary school I was a mainstream child. After that I went to study at the University of Sussex and then spent the next 20 years or so working in a variety of roles in the voluntary and public sector in the UK. Those roles ranged from being involved in disability organisations. I formed a number of them and helped steering groups establish themselves and grow into Boards and supported them in working around management of change. In the late 80’s I got quite heavily into adaptive technology (which is what most of you know me from).

 I ran my own business for a while and worked for an adaptive technology company. When I came to New Zealand as part the Foundation, I was part of the Adaptive Technology team, also its manager for three years. Coming to the directorate of Access, Innovation and Enterprise. I wanted to come to this position because I really believe in the philosophy that this directorate is all about. I am very committed to access to information for blind and partially sighted people. It’s been an absolute passion and commitment towards people who are blind and partially sighted all of my life. It’s something we can do more of and better and I want to be part of that. I also think that, as an organisation, that this is the time where we are witnessing lots of technological change, not just for blind people but right through society. We should be part of that! We should be driving some of it and taking part in things like GPS solutions. We should be supporting organisations that want to work around audio descriptions. We should be doing all sorts of things that enable blind people to get the kind of access that some of them have had in other parts of the world for years.

I am very committed to these very innovative aspects of the role, and I am also committed to enterprise. I believe we have a lot of intellectual property. I believe we have a lot of expertise (as I like to call it). I think that expertise is often taken for granted by the outside world. “Oh it’s the Foundation, they will do it for free”. We shouldn’t. Nobody else does. Banks don’t. Even the government doesn’t and other disability organisations don’t either. We’ve got skills, we’ve got strengths, we have things that nobody else does. We should be able to market those and get something back for them which goes into the coffers so that the Foundation can grow its services. I am a big believer in that. So that’s why I wanted to go for the job and fortunately for me Sandra appointed me and thank you for that. I am really looking forward to working with the team and the whole of the Foundation staff and, most importantly, the members and clients of this organisation and I look forward to seeing you all over the next hours, days, months and years. Thank you.

Sandra Budd

And now we will move to Gerard Rahman who was our former Chief Finance Officer and is now our Executive Director of Strategy, Improvement and Performance.

Gerard Rahman

Hello everyone, it’s great to be here and great to see you all again. I was here on the 1^st of March and I guess a lot of this is in part due to the work of Ruth and Sandra and myself in terms of setting out the stage for this. I am very grateful to both Ruth and Sandra.

A bit about me. I am married and I’ve got a daughter who is three years old and this morning I had some wonderful time with her and that’s great! What do I think about this job? Well, I used to be in the accounting profession for about 20 years, and I have been in the Foundation now for about 18 months. And do you know, I don’t remember life before the Foundation? I love this job and it is a fantastic organisation. I love the people I work with and as Sandra said, the beauty of this is that we act as one team and it is a team that includes Sandra as well. I would like to hand over to Paulette.

Paulette Cotter

Good morning everyone, I’m Paulette Cotter and I’m leading the portfolio of People and Culture which is very exciting because at the end of the day, it is all about our people. I’m on day six of my new role and I can’t remember life before the Foundation either. I am absolutely loving it and feel like I have been here for a long time and it’s very exciting. Let me tell you a bit about my background. My background is Human Resources and Change Management and Customer Services. I have worked in both New Zealand and the UK. When I was in the UK, I met a wonderful man. He was an Englishman and he came to NZ and fell in love with our beautiful country. So that was really lucky, and my mum was very pleased about that because she was worried I was going to end up living in the UK for the rest of my life.

So we moved back to NZ and since we have been back I have been working at a company called Whoosh Wireless, which is a broadband internet company and there I led People and Culture and Customer Services. So I am on day six and I am really excited to be here and I look forward to meeting you all today and working with you in the future. Thank you.

Sandra Budd

I see the mic’ has been handed to Gary Henry. Gary is with us as Acting Director of Direct Client Contact Services, and I’ll ask Gary to tell you a little bit about himself.

Gary Henry

Good morning. I have been with the Foundation for five weeks. In that time I feel as though I have done about 15 weeks work. Direct Client Contact Services is obviously a very busy portfolio and as the Foundation moves towards its desired ‘customer focus’ by every staff member,  Direct Client Contact Services will become the most important part of the Foundation and everybody else will be supporting the work that is done there. I am making that speech for my colleagues so that they understand that they are all employed to support the work of the Direct Client Contact Services.

My background. I have worked in the health services in Australia and New Zealand for nearly all of my working life. I’ve spent 25 years as a Chief Executive and General Manager of hospitals and health services, the last of which was National Women’s Hospital. I worked with Sandra for six years. For the last eight years I have been a management consultant. I work for myself. My wife and I run our own business. My wife is Pauline. We have four sons, three daughters and we have six grandchildren who all call me Gaz.

Sandra Budd

The mic has been handed to the woman who has perhaps the biggest challenge out of us all at the moment because she has to raise all that extra money for us in Marketing and Fundraising and it’s Alison Wheatley.

Alison Wheatley

Wow! Thank you for that introduction Sandra – no pressure! Like Paulette, I am on day six. Good morning everyone. It is absolutely fantastic to be here. Alison Wheatley, and as Sandra has eluded to, I am the Marketing and Fundraising person and I am here to sustain and grow some wonderful fundraising opportunities for us all. My role and my background mean that I have over 20 years of Marketing experience and that’s been across a wide array of companies. From financial services, to retail and a lot of product marketing.

