In the wake of the embattled NZ AIDS Foundation Board's decision today to remain on deck and merely shuffle the chairs - following the HIV positive and Maori quota proposals fisaco and revelations about the now-resigned chair's dodgy presentation to an international health conference - GayNZ.com's Chris Banks addressed the issues with new chair Simon Robb moments after the decision was announced. GAYNZ: You're now chair of the AIDS Foundation board. Is this a permanent appointment? SR: Yes that's right. GAYNZ: How was the decision reached? SR: By consensus at the board meeting today. GAYNZ: Did [outgoing chair] Clive Aspin offer to resign? SR: We just worked through the issues, some of the issues were complicated, we just white boarded them, stepped through them, and we came to a consensus that it was in the best interests of the organisation, for Clive and the board as a whole, for Clive to step aside, and Clive was in agreement with that. It was basically a consensus decision. Clive was relaxed about that. GAYNZ: What were some of those issues? SR: The main issue is that it's important we fight HIV and AIDS, and we continue the good work there that the organisation is committed to. Clive and the board realised that some of the issues associated with the proposal and the consultation framework were becoming personal towards Clive, and we felt that could be seen as distracting from the good work that the Foundation does on HIV and AIDS, and wanted to make sure that that perception was put to bed. GAYNZ: He is still on the board though. His reputation in the areas of health promotion, research, and racial issues has come under serious question in the last few weeks, so how is this tenable? SR: I was very impressed with Clive's ability to analyse the issues today, I have confidence in Clive. He brings a lot to the board, and after careful deliberation and working through, on a consensus model as a board as a whole, we thought it was very tenable, because he has twenty years experience on HIV/AIDS, he's got a PhD in research, he's a very good researcher and writer, and we believe his networks and intellect are such that it's in the best interests of the Foundation that he's kept on the board. THAT RESEARCH PAPER: TIMING AND CONTENT GAYNZ: You don't think his recent actions, and statements made in his recent paper overseas have had any effect on that reputation? SR: I think it's fair to say that Clive would admit that his timing of putting that paper out wasn't good, and lacked judgement on his behalf, and we've talked to Clive about that. But in terms of his paper and his academic freedom, that's a different issue. He's employed at the University, and he does robust work there. But we accept as a board that it was unhelpful that that paper went out at a time when we were going out to consult on the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi. GAYNZ: So you discussed the timing of the paper, rather than the content of it? SR: We discussed both. GAYNZ: Is Clive going to be talking to the media? SR: Not at this stage, no. GAYNZ: When we spoke last week, you did say there would be a bit of a “please explain” to Clive for the paper, which contained statements that implied opposition to the Maori quota proposals were racist, and that the Foundation was not a safe place for takatapui. How were these statements clarified by Clive? SR: It was clarified on the basis that because we're part of the board of the NZAF, we're committed to the work of the Foundation, so then as a board collectively we have confidence in the good work it does on HIV and AIDS, and trying to get ahead of the epidemic. Clive also is well known for his intellectual rigour, and likely to push boundaries in terms of academic debate, and we saw it in that light. FIREWALL BETWEEN BOARD AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GAYNZ: Why was board secretary [and Foundation executive director] Rachael LeMesurier not at the meeting? SR: That was because the board wanted to have a free and frank discussion together, and it was out of respect for Rachael. These were strict governance issues, and board relationship issues, and it's only appropriate, we felt, that Rachael wasn't privy to those, so that Rachael can move forward with the board. So we're just keeping an open mind where we're going to go, nothing was predetermined today. We weren't quite sure where we were going to go in terms of decisions, and we didn't want to feel that our free and frank discussion was going to compromise Rachael as our executive director. We need to look after her, as a good employer. GAYNZ: Because decisions were made about positions of employment, and there's been a reshuffle, can you have such a meeting without the secretary's presence? SR: Absolutely. I've been in contact with Rachael. Rachael knew that we were going to meet. I let her know why we were going to meet. Rachael was here today to greet us all, to welcome us on the premises. We had some discussion with Rachael, then she joined us for lunch. It wasn't just a chat over lunch, we also discussed some substantive issues, and Rachael got a sense of where we were at in terms of our meeting for the day. Rachael had commitments, and then came back at the end of the day when our meeting concluded. GAYNZ: So she was kept in the loop? SR: Rachael was kept in the loop. THE NZAF CONSTITUTION GAYNZ: Constitutional issues were discussed also? SR: That's right. GAYNZ: Can you outline some of those? SR: One of the key advantages that has been derived from this is that we've had really good feedback in our submissions around the constitution. What we've realised is that there is some debate in terms of the current constitution, not just on the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi – which we still consider important – but also whether or not the board should have the sole authority at 75% majority to change the constitution without a vote on membership. So that's something we'd really like to engage with our members, including our staff, to get an idea of how best that can managed, and whether or not an amendment is needed. The issue of the board's skills and expertise required under the constitution - we think they're essentially right, but we think they could probably be expressed more clearly in the Constitution, so when we're making appointments we actually know clearly that what we're seeking in terms of skill sets and expertise. The third one is around tenure. Officially we only meet four times a year, but that's likely to increase. The appointment is only for a maximum of two years, plus a right of renewal for another two. There may be room to have the tenure extended, we might want to think about that, so then we have institutional knowledge and continuity for the organisation. And there's also just some plain drafting and formatting issues that we think need to be attended to in the constitution because it's not always the most easily read document in terms of ...we just need to sort that out so it flows more freely and is easier to