While facing no confidence remits this Saturday from amongst the Foundation membership the NZAF Board has so far held back from releasing the public submissions it received relating to its recent controversial proposals, some of which will no doubt be the basis of spirited debate at its AGM this Saturday. However, GayNZ.com has secured permission from three and maybe, by tomorrow, four Foundation members to print their submissions to the board. Links to the full texts of the first two of the submissions we have been given access to by the authors are provided below, but in summary: Pulling no punches, immediate past chair of the NZAF, Michael Stevens, claims the current Board has brought the Foundation into such disrepute that it should resign en masse. He accuses the board of making misleading statements regarding its Treaty of Waitangi deliberations and suggests the it acted dishonestly and without integrity in those statements. Additionally, he questions the Board's public statement that its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi are a “legal requirement,” saying the Treaty has no legal force over the NZAF and suggests the board reveal the legal advice it received which led to this statement. Stevens is incredulous that the Board's could have seriously considered its subsequently-dropped proposal to reserve half its membership for Maori, characterising it as “an attempt to disenfranchise gay men, who are most at most risk through the HIV epidemic, and to privilege Maori at their expense.” He fears that, given the “virulently homophobic” rhetoric propounded by many Maori leaders, 50% Maori representation on the board would threaten the glbt community which founded and runs the NZAF, and which accesses its services the most. He says past policies to appoint board members on the basis of race or HIV status have not worked and suggests, perhaps mischievously, that “if any quota is required it would seem that it should be for the group most affected by the epidemic in this country – Pakeha gay men.” Stevens accuses the current board of acting without reasonable care, diligence and skill, and of being inept and heavy-handed in its exercise of its powers. He suggests the board's proposals have been rooted in “political agendas” and asks for as formal review of the Constitution and the level of support required to make changes to it. While making some of the same points as Stevens, NZAF staff member Peter Saxton, a longtime HIV and homosexuality researcher, repeatedly describes the Board's 50% Maori quota proposal as “homophobic” and a disenfranchisement of gay men. He states that there is no researched evidence to indicate Maori have unmet needs in relation to HIV that are disproportionate to other groups, and wonders whether whether “this proposal is a solution to a problem that does not exist. And he accuses the Board of failing to seek input from the Foundation's own research, analysis and information experts regarding either HIV epidemiology among Maori or the HIV risk profile among Maori. Saxton says the NZAF already demonstrates a highly successful biculturalism in its operations and claims the Board has exposed the organisation to unnecessary political and operational risk through its race-based quota proposal which, he says, the Board has already indicated to him had “nothing to do with the HIV epidemic.” He points out that, under skills-based appointment criteria, “the NZAF Board currently has four out of seven members who identify as Maori, achieved without any existing quota system.” He ponders how a perceived treaty-based partnership obligation resulted in a 50/50 Maori/other split. And he ponders how the board decided that recognising obligations to Maori resulted in a proposal to set aside up to four Board positions (ie. 50%) for Maori but its obligations to recognise people living with HIV resulted in only two positions for that group. In a particularly direct moment Saxton accuses the board of dishonesty in its public statements regarding its relations with NZAF staff members and says staff members' confidence in the board has been undermined. He then accuses the board of labeling opposition to its proposals as racist and of indulging in head-in-the-sand thinking instead of addressing issues and consulting. In summing up Saxton says the Board's lack of judgement has created a “severe threat” to the organisation and has, among many other faults, been obsessed with perceived conspiracies against it. He calls for the board to be publicly accountable for its actions. Tomorrow evening GayNZ.com will publish summaries of two more submissions to the board which have so far not seen the light of day and which we believe reflect informed community sentiment about the Board's actions this year. GayNZ.com will provide full news reporting and informed comment immediately after the AIDS Foundation AGM this Saturday evening at which much of the membership looks set to go head to head with the Board. Jay Bennie - 15th November 2005