And it’s my love for product services that has led me to re-hone my passion for brands when I was working both here and in the UK. I really love that whole connection of taking a brand or a product and really getting into the hearts and heads of consumers. So whether it’s been at Nestles or Lion Nathan. I’ve spent the last six years at Cadbury Confectionery and I am very pleased to say I helped grow that brand in New Zealand to be the most loved and trusted brand in the market place for the last three consecutive years.

So I really like getting out there and connecting with consumers. Along that journey, I have been involved in a whole heap of products and in between times, my husband and I have worked on two of our own new products and I am absolutely in love with two beautiful girls, Hazel and Georgia, who are five and eight. They keep me extremely busy. So in between time I want to generate some fantastic funds and get involved in lots of school activities (hockey and netball) and trying to grow some Silver Ferns and future Black Sticks. I’m really pleased to be here and it’s just been a pleasure meeting a few of you this morning and I’m looking forward to a really productive day and, as Don has said in his opening remarks, I am looking forward to being on a journey for a really vibrant, sustainable future. Thanks for your time.

Sandra Budd

I have to tell you, the other project that Alison and her husband are working on is renovating a house. I collected Alison this morning and she directed me to the ‘Munster’ house, and it does look a little bit that way. I said to her I hope the kids don’t jump up and down too much because the foundations may collapse underneath!

 Last but definitely not least is Sara Peary who is our Executive Director of Stakeholder Relations.

Sara Peary

Thank you, I am last – oh dear! But you know what is so exciting, I am so blessed to be here because really, my job is all about you guys and I get to meet so many of you today on my first week and that is so exciting.

I am so pleased to be here and looking after Stakeholder Relations and really looking forward to getting to talk to a number of you today and definitely a number of you in the future going forward. Like Paulette, I think I remember, I did have a history before these six days in the Foundation. It has been a whirl wind week.

I come to the Foundation with an interesting background. You can probably hear by my voice I am not originally from this beautiful green land. I am from California originally and I of course fell in love with a handsome Samoan/Kiwi who brought me over here and I have been here for about the last five years.

My background is in corporate and government affairs. I have spent the last ten years working primarily around the political marketing, government relations. Sustainability as well in a number of industries from law to sustainability in the residential environment. Did a brief stint working in Parliament as the political advisor around some really exciting legislation and how it works in with business strategy. So I am passionate about the opportunities that come out of businesses and non profit organisations working together with government for those opportunities and I’m excited to really dig into what opportunities are here for the Foundation and for our members in the future. So thank you so much for having me. I will look forward to meeting you. Please come and say hello.

Sandra Budd

Thanks Sara. Well I hope you will agree that’s a team! That’s a team that is going to take us forward. I am really enjoying working with them. I can’t believe it’s only been six days. It feels like we have been together forever, and I know that they are going to stretch me to help the Board achieve its goals. We are here for you the members to take us forward into the future because we will be a team that will work with you to deliver our future sustainability and our future direction. Thank you for giving us the time, please take the time to meet with us all today, and I’ll hand over to Briar to take us through the rest of the day. Thank you.

2. Open Forum – Comments on Concept 7

The open session was invited to comment on Concept 7 outlined by the Analysis Group in their report. The following points were made:

• I would like to see some more discussion around counselling as I’m not sure whether the value of counselling is appreciated.
• Mary Hopewell and June Ombler are strong advocates for residential rehabilitation services but there needs to be some mechanism in place where there is flexibility in regards to that. You may have a person who is blind caring for a child or an older person. A lot of disabled persons are caregivers these days. So you need flexibility, availability and choice. Also not always thinking about what you have here (Homai) but thinking outside the square and how you could provide the residential service more into the community and not in somewhere that people already know.
• There is concern that volunteers were not mentioned at all in terms of the work that has come out of the Analysis Group. That is an immense concern. We have as an organisation an unpaid workforce of many thousands of people who, if you reflect back on the feedback of the VAVA report, provide millions of dollars worth of input into this organisation every year. To me it’s a huge oversight that it hasn’t been factored in. When we look at the situation that the organisation finds itself in terms of the financial situation we are heading into, the fact that we are not considering volunteers is a huge oversight.

 

What we are doing at the moment is that we are looking out into the future and we need to be looking at ways in which the volunteer can support the work of this organisation, not in the way that has happening now, but the potential for the volunteer out into the future. We know that volunteers work to assist organisations to extend the reach of its work and to meet its organisational goals and my feeling is that we need to be taking that into consideration in all of the discussions that we have. I think one of the really pertinent questions for the organisation at this time is, if by some miracle we had all the money that we could possibly want, would we still want to involve volunteers? And for me there is a fervent hope that we would say yes to that. Volunteers bring a lot more than unpaid labour into an organisation, they bring a connection with the wider community, they have an ongoing link to members/clients that organisationally we would not be able to manage.

