€¦ · Web viewP. Ackland referred to the attached paper, which included the first attempt to...

IAPB BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETINGSeptember 17, 2013HILTON METROPOLE, BRIGHTON (UK)

MINUTES

1. WelcomeJ. Trimmel welcomed trustees, staff and observers to the meeting. He passed on B. McMullan’s regrets for his inability to chair the meeting due to an inescapable prior commitment with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He also noted apologies from B. Spivey, A. Holte, B. Holden (proxy to K. Naidoo), M. Head and HRH Prince Abdulaziz (proxy to A. AlRahji).

As the quorum was met, he declared the meeting open.

1.1. Approval of Consent Agenda J. Trimmel referred to the consent agenda circulated in advance. Two

consent agenda items required clarification as follows –

Item 2.2 Membership Update: the membership application from Eye Need Sight was pulled out from the lot to be approved as lacking necessary regional endorsement with explanation to be provided under Any Other Business;

Item 2.4 Approval of IAPB Policies:o Fraud reporting policy to be re-submitted under Any Other

Business with some minor changes;o Child protection policy to be pulled out from the policies to

be approved as the Audit Committee in its earlier meeting had identified the need for substantial modifications.

All noted the above changes and S. Resnikoff moved the following motion, seconded by K. Spahn -

RESOLUTION: To approve all resolutions in the consent agenda as amended above.

In Favour all, Against 0, Abstentions 0 (See appendix I for the full list of consent agenda resolutions approved)

As there were no further changes to the discussion agenda, this was adopted.

IAPB Board 17 Sept. 2013 Minutes

1.2. Minutes of the last meetingThe minutes of the last meeting were approved.

1.3. Matters arising from the minutesThere were no matters arising that were not already covered in the agenda.

2. Opening Remarks from the ChairmanAs there were many substantial issues up for discussion, without further delay, J. Trimmel moved to the next item on the agenda.

3. IAPB Strategic Plan 2013-2017

3.1. Approval of final draft strategic frameworkP. Ackland referred to the attached final version of the new strategic framework 2013-2017. He highlighted the process since the discussions undertaken at the last board meeting, with all decisions from the meeting reflected in a new draft, members consulted on it and final draft discussed and endorsed by the Executive Committee.

K. Spahn moved the following motion, seconded by B. Doolan –

RESOLUTION: To approve the new IAPB strategic framework 2013-2017.

In Favour all, Against 0, Abstentions 0

P. Ackland thanked R. Bennett for the support provided during the development of the plan.

3.2. Discussion on rolling prioritiesP. Ackland referred to the attached paper, which included the first attempt to produce a format on IAPB 2/3 years rolling priorities. He noted that these had been introduced with the new strategic framework to highlight key priorities for each of the strategic aims in the short/medium term of the new strategic timeframe. The list included all activities IAPB would be focusing on, however some absolute priorities were highlighted following feedback from the Executive Committee.

He noted that the paper indicated current status and desired outcomes in future years for each objective. The staff team’s operational plans would then underpin these, but they would not be submitted to the board being operational in nature. The plan would be for the rolling priorities document to be submitted to the board


annually in order to monitor progress towards the implementation of the strategy.

Discussion ensued, including the following points: Prioritisation of some key activities should not lead to the

sidestepping of other priorities/activities included in the broader strategic framework;

Focus on outcome was praised as an effective way to monitor progress;

It was noted the opportunity to use unequivocal language, for example being clear whether reference to regions meant WHO or IAPB regions (it was clarified that the current document meant the former).

J. Trimmel thanked the Secretariat for the work in producing the rolling priorities document and acknowledged that this provided a good starting point for monitoring progress towards the strategy.