understand. GAYNZ: Are quotas still on the agenda? SR: The issue of the Treaty of Waitangi will be something that we will consult with our staff, and our wider stakeholders, to get a really good idea of what our stakeholders want in terms of the issues around the Treaty of Waitangi. GAYNZ: A 50% Maori and two-person HIV+ quota was being proposed. Is this something that is still on the horizon, or is it totally dead? SR: What is totally open is that we want to know what our stakeholders believe is appropriate in terms of a mix of the board, so all sorts of different permutations could be reached as a consequence of our consultation. So we have an open mind whether it's the Treaty or whether its HIV/AIDS. In terms of our consultation, we anticipate that we're going to engage with folks on those issues. GAYNZ: What's the timeframe on this? SR: We believe that it's best to take things in a deliberate fashion. The advice we're receiving from our submissions is this type of engagement takes some time. So we hope to get some clear early signal for a timeframe out to our stakeholders in the short to medium term, and keeping an open mind on how long that will take. I'm of the view it will take some time to ensure that we can grapple with the issues with our stakeholders, that we've got an opportunity to reflect on what our stakeholders have to say, and then also there might be another process of engagement back out with them in terms of what our preliminary thoughts might be. So that will take time. The feedback we've received, which is very useful, is – take it slowly, bring us with you, otherwise what you're consulting on may mean nothing. So we've learnt from that. As a board, some of us have been in the organisation for two and a half years, some of us have an association with the organisation for 20 years. I personally have had an association of 13 years. We think we're well placed now to engage effectively with our stakeholders on the issue of the constitution. MORE OF THE SAME? GAYNZ: Here's a scenario: the whole situation has been something of a public relations fiasco. Some stakeholders are baying for blood and calling for resignations. You've met today to discuss resolutions, and it seems that in some sense you've found yourselves not guilty. Clive has resigned, but seeing as he was out of the country for the entire length of the crisis, you were left to front this, and you are still in charge. The rest of the board remains the same also. Why have things been, essentially, left as they are? SR: Things haven't been left as they are. The chair has gone. He is now on the board, and we have a new chair. I was not the chair, I was deputy chair. My delegation and responsibilities are much larger. We also have a skill set which I think we should be proud of on the board. We have a doctor, we have a researcher with a PhD, we have a person who has a first class honours degree in law, we have a public relations consultant who's well versed also in Maori-related issues, we have a person well and truly linked into the government public service, and a person who works in public health. I think that to let go of all that good expertise and knowledge, along with the learning experience we've had associated with the last couple of months, is not in the best interests of the Foundation. We believe it was better that we stayed on. We made mistakes, we learnt, we want to take responsibility for that and move forward. GAYNZ: So you're saying that now you're in charge rather than deputy, you have an authority that you didn't have available to you before? SR: Of course. GAYNZ: If the public and private sectors generally were run along these lines, i.e. mistakes are made, and the response is to say “we've learned from them and we'll move on”, we'd probably have a state of management crisis going on. How can the board be expected to develop expertise in the areas of relations with stakeholders that it seems to have lacked so far? SR: I think in some respects you're either damned if you do or damned if you don't. I think our stakeholders can take note that we've learnt a great deal, we're well experienced, we're absolutely committed to maintaining the fight to beat HIV and AIDS, to look after our communities out there, and I beg to differ... I'm well aware of organisations which have gone through processes of change, and there has been modification at the top, but people have stayed on to provide an effective contribution. Only just recently, the State Services Commission released a report on education that some might call damning, but there's going to be no changes at the top because it was recognised that people can do a good job if they stay in there, and work more closely together. So this is nothing unusual here at all. MESSAGES TO STAKEHOLDERS GAYNZ: Finally, messages for the Foundation's stakeholders. What do you have to say to the gay community? SR: We understand the needs of the gay community. We haven't lost sight of men who have sex with men, and people who identify as gay. We recognise that the HIV infection and people living with AIDS is disproportionately reflected in those communities, that we have commitment to fighting this – we have never lost sight of that – that the good work of the Foundation is continued through this, and you can see the board re-affirming its commitment today by staying on. GAYNZ: The HIV+ community? SR: Same goes. We've got a robust strategic plan in place, we've got a fantastic group of people that work within the organisation, a fantastic executive director, and we want to provide as much support as possible so they can live well and have access to the medication and other issues both psychological, and social and economic that enable to them to participate fully in society and live well. GAYNZ: Of all the groups, the staff would have felt the disruption of the last few weeks the most. What do you have to say to them? SR: We've learnt a great deal here. We knew we had a competent staff here, what we're really learnt is how passionate they are about the organisation, and that's something to be celebrated. So they'll be one of the first lot of stakeholders that we'll engage with, very early on, to determine how best to continue the momentum that we have in consulting on the Constitution. GAYNZ: Bearing in mind this is an election year, and a change of government could be on the horizon, how about the Foundation's funding sources? SR: They're always part of our executive director's assessing and determining that relationship. Rachael looks after that relationship in terms of funding sources very well, and I suspect that it's business as usual there. Rachael meets regularly with the Ministry of Health and other funders out there, we expect that will continue to be the case. [GayNZ.com contacted outgoing chair Clive Aspin for comment on today's events. He referred all enquiries to new chair Simon Robb, and had no comment to make on any issues related to the recent public relations crisis, including his controversial paper.] Chris Banks - 23rd July 2005