We have a myriad of ways in which volunteers can support the organisation in a whole range of new ways, we are seeing a changing face in terms of volunteering and a number of people are coming to us with a huge range of skills to share with the organisation. We would be foolish to miss out on that. My hope for today in the discussions is that we consider the potential of volunteering. We have a huge volunteering base at the moment, we still retain a huge level of attraction for volunteers as a worthwhile and viable organisation to be involved with. Let’s not miss out on that, we need to enhance it and make the most of it and involve those volunteers, many of whom are in the room today, to extend out the role that we provide for members and to meet those goals.

•   We are an organisation who 50 percent are over 80 and a vast number over 70. We have 1200 new people coming in each year, but you talk about taking people to a residential place. I can’t quite see 80 year olds moving from the South Island to a residential place to be helped. What percentage of people are you talking about when you talk about this residential help?

• I remember when we had a residential programme – that programme closed because there were very few people that went to it, the programmes lasted from 8-12 weeks and only about 8-12 people attended at one time and there was a huge amount of resources tied up in running the programme. I hope we can learn from why we closed that programme. We devolved it back into local areas so that people could learn in their own environment. We need to have some form of residential programme for those who need it, but also some home-based services for those who cannot leave because they have children or other people to look after. An ideal would be for the residential programme to travel around the country and be based in different locations for set periods of time so distance people would travel and time away from home would be reduced.

• Employment services – it’s really important to know that the Foundation did have an employment service and we closed it down a number of years ago, the membership challenged the organisation to re-open the service because other providers out there like Workbridge, Work & Income didn’t meet the needs of blind people. So if we are going to look at services (be it employment or anything else) being devolved back into the community we must ensure that they are going to provide a quality service and not a service that disadvantages blind people.

• Good to have a balance of service provision that is tailored to specific needs i.e. adaptive tech, employment. Residential is good for some people when they are starting out to learn skills, but not for everybody. I also agree with the comment about volunteers. We should retain volunteers in the future. We should also be keeping counselling and employment services within the Foundation.

• Agree whole heartedly about the residential comment. In relation to volunteering. Volunteers are excellent and provide a wonderful service to people, major concern is that I would not like to see volunteers being exploited and being used to do work that paid staff members should be doing. That is absolutely inappropriate and if being used as a cost saving mechanism, it is not one I approve of.

• Reiterate former comments on the residential rehab – for some people it is a good thing but for a lot of people it doesn’t actually meet their needs. In regards to the reference to recreation services being out in the community as part of Concept 7, Dr Gretchen Good (Massey University) undertook some research two to three years ago and one of the biggest issues that people had in the blind sector is isolation. Part of that isolation is because of transport, mobility issues, but also participation in recreational activities. I think we need to remember that it is all well and good to tell people how to get to and from the shop, how to make a cup of tea, but what do they do between cups of tea?
• I have the privilege of working with some wonderful volunteers and making some wonderful connections with people in the community and linking in with their passion. With the expected isolation in our community I wonder, if adult recreation services are transitioned away, how building capability in alternative providers would actually work?

• There is one thing missing in this entire story and that is the stress blindness causes essential relationships. We don’t become blind or visually impaired in isolation. We become isolated because the relationships around us aren’t always taken into account. I would like to see greater stress put on shoring up, not only the foundation on which we stand, but the relationships around us. The familial things, the things that enrich society. That’s where our volunteers start, they start in the home, they start with tolerant spouses and children, and I see no real accommodation of their particular interests in an individual’s blindness.

• Regarding chairman Don’s comment about not being sure whether the Foundation should provide advocacy and lobbying around environment design. Maybe the point should be stressed and remembered that with the Stakeholders Relations directorate and with all the organised consumer organisations around the Foundation this might be something the Foundation may want to look at because there are a lot of consumer organisations out there. So that the Foundation don’t have to feel they have to pick up on everything because when you are a paid service provider and you do a lot of lobbying and advocacy to the government it could stand in your way.

• The other comment is about a more focus on members compared with client centred. If we say client centred we forget that there are many long term members out there. At the moment we are volunteers, but many skilled members out there who could actually be paid service deliverers. Especially in areas where there might not always be residential rehab. Why are members isolated? Maybe the fellow contact of people around them? We have members who are parents themselves. People who are blind, who have counselling skills. Huge technology skills out there in the rural areas. So instead of feeling that through a residential rehab we will lose contact with services it is maybe harnessing more member services and recognising members as skilled deliverers in the areas. That way we won’t lose rehabilitation because we will be linking in with people with the same needs as us.

• When I read the report there were two words that were missing. “Social justice.” And I want to ask a rhetorical question of the group of experts? Who are the experts in terms of educational habilitation? Parent and whanua and social research scientists? Who in the group are those experts? If I can give an example of deafblind and complex needs, loss of vision has an overarching developmental effect on the development of those people, those children, those students. One quick example of a deafblind student – his parents started to enrol him at Homai (BLENNZ). The Ministry of Education would not pay his taxi to that facility. They then went to the local primary school. The attitude was not welcoming. They went to the special school in the local community. They had no training in deafblindness. There is very little or no training in deafblindness or complex needs in any educational facility in NZ. It is only training by default. Thank you.

 

3. Break-out groups: Who should be able to access RNZFB services?

Groups were asked to address questions regarding access to services. Each of the groups agreed that anyone with vision loss that can not be corrected by lenses should be able to access RNZFB services however this was subject to a number of caveats. Most agreed that a charge for services should apply for those with more than 6/60 vision.