4. Advocacy

4.1. Advocacy & PR Committee’s updateK. Naidoo reported from the earlier meeting of the Advocacy & PR Committee and highlighted the following key issues:

- The renewed Terms of Reference for the Action Plan Work Group had been discussed and feedback would be provided during the discussion of the relevant agenda item, however the Committee agreed on the need for a group to be in place;

- The upcoming review of the WHO essential medicines list in particular had been discussed, and the need to use this as an opportunity to advocate for wider availability and access to drugs in developing countries – as a result the Committee had commissioned key members to produce a discussion paper for its next meeting;

- The Committee had also agreed on the need to look into the transition from VISION 2020 to the new Action Plan and recommended that a group should be charged with exploring the implications for all key constituencies (in particular national bodies and regions) with the aim to better frame the issue and provide clear guidelines and direction;

- World Sight Day (WSD) had also been discussed in detail and the new approach to WSD as an advocacy platform well received, including the content and format of the new WSD report.


Discussion ensued, particularly around the VISION 2020 transition, including the following points:

The Audit Committee also had discussed the VISION 2020 transition as a risk for IAPB, and, even though the risk was not currently rated high, it had been recognized that clear guidelines on how to manage the brand as we move towards the new Action Plan must be put in place;

There was consensus that VISION 2020 was overall still a strong brand and its successes should be built upon and celebrated;

It was noted that a first step in framing the issue would be to ask VISION 2020 national bodies and concerned regions to feedback on the implications of the transition in their particular areas;

It was also agreed that we should stress the fact that VISION 2020 was not only about the year 2020, but about a broader vision to eliminate avoidable blindness, message which was still relevant and valid even in the new Action Plan framework.

ACTION: P. Ackland to liaise with J. Gersbeck and any other relevant party to produce initial paper with global communications guidelines on the VISION 2020 brand to be circulated to the board as soon as possible. Further broader consultation can then be carried out with the possibility of a having a follow-up discussion at the next board meeting.

4.2. Diabetic Retinopathy Work Group updateK. Spahn reported on the Diabetic Retinopathy Work Group meeting. There were almost 50 attendees, with a two-part agenda split between programmes and advocacy. The President of the International Diabetes Federation had also attended and as a result closer engagement with national diabetic societies was now possible. Among the many topics, research attracted a lot of interest and the Research Work Group was going to be involved in taking the DR research agenda further.

4.3. Post-2015 Work Group updateJ. Trimmel reported on progress made on the engagement with the Post-2015 framework. He noted that IAPB focus had so far been to support messages from the disability movement on inclusion, equity and access, as well as, on the health front, to call for Universal Health Coverage (UHC) to be included as a stand-alone area in the next development goals framework. He clarified that the objective was not for the inclusion of eye health as such (unrealistic expectation given the broad scope of the Post-2015 process), but to ensure there were a


number of entry points for eye health, in particular disability, UHC and the NTD/NCDs areas.

J. Trimmel thanked in particular the successful synergy with the World Blind Union and ICEVI through the Vision Alliance in taking this work forward.

4.4. Action Plan Work Group – terms of referenceJ. Trimmel referred to the attached paper containing the proposed new terms of reference for the Action Plan Work Group, in particular the proposed areas the group’s activities should focus upon. He noted the issue had been subject of extensive discussions at both the Executive and Advocacy committees and now the board was asked to comment on what should be the priorities of the group, and who should be part of it:

Discussion ensued, including the following points: There was overall agreement that in order to be successful as

its predecessor, activities of the group should be very specific and focused on areas where it could really make a difference;

It was noted that the work group should not duplicate work being carried out already by other bodies (for example in the area of research, or World Sight Day);

It was important to have clear measures of success and that the group was properly resourced;

Focus should be advocating at national level and some suggested the 33 countries who supported the approval of the new Action Plan at WHA would provide a good starting point;

It was also noted however, that those countries with a political landscape less receptive to the objectives of the new Action Plan may actually be those that required more concentrated efforts on our part, and that ultimately country prioritization was a balancing act between the degree of need and the level of local enabling conditions, such as predisposition of the government, NGOs (local and international) and development of the health system;

