Board Meetings Or Public Meetings?

Earlier this week I received an email about the proposed merger of the Crown Research Institute AgResearch with Lincoln University near Christchurch.

The idea behind the merger was to create a world-class land-based university that would support research, education and a focus on New Zealand's primary industries. According to AgResearch Chair Sam Robinson and Lincoln Chancellor Tom Lambie in March, both organisations supported the proposal in principle as it would create a:

" ... substantially enhanced Lincoln University with a specific and deep focus on land utilisation and associated environmental and social integrity throughout New Zealand."

According to the email I received, however, it appears that not everyone is supportive of the merger and - officials having cast their eye over the proposal - there is some resistance on the basis of cost.

In these uncertain economic times, cost-effectiveness must be considered throughout all State institutions. Ideally, all spending of taxpayers' money should undergo this consideration. For too long, however, it appears that this has not been the case. For instance: good governance practices suggest that tertiary education institution boards should consist of no more than 10 members - yet most have often double that number, or more.

Among those institutions are AUT, with 21 board members; Auckland University (18), Waikato University (17), Victoria University (20), and Otago University (20). Rather than governance bodies, these boards have become pseudo-management committees - complete with representatives of staff, unions, students, stakeholders and a myriad of others.

And the problem is not isolated merely to universities. In 2004 I commented in Heather Roy's Diary that New Zealand's largest Public Health Organisation - Partnership Health Canterbury - had opened for business with no fewer than 19 board members.

I raised the question then, and do so again now, as to just what such a large board - not just in health or tertiary education but in any State sector (or the private sector for that matter) - could truly hope to achieve in a cost-effective and efficient manner.

How quickly could issues be resolved and decisions made when, with so many around the table, board members would struggle to be heard. In truth, having so many members would see board meetings more akin to a public meeting.

Good governance depends on rational decision-making and cost-effectiveness - a principle recognised and followed in the private sector. Take for instance three New Zealand private companies and their numbers of board members: Mainfreight (eight), Telecom (seven) and Southern Cross Healthcare (eight).

How is it viable for a university, polytechnic - or any organisation - to have 17-plus board members when a far larger organisation like the entire city of Tauranga (our fifth largest centre ahead of Dunedin) has only 11 Councillors?

If there are concerns about the cost of AgResearch merging with Lincoln, we should consider reducing its board to a more cost-effective and efficient number. Implementing this across the entire tertiary education sector - indeed, across the entire public sector - would result in cost savings across the board - and quite possibly a much improved decision-making environment.


Lest We Forget - German Paratroopers Assault Crete (May 20 1941)
On Wednesday I had the honour of laying a wreath on behalf of the Government to commemorate the Battle for Crete - one of WWII's most dramatic battles. I was privileged to be in the company of six veterans, all over 90, who had amazing and often horrifying stories.

When the defence of Greece failed in April 1941 the Allies looked to Crete, with Major General Freyberg in command of reforce': over 42,000 British troops, and more than 7,700 New Zealanders - including the 28th Maori Battalion, for whom Crete would become especially significant.

Allied intelligence knew when the German assault would come and was ready when hundreds of German planes filled the sky to disgorge paratroopers around Maleme and Chania from dawn on May 20.

Germany had under-estimated the defenders' strength and casualties mounted rapidly - Allied troops killed many paratroopers before they reached the ground, or as their equipment tangled in trees. Around 60 percent of one German battalion was killed that day. Having gained a foothold near Maleme, but taken less area than expected, the Germans decided to concentrate on Maleme to ensure possession of the airfield.

The move was a good one: the New Zealand troops defending the airfield and the high ground above had withdrawn. This proved a decisive event in the battle - German transport planes almost immediately began landing troops and tipped the balance the German way.

German air superiority left the defenders facing impossible odds and, after six days of hard fighting, the Allies had to evacuate. Parts of Creforce pulled back to Sfakia, from where about 16,000 troops left over four nights. A separate evacuation took non-Greek defenders from Heraklion, but lost many in bombing attacks on the way to Egypt.

Those who remained were taken prisoner and spent the rest of the war in POW camps - first in Italy, then Germany or Poland. Some escaped from captivity, taking to the hills and eluding capture for the rest of the war. Cretan civilians took huge risks to feed and aid them. This week's memorial service was a fitting reminder of their generosity and bravery.