The following points were made:

• Our group agreed that people whose vision cannot be corrected with glasses should be able to access RNZFB services.

• If the services were extended to this group, the Foundation would be meeting the needs of people and it would stop this group of people falling though the gaps. We would be able to provide early intervention for people with progressive vision loss. We could also help someone in employment who is struggling with technology as they may be at risk of loosing their job.

• In widening the criteria we would have to put some restrictions on making sure that the Foundation didn’t overspend money in 2020.

• The Foundation would have to do things like being an information broker, referring people onto other agencies that could help them as well.

• People who had more than 6/24 vision may have to pay for services but ensuring people didn’t fall through the gaps by having some hardship trust fund available where people could apply if they could not pay for services.

• Ensuring that those people who required rehabilitation services had assessments first, however if it was something small i.e. a question, then it could be done over the phone. This would help affordability and accessibility.

• We’d also need good publicity. We would need to market the Foundation.

• If we widened the criteria it would avoid loopholes, enabling all those who could benefit to access the service. Bringing together that wider group of people would give the Foundation increased ability for lobbying. There would be a wider group of people with a common interest in terms of their vision loss. There would be benefits in terms of that lobbying which would not only be in terms of raising awareness, but also in terms of greater weight in terms of lobbying with government around potential funding.

• We would also be able to focus on core services with the others being provided on a sort of tiered ability. One of the things that would enable that to happen would be the requirement of payment for some services. We talked about needing to have a fund for people on restricted incomes. We recognise that there would be a large number of people who weren’t ‘poverty stricken’ but would have a low income.

• We thought of early intervention as being cost cutting in the long run.

• Having an open book policy as far as members go was preferred but not all of those members would be requiring services.

• It matches our needs based service delivery with the eligibility criteria. Another advantage of the needs based access means that it does create some new business opportunities for us with groups that come and don’t actually receive service.

• People need all the help they can get. Better independence, prevention, payment for services and equipment, widening the criteria would increase the profile of the Foundation. If access were narrower staff would use time better as they had smaller client groups. We all agreed on the first criteria which was widening it.

• In 2020 there will be hubs and ways of finding information. Many people in the community will be self sufficient in finding out what is available before they knock on someone’s door. If the Foundation provides service delivery on this wide criterion of access, what implications will that have for membership and governance? Also if more funding is needed to support this model, this funding should not have the charity model approach, but according to skills and abilities of blind and vision impaired people, and if the Foundation can’t get a contract for needs assessment (as this is still vital) this would need a link with funding and grading of services i.e. not everyone would get services for free. There might be a criterion where you don’t have to pay or make other government departments more responsible for funding of services. If you can afford to pay for services but you are not a high priority you shouldn’t get first services on that basis – making sure that the people who deserve the services would still be first on the list.

• We support the first option where a wider range of people can have access to the services but with the provisos that have been outlined. Also through the needs assessment, establishing a grade of funding that will allow you access to the services provided.

• 6/60 should be eligible for free service – those with more sight could pay. If struggling to be able to pay – could go through community funding groups. Those who have sight but are losing their vision but want to have some skills so that when the time comes when it becomes worse they will be able to cope better.

• Because of greater numbers of members we would be able to have better support and better clout. When going to government for funding we would have more people, better awareness in the community, a greater community involvement.

• Supported the notion put forward in Story 7 that 6/60 would be the entry criteria for membership of the organisation (for free service) but we would then above that – charge for services, so that people could still access the organisation but would be paying for them and this would add a greater funding base to the organisation. The notion of inclusively was important. 6/60 being the entry criteria for free, above that we would charge for services.

• Support the ideas effectively that anyone could access the Foundation’s services, provided if they were not members, they would pay a true commercial rate which would have to include a profit margin in the sense that anybody else providing service commercially would only do it for a profit. The Foundation does have expertise which should have a commercial value. Didn’t specifically discuss around the criteria in regards to those who would pay and those who would get a free service.

• Access to services did not mean membership. Access to service is predominantly on a fee paying basis. We didn’t have a discussion about what membership was.

• If status quo remains, if you keep on doing what you’ve always done, you will always get what you’ve always got. We need to make some changes.

• The other thing about access to services was, yes, only if the market is real. Need to do some research to make sure that this is a commercial viability. If we are seen as too commercial, too hungry, we might turn off current fundraising relationships that we have. Got to get the balance right.

 

4. Addition to Programme

Kevin Beaver, PVI Chairman, asked to make an announcement on the success of PVI’s petition to Parliament.

Kevin Beaver

A little while ago PVI organised a petition requesting additional RTV’s funds for the teaching of our children. This week the Select Committee published their findings which I would like to share with you. The conclusion – two points of interest, during the Select Committee process, the committee identified an issue with Homai School, the maintenance and the funding of that school as a whole which was an unexpected benefit. In their findings the Select Committee said, “The only purpose built centre for vision impaired children is at the BLENNZ Homai Campus in Auckland. This facility provides a residential facility only for students who live outside of Auckland Region. The petition has said that while Homai and its teachers are valued by parents, the centre is very run down and needs modernising. The Ministry advised us that the redevelopment of Homai Campus School is a priority and that planning and construction will begin in 2009. Further, in conclusion, we acknowledge the Ministry state its support for the Homai Campus School and the work that is done there, and appreciate the government’s intention to accord urgent attention to the priority and rebuilding of the building. We recommend to the government that 30 more FTE specialist RTV’s be appointed within two or three years.”

