• 1. Opening Addresses
• 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
• 8. Close

1. Opening Addresses

The Chairman gave the opening address and welcomed everyone including the new Executive Directors. He invited everyone’s participation and opinions stating that the purpose of the day was to think about what the RNZFB is about. He reminded the meeting that the Foundation’s costs are rising faster than its income and that that there will be nothing left for future generations if we do not change.

He reminded the meeting of the process to date and thanked the Analysis Group for their report. He summarised the reports recommendations and noted points he had taken from the previous meetings including:

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.  Offer people the tools to take charge of their own lives and to develop their full potential.
• 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.
• Collaborate and partner with other agencies.
• Value peer contact and well trained flexible staff.
• Adapt to the changing demographics.
• 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. 
• Take care of the vulnerable groups in our midst.

He stated that once the outcomes from these 2020 conversations have been settled the Foundation's vision and mission would be re-stated.

He closed his address noting that the future of blindness-related services is in our hands. We must take charge of our own destiny. He reminded the meeting that the Board accepted the responsibility for making decisions and would do so on the basis of member’s input. 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.

Sandra Budd spoke and introduced the new Executive Team inviting everyone to meet the new team during the day.  She introduced:

• ­       Neil Jarvis, Executive Director of Access, Innovation and Enterprise.
• ­       Gerard Rahman, Executive Director of Strategy, Improvement and Performance.
• ­       Paulette Cotter, Executive Director of People and Culture.
• ­       Gary Henry, Acting Executive Director of Direct Client Contact Services.
• ­       Alison Wheatley, Executive Director of Marketing and Fundraising.
• ­       Sara Peary, Executive Director of Stakeholder Relations.

 The Executives spoke briefly about their roles and introduced themselves. 

2. Open Forum – Comments on Concept 7

The open session was invited to comment on Concept 7 which was introduced in the Analysis Report. The following points were made.

• More discussion around counselling is required.
• Think about how residential services could be delivered in the community.
• Consider volunteers.
• Residential services are not appropriate for a largely elder membership.
• People need to learn in their own environment. We do need some form of residential programme for those who need it, but also some home-based services. An ideal would be for the residential programme to travel around the country and be based in different locations.

• 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.

• Good to have a balance of service provision that is tailored to specific needs. Residential is good for some people but not for everybody.

• We should keep counselling and employment services.

• Don’t want to see volunteers being used to do work that paid staff members should be doing.

• Isolation is caused by transport and mobility issues but access to recreation can make a difference.

• If adult recreation services are transitioned away, how would building capability in alternative providers work?

• Put greater stress on shoring up the relationships around us.

• The Foundation doesn’t have to do everything. Consumer Organisations can do lobbying and advocacy to the government.

• Members have skills and can deliver services in the community.

• Where is “social justice” considered? There is very little or no training in deafblindness or complex needs in any educational facility in NZ.

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

Groups were asked to address the issue of 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. Points in favour of extending the criteria included:

• Meeting the needs of people.

•  Stopping people falling though the gaps.

• Providing early intervention for people with progressive vision loss.

• Keeping people in employment.

• Improving lobbying power.

• Increasing awareness of vision loss and of the Foundation.

•  Helping people cope better when they lose more vision.

However, the Foundation needs to consider:

• Implications for governance, specifically access to service does not mean membership. Access to service is predominantly on a fee paying basis.

• Making sure that the people who most need the services get them first, not those who can pay.
•  Doing research to make sure a real market exists.

• Avoiding appearing too commercial as this could impact on fundraising relationships.

• Ensuring people don’t fall through the gaps if a fee for service were introduced by having some hardship trust fund available where people could apply if they could not pay for services.

It was agreed that restrictions would need to be put in place. In addition to introducing payment for services, these may include:

• Being an information broker and referring people onto other agencies.

• Making information widely available so people can access information themselves.

• 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.

• Marketing the Foundation.

• Making other government departments more responsible for funding of services.

4. Addition to Programme

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

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 one and if it was possible that someone other than the RNZFB might be best placed to provide the services.

The most commonly mentioned services which groups thought the RNZFB should provide included:

       Adaptive Technology

­       Independent Living Skills (inclusive of ADL, O&M and GDS)

­       Needs Assessment.

The groups then addressed the issue of which services they thought could be provided by other organisations.A number of services that could be provided by other agencies were identified. 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.

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 points were discussed:

•  We must act as a united force to be effective. The Foundation needs to  be a leader in that unity.

• People with complex needs including vision loss are part of the wider blindness community. Vision loss compounds other disabilities.

• Need to be more up-to-date with government funding and approaches and actively shape policy.

• We need to work in partnership with other organisations.

• The Foundation needs to inspire people with a vision of what people can become. Blindness is a barrier that can be easily overcome and there is a lot that you can do independently.  The Foundation should not be the one stop shop simply because people with complex needs are blind. We need to accentuate independence, the vision of living independently and try to inspire everybody to achieve that goal.

• Members are governing members. This is different from being a client.

• Know the difference between making opinions and informed decisions based on the literature. We are all inter-dependant.

• A cultural shift has occurred. We are listening and considering another informed-ness.

• Not everyone has heard about RNZFB 2020 and it is important that everyone has an opportunity to participate.

• A full consultation process will invite every member to have their say.

• Address how we can respond to and reassure the low vision population. The Association of Optometrists and Ophthalmologists can play a role in this with the RNZFB in part through information exchange. BLENNZ is also a partner organisation.

7. Closing

Don McKenzie stated that issues are yet to be resolved but that the meeting got a little bit closer to the heart of what the Foundation might look like, and to the group for whom the Foundation should exist. He reiterated the process from here which includes:

-          asking members key questions in a full consultation round later this year

-          a Board paper setting out the options including figures.

He invited people to keep sending feedback to Ruth Bijl.  Don McKenzie and Sandra Budd thanked those who contributed to the success of the workshop.

8. Close

The meeting closed with a Karakia led by Chrissie Cowan.