Some suggested that carrying out of feasibility studies would be a key activity for the group;

It was also noted that the new Action Plan Work Group could provide further opportunities for collaboration in advocacy with rehabilitation groups;

Given the broad range of opinions and key role of the group, J. Trimmel proposed he would lead on further developing the terms of reference, with the aim to make them more specific and to identify key priority


countries. He would co-opt an interim group of people to help him on this, so that all key constituencies would be involved and/or consulted on the matter, including regional chairs, and CEOs of the larger NGOs. The interim group would also work to identify the right people to be part of the Action Plan Work Group, ideally a small properly resourced group of individuals with the right skills to carry out its activities.

Following a question it was also clarified that this was wholly an IAPB group, and did not include a WHO presence on it.

ACTION: J. Trimmel to start consultations with key individuals to form interim group and start driving agenda forward in the immediate, while the final touches to the terms of reference and membership of the work group are being made.

5. WHO Collaboration

5.1. Update on support to WHOP. Ackland referred to the attached paper reporting on discussions with WHO on identifying areas of activity IAPB could contribute to. He reminded the board of its decision to focus support mainly on WHO activities rather than staff. The recommendations for support included in the paper focused on areas which WHO was uniquely placed to deliver on:

Convening regional workshops to promote implementation of the Action Plan in countries across the region;

The development of an eye care services assessment (ECSA) tool by WHO and its subsequent roll out at regional and country level;

The generation of evidence on the prevalence of visual impairment and its causes, through RAAB studies;

Updating the eye medicines included in the essential medicines list.

He noted that some progress had already been made towards covering some of the activities’ costs, for example for the regional workshops via the VISION 2020 workshop programme and with regards to the ECSA tool which the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust had expressed an interest in funding the development of.

The proposal therefore was to contribute funds for the upcoming review of the essential medicines list and to support travel of I. Kocur, the WHO PBD member of staff mainly responsible to drive the implementation of the Action Plan. As the requirements were small, these could also be coming directly from the IAPB budget.


He thanked S. Resnikoff and C. Harper for their work on this and highlighted the significant improvements in the quality of the conversations with WHO, and also the value of the new Action Plan which provided a renewed focus on the tasks ahead.

All agreed with the proposal.

6. Finance

6.1. Financial Report (up to date) 2013 & Draft Budget 2014A. Poffley referred to the attached financial papers. He highlighted the final position for the current financial year currently forecasted at around USD700K reserves. He reassured the board that appropriate mechanisms were in place to manage IAPB finances, in terms of debtor control, cash-flow oversight and foreign exchange risks.

The board noted the latest financial report and forecast.

A. Poffley then updated the board on the review of the reserves policy carried out by the Audit Committee. He clarified that no changes had been made to the principles and method for calculating the levels of reserves required and that no recommendations were being made to change the board attitude towards to the reserves (i.e. a pragmatic approach that allowed for time to time to draw down reserves as long as a strategy for replenishing them in a suitable timeframe was in place).

Therefore the review had mainly focused on assessing whether the current reserves requirement were still appropriate given IAPB’s current legal commitments, expected future unrestricted income, and ongoing operational costs. The review identified a required ratio of reserves between USD320K and USD570K, with the former as an absolute minimum level under which no draw down should take place and the latter as the trigger point under which a replenishing strategy must be in place.

He noted that the top level of reserves required was now USD70K higher than the previous one.

K. Spahn moved the following motion, seconded by A. Hopkins:

RESOLUTION: To raise the current reserves requirements as per the above proposal.



A. Poffley then drew the board’s attention to the 2014 budget. He asked the board to consider whether the income projections were appropriate, and whether it was satisfied with the expenditure choices; he noted the level of reserves was forecasted for the end of 2014 at USD460K. As this was lower than the required level, the understanding was that a replenishing strategy would be presented at the next board meeting.