So we are feeling quite smart about that, and it is in writing from a multi-party committee!

5. Break-out groups: The RNZFB’s core business

The second set of break-out groups explored the RNZFB’s core business. They did this by firstly generating a list of services. They then classified services by ‘importance to members’ and ‘ease of providing’. They were then asked who should provide each service and if it was possible that someone other than the RNZFB might be best placed to provide a service.

The groups’ responses to what they thought the RNZFB’s core business is are listed below.

 1st Group:

• Guide Dogs

• Braille

• Employment

• O&M

• ADL

• Case Advocacy

• Needs Assessment Coordination

 

2^nd Group:

• Support for independence

• Core – recreation

• ADL (Adult)
• Guide Dogs together with O&M

• Adaptive Technology (prep for work and study)

• Awareness (only an element)

• Accessible information (not necessarily distribution)

• Adaptive Communications

• Needs Assessment but through the Core Service Provider

• Braille

• Possibly counselling

 

3^rd Group:

• O&M (Adult/children)

• ADL

• Library

• Adaptive Technology

• Access to Information and transcription

• CFSW

• Guide Dogs

• Vocational (with reservation)

• Awareness

• Innovation/research

• Counselling, but not social work

 

4^th Group:

• Access technology

• Independent living skills (O&M, ADL, Guide Dog services)

• Not counselling but influence the counsellors’ professional body

• Peer support/ social support

• Low Vision services – entry into other services

• Environmental design/modification

• Not Children’s Services but Quality Assurance could have some role

• Government Relations

• Social connectedness

• Advocacy and prevention and attitudes of the public

• In 10 years time legislation might have had an effect i.e. access to information etc and so we might just have a monitoring role

• Foundation being the starter of lots of things – creating a concept and passing it on, but maintaining a quality control service

 

5^th Group:

• Recreation, music, sport, beer

• Low vision services (including magnification)

• Cultural support (Maori, Pacific, Asian)

• Residential

• Education

• Employment

• Adaptive Technology

• ADL

• Peer support

• Social work/Counselling – support for families

• Communications skills Braille, tuition (including IT support)

• Accessible formats

• Adaptive technology

• Information on Foundation services

• Talking books

• Referral service

• Needs assessment

 

6^th Group:

• Guide Dogs, O&M and other forms of mobility

• Independent living

• Adaptive technology

• Information and advice

• Braille, teaching technology, communication

• Library services (parts only)

• Standards/special formats

• Referral

• Strategic relationships

 

7^th Group:

• ADL

• Adaptive Communication

• O&M (not Guide Dogs)

• Information and advice (including prevention services)

• Children's Services in tandem with others i.e. BLENNZ

• Adaptive Technology

• Blindness Education in tandem with consumer organisations

• Needs Assessment

• Employment

• Advocacy and lobbying for funds for treatment and prevention in tandem with consumer organisations and other service providers

• Cultural based services (with others)

The groups then addressed the issue of which services they thought could be provided by other organisations. The following services could be provided by others:

1^st Group:

• Children’s Services/youth transition

• Prevention

• Library

• Adaptive technology and computers

• Accessible information

• Recreation

• Social networking/peer support

• Counselling

• Support for students at university

 

2^nd Group:

• Cultural awareness - appropriate awareness

• Children’s services

• Equipment supply

• Adaptive Technology training

• Counselling - quality

• Accessible information production/distribution

• Employment agency

• Prevention/awareness

• Library distribution

 

3^rd Group:

• O&M for children

• Vocational services

• Prevention

• Advocacy

 

4^th Group:

• Individualised funding for children and adults will affect how the Foundation is going to operate – led back to the Foundation acting as a quality control and seed for new ideas.

 

5^th Group:

• Recreation

• Cultural support

• Residential care

• Education services

• Employment services

• Accessible formats

• Talking books

 

6^th Group:

• Recreation

• Counselling

• Education training

• Children’s services

• Employment services

• Information for family whanau

• Facilitating peer support

• Library (could be national library).

 

7^th Group:

• Recreation

• Deafblind

• Complex Needs

• Counselling

• Library and environmental aspects – could be standard setter/consultancy.

 

In summary, the groups considered that a range of services could be provided by other agencies. These are listed under the headings of higher, moderate and lower agreement where higher agreement means it was listed by four or more groups; moderate agreement means it was listed by two or three groups and lower means it was listed by one group. It should be noted that the groups came up with their own lists of services so not every group necessarily considered each item. The services can be considered those that are most ‘top of mind’.

Higher level of agreement regarding services that could be provided by other agencies:

­       Library, especially distribution

­       Children's Services - at least some aspects of

­       Counselling

­       Employment Services

­       Recreation.

Moderate level of agreement regarding services that could be provided by other agencies:

­       Accessible formats/information

­       Awareness and prevention

­       Adaptive Technology Training

­       Cultural support

­       Peer support.

Lower level of agreement regarding services that could be provided by other agencies:

­       Advocacy

­       Deafblind

­       Complex needs

­       Equipment

­       Information for family/whanau

­       Residential care

­       Support for students at University.

Finally, the groups were asked for any other important information they had discussed. The following points were made:

• In 10 years time, the Foundation will have done such a good job that it will have removed the need for a service and the world will be different because of proactive steps in the interim.

• Pressure on skilled permanent staff – more pressure on skilled staff, sooner of later they will leave. We have to address that.

• Core services – look at the costs before getting rid of it (counselling and needs assessment).

• Think fast, not last. Innovation.

• We don’t know where legislation is going to take us.

• Look at the effectiveness of PVI petition. It is not rocket science – used effectively you can have a huge impact.

• Children’s services are really important.

• Services that blind people need depend on what services they have received in the past and what the individual needs are. If we are looking at 6/60 there is a range from newborn babies to 90 year olds – the services are very different for those individual clients, and for us to try and look at what fits everyone’s needs we will have no services at all. We have to try and fit services to the needs of most of the people, most of the time.

• Residential care is vital for some of our members.

• Some have accessed a range of services that have made a vast difference to members’ lives, for others who haven’t, they don’t see the benefits. It is quite difficult to say that counselling services can be done elsewhere if you have never really benefited from a service.

• Importance of a good referral service and strategic relationships – with someone making referrals who has local knowledge of different agencies is vital.

• Don’t know where technology is going to take us in the future. What might be important as a required learning skill at the moment maybe completely different in 10 years time because the technology available to individuals is far advanced e.g. transport – it may be that blind people are driving cars in the future because of GPS. The training that we might give might be completely different in the future.

• Needs assessments – other agencies doing it who have access to funds – do we work with them in tandem which then provides members access to funds in the community that they otherwise wouldn’t get i.e. home help, communication support for deafblind or whatever. Those sorts of things that are unknowns that might provide the core services for the future.

 

6. Panel Discussion

The panellists were: Dean Rea, Dianne Sharp, Don McKenzie, Sandra Budd, Clive Lansink, Kevin Beaver, Mike Frith and Jane Wells. Questions were invited from the floor. The following questions, responses and statements were made.

•  One of the experiences we had with the petition, particularly in front of the Select Committee was that they kept asking us if we were representing the blindness sector as a whole? We said we were all united with the petition. It seemed important to the committee to hear that we were working as a blindness sector and not as a unit on its own. That’s something we have to continually keep portraying. The Foundation is going to have to be a leader in that unity.

•  Picking up on the point about representing the whole blindness community. Something I have heard a few times along the way in this process has been about whether the Foundation should be working with people with more complex needs. People find it easy to dismiss people with multiple disabilities as not actually being blind. It’s the least of their worries. The question goes, imagine yourself as someone with a severe intellectual disability, you don’t speak or understand speech very well, the other people around you have all sorts of communications, signs, or pictures to communicate. You can’t see them. You perhaps have a physical disability as well, and people give you food on a spoon but you can’t see it coming. You don’t have the cognitive skills to mentally map your surrounding and people push you around in your wheel chair. You don’t actually know where you are. In those circumstances, in what way is blindness the least of your worries? Whether or not this is the right place to provide those services, should we not be assuming that those people in some sense are part of the wider blindness community?

• Look at the model that is going on at BLENNZ at the moment which tells us that blindness confounds and compounds other issues. I understand that the argument about devolving to other agencies those things which are not blindness related. You can see what sort of a dilemma the Foundation is actually placed in. One way of tackling it would simply to be black and white about it and say we are a blindness organisation, cut everything else – but that uses people as pawns and you just sit there and wait until someone else (including the state) picks it up. We have seen that happen in the mid 70’s with people with intellectual disabilities and it’s not a thing I feel morally comfortable with. I wouldn’t be party to that kind of thing. That said, we have to be as an organisation, business like and rigorous about what we do. I take a biological view of these things. Essentially human beings are visual animals, the whole organisation of our society is around vision. If you take that away, it compounds lots of other issues. It is not just one disability added to another; we are talking about a multiplicative effect, a compounding and confounding effect. It troubles me to think that we are going to have to make some decisions around these kinds of issues, but I think we are going to have to do this enormously carefully.

• We have to be smarter and better about how we provide services for people with additional disabilities. We cannot afford to discriminate on disability. If a person presents and qualifies for membership, regardless of additional disabilities, they qualify for membership and therefore qualify for services from the RNZFB. Let’s not get into discriminating by disability; it will be a loose/loose situation.

• Need to be more up-to-date with government funding, funding steams, how government will be working in the future. Part of that is to shape our government funds in the future direction. Be the innovators. Policies are coming out of government that we can actually shape, that is part of the future direction hopefully.
• Difficulty in using mobility skills – we should be addressing issues of multiple disabilities – working with other organisations for people with complex needs (working in partnership).