He also highlighted that all income forecasts were conservative, but also that the current budget did not include the possible support to WHO from IAPB core funds discussed on agenda item 5.1 above. He explained that the budget was in any case subject to regular updates as circumstances changed.

K. Spahn moved the following motion, seconded by A. Hopkins:

RESOLUTION: To approve the IAPB budget for 2014.


6.2. Income generation reportJ. Conlon referred to the attached paper and highlighted the following:

Secured income for 2013, not considering the Seeing is Believing programme, nor AusAid funding to the Western Pacific region, stood at just under USD3 million;

Potential income for 2014 had been broken down between secure and potential, and there was optimism for the prospects;

The quality of the relationships with funders had also largely improved since the new income generation team had been in place.

The board noted the report and welcomed the work of the team.

7. Governance

7.1. Audit Committee’s update - risk registerB. Chappell referred to the attached risk register and noted the following:

Failure to implement the new Action Plan was now the number one risk for the organization;

As noted in the discussion under agenda item 4.1, poor transition from VISION 2020 had now been added as a risk;

He reminded that the risk register was produced by the staff and reviewed by the Audit Committee and Board once a year, and it only reported on high level risks or those without appropriate


mitigating strategies in place (a lower level risk register was regularly reviewed by staff only).

The Board noted the updated risk register.

7.2. Membership and Governance Review - terms of reference

J. Trimmel introduced the item by noting that the key rationale of the review was to ensure that IAPB had the right structure in place to deliver its strategy.

J. Conlon referred to the attached paper and highlighted the following: The review had been prompted by members’ feedback during

the strategic planning consultations; The key driver was to create a stronger, more transparent and

accountable membership organization, which all members felt compelled to invest in;

The fact that a new leadership and new strategy were in place provided a promising starting point compared with reviews carried out in the past which had did not quite delivered on expectations;

Given the interconnectivity between membership and governance, the review was broad in focus and the timetable highlighted the focus on consultation and transparency;

She also noted that the consultant proposed for the work had specific experience in membership bodies, and the trust of the members having carried out the strategic planning process.

Discussion ensued, including the following points: It was clarified that the review was not going to cover the issue

of IAPB’s jurisdiction registration (which is currently in the UK) as this issue was being looked at already in a separate exercise led by T. Morris, formerly IAPB Chief Financial Officer;

It was noted that the review may also be an opportunity to look at the management functions of IAPB and the boundaries between management and leadership;

It was suggested that the consultation should include former members as well as current ones;

In order to guarantee the independence (and perception of transparency) of the review, the consultant’s terms of reference should be amended to ensure he lead the exercise with staff on a supporting role;

Some also suggested the possibility of undertaking a pro bono legal review of IAPB functions and structures as part of the process;


The issue of ensuring appropriate engagement of regional chairs, including the idea of involving a regional representation in the Executive Committee’s discussions of the review, was raised;

It was also clarified that any changes requiring amendments to the IAPB’s memorandum and articles of associations will have to be approved by the Council.1

ACTION: to amend the terms of reference in view of the discussion above and proceed with the review.

8. Future Events & Meetings

8.1. 10th General Assembly – hosting city in South AfricaK. Naidoo reported on the work undertaken to choose the host city for the 10th General Assembly in South Africa between Durban and Cape Town.He noted that the price difference was negligible, however Durban had an advantage in terms of local logistics and political connections as both IAPB Africa and the Brien Holden Vision Institute had their offices there and established links with the local authorities, as well as conference centres. He also noted that crime was actually lower in Durban compared to Cape Town according to latest national statistics (this was probably due to improvements in security since the football world cup).

Based on this and consequent discussions at the Executive Committee meeting, the Regional Chair for Africa and the Executive Committee recommended the choice of Durban.

A. Poffley moved the following motion, seconded by S. Resnikoff:

RESOLUTION: To hold the 10th General Assembly in 2016 in Durban.


8