• The Foundation needs to inspire people with a vision of what people can become. There has been a lot said about needs, but not much about inspiring people to overcome their blindness and to live independently in the community. I think the Foundation has a role in teaching people that blindness in itself is a barrier that can be easily overcome. And once you overcome it, almost at any age, as long as you have the will to overcome it, there is a lot that you can do independently.  There is a risk that by being so focused on need that we are building a kind of ‘wrap around’ set of supports that people are learning to rely on rather than being encouraged and inspired. If you look at the Foundation that way and then say how do people with multiple disabilities fit into that, I think they fit into that in the sense in that whatever service we provide should be tailored to meet all blind people who wish to improve their ability to live independently and to take control of their circumstances. In the case of people with multiple disabilities, I echo Carolyn’s comments – there needs to be productive partnerships with other agencies. In the past we used to run those wrap around services, we used to have the community living programme and before that we used to have other programmes for people with certain multiple disabilities, we have moved away from that to the extent that these people are still blind but they can and should access other services in the community as well so that the Foundation doesn’t become the one stop shop simply because they are blind. I think we accentuate independence, we accentuate this vision of living independently and we try to inspire everybody to achieve that goal.

•  Widening accessibility of services is a positive thing as well, but also for people who are concerned that it will swell the numbers, I think we should be looking at people who might be de-registered, people who will be treated and looking at that positive side which I know will be out there (which are already there) and I know we should be looking at ways in which people, when they are registered with the Foundation aren’t looking at that as a long term, forever. That the Foundation is helping them meet their needs for now, keeping them independent and helping them move out into the community, but also some way in which people regain their vision or become ineligible for registration. That should be looked at and re-visited along the way.

•  I heard the word client. Heard the word member. We are governing members at the moment, what are we going to be called down the track – are we going to be called clients? I thought clients are used by lawyers, doctors, etc.?

•  I hope I (Sandra Budd) have been clear. I have introduced the word client into our discussions. For me, members are always members, and are governing members (that’s what our constitution states). The reason that I have used the term client in the recent restructuring is really an internal mechanism for us to start thinking about the service that we provide to our members as a client customer service. It’s very much an internal discussion and I have often said it to members, and you will now be aware that I call you clients because of our service. What we call our members in the future will be what we determine as a group and for the future, but you will always be governing members.

•  I hope we don’t repeat the past with just with wearing new clothes. I invite us to know the difference between making opinions and informed decisions based on the literature. The example – the word independent – latest research talks about functional diversity – we are all inter-dependant. One of the core business for the future will be, how creative can we be and not perpetuate the past. This is the first time that there has been a degree in cultural shift that is listening and considering another informed-ness.

• I have talked to a few people and quite a few of the blind community don’t know what’s going on at the Foundation, they don’t know that it’s going to change – I was wondering if they will be informed and when.

• The process from this point on is ensuring that all have the opportunity to comment, to consider and give their views on the way forward. Not all members can attend a session like this. This has been an important conversation. Following this process we will be sending out a document to all members and staff, checking some issues, getting their views and using that as a formal consultation mechanism. Once we have that information, there will be a second opportunity when a draft strategic plan goes out next year to comment again.

• When you talk about members that don’t know about this, is this an age group that you are talking about?

•  No-one my age (young member) knows about it. I haven’t talked to adults.

• Thanks because add 10 years to your age and you will be the adults running or being involved in the Foundation so I guess it’s important we remember that.

• Whilst we are concerned with positioning the Foundation in 2020, has the executive management team or the Board given consideration to care and support and service model delivery for persons with low vision? Should the visual acuity change? There are 84 – 86 thousand persons out there in New Zealand, far greater than the Foundation’s core membership and I believe that in parallel we need to be addressing how we respond to and reassure the low vision population.

• The answer is yes as far as the Board has had significant dialogue in the way the Foundation might interact with other services in order to develop synergies around that whole area. It is a growing area of concern around the world. There is a significant role the Foundation can play in the area, but we have to look at the issue of our sustainability and whereabouts we draw the lines and how we position ourselves in the future to do these things that need to be done.

• Recently the Association of Optometrists put out a questionnaire to New Zealand Optometrists to see if they would be interested in providing low vision services. The vast majority said they were but they felt that they didn’t know what the Foundation offered. They didn’t know about the latest computer software or those sorts of things. I met recently with a committee of the Foundation suggesting that maybe a quarterly newsletter to Optometrists to put them in the picture would be useful (about new techniques, new aids to daily living). An optometrist is helping an individual make the best use of the vision that they have. So they are looking at glasses, magnifying glasses. I think it is a real resource that the Foundation can access in the future.

• In the last four months for the first time in 20 odd years in Auckland that we had a group of Ophthalmologists visit the Foundation. It was a major step forward and we will ensure it continues since we have started that relationship.

• I’m interested in the comment around the young and that you’re our future. With the current way that we are communicating 2020 what would work for the young as we are starting to communicate further? Have you any suggestions as to the best way to do it?

• I’m involved with youth group at the RNZFB. You could probably get it sent out to the Foundations around the place and they could inform us of what is going on. Email or the old fashion way of mailing. If sending email please make sure it is accessible.

• As kids grow up in the education system its kind of by chance that they learn about the wider blind community and how to engage with the wider blind community and when they are ready, they need to be advised about the various email lists that already exist because that is how a lot of people have heard about 2020. TIS, feedback lines that are all endemic in the active adult population. I suspect we don’t have good methods of showing our kids, as they are growing up and making that transition, how to find their way around those established information sources. But they are there.

• How successful the information sharing process is when young people transition from school to adulthood re Foundation information systems such as email groups and consumer organisations, because if you pick up the telephone now, both the organisation of ABC and the Foundation will talk about today’s session and the preparation. If you are on the Visual Impaired email group, I think the word robust is putting it mildly. If we talk about recent discussions about the Foundation, I think I need to have a chardonnay and use a stronger word. Maybe this is a reminder to all of us to keep on thinking that we’ve got a system sorted, so it could be chat rooms, texting or whatever, but please, as governing members, even if you just sign up for services, get in touch with others. It is out there. We probably just have to glue it a bit better together.

• BLENNZ is a partner organisation and our networks can be used as well. We were so very grateful for what PVI have done. We at BLENNZ had this wonderful result through the budget in May of getting 15 new RTV positions and that was the result of advocacy that had gone on for many years and in the end we swung it because all of the sector got in behind us and we had the Foundation, PVI, Ngati Kapo all sitting round the table in the Ministers office arguing about RTV positions and really I’d just like to say that BLENNZ is there as your partner organisation to support you now. We totally appreciate what was done for us.

 

7. Closing Speeches

Don McKenzie

Thanks Briar and thank you to all of those who have made the day possible. Earlier in the day there was mention of those volunteers that have made it all happen. Let’s give them a round of applause yet again. It’s been another interesting and stimulating day. I am not sure if we have solved the problems. Clearly issues are yet to be resolved but you can see the extent of the feeling of the challenges that face the team. I think we have got a little bit closer to the heart of what the Foundation might look like, and we certainly got somewhat closer to the group for whom the Foundation should exist.

However, we need to keep working at these issues and as we said this morning, it will be through mature discussion that we will get there. I recognise that there are two jobs that have gone to Access, Innovation and Enterprise and the first is to start a beer service (we expect some profits of course) and the second a driving school!

It’s pretty clear from what Gerard has said we have to move forward quickly and make some decisions around these dilemmas that we have conjured today, but we have to take care with that and with all of this in mind there will be quite a rigorous process yet to go through so that we get somewhere near where we need to be. The workshops formed a set of questions and those questions along with the various analyses from the Analysis Group will form a set of questions that will go out to the membership, and I think is to be around next month and we expect some responses back after Christmas. Once those responses are back there will be a set of papers written which will be option and direction papers for the Board. The Board is very clear that it wants some figures and some evidence upon which to work so that the decisions that are made are as objective as possible. There are a few stages yet to go through and there is a bit more consultation in which the entire membership can participate.

It’s always so stimulating to be part of these things because there are ideas and things which have been sculling around and they are re-articulated and said in different ways and I think that’s extraordinarily healthy and gives us all something to think about and to work on. I want you to feel that you can keep contributing to this process, and I am sure that Ruth and her team will be open to anything that you might want to email in so keep the thoughts rolling.

Sandra, I think there are a few people that you want to thank as well?

Sandra Budd

Thank you Don, as always, I am two steps behind Don. It’s a little bit like the Royal family isn’t it? We never travel together because if we are shot down in a plane there might be all sorts of opportunities for them Don.

Yes there are lots of people that we do want to thank today for having worked really hard on this workshop and leading up to it. First I would like to acknowledge the Analysis Group who prepared that report that stimulated our discussion today. It was an incredible report and when I first read it, initially I was out in 2020 looking out into the future but actually what the report did was to bring me back. It brought me back to not only today, but reminded me about what we have to start doing now, and while we are looking to the future there is so much of this information that we are seeing that will impact on us. This year, next year, 2012, 2015 and, who knows? By 2015 we may be having these discussions again. Don did say we are going to meet each six months to have these conversations of possibilities.

So for me it’s been really important to have this discussion and what it does is it gives us (the new Executive team) some real challenges. It also gives us some pathways and guidelines for the future and I find that incredibly exciting. I said I started off being excited, and I continue to be. Let us record our thanks to the Analysis Group, Gerard Rahman, (who started all this) Neil Jarvis, Dean Rea, Adrienne Henderson, Ruth Bijl, Alan Radford, Richard Wood and Tony Duncan, Chrissie Cowan and Clive Lansink. I was told it was the combined thinking of this group that created a genuinely robust process. That your different perspectives, knowledge and insights led to a greater wisdom than any one person could give to us. Thank you.

Sandra and Don distributed tokens of thanks to:

Ivan Borota

Derrick Cox

Dianne Armstrong

Alison Marshall

Adrienne Henderson

Chris Inglis

Gary Veenstra

Michael Ocean

Richard West

Lucy Mackintosh

Kevin Prince

I would like also to thank our panel (I don’t see yours and my name here Don):

Kevin Beaver

Jane Wells

Chrissie Cowan

Dean Rea

Dianne Sharpe

Clive Lansink

Mike Frith

The last person we would like to thank is our wonderful facilitator Briar Harland.

Don McKenzie

My thanks to you all as well. I would like to thank Ross and Mihiata for this little Maori proverb which I think sums up the day.

 “Seek and  treasure what you value most dearly. If you bow your head, let it be before a lofty mountain. Let nothing but the insurmountable turn you away from your purpose. Seek excellence.”

Go home well. Thank you.

8. Close

The meeting closed with a Karakia led by Chrissie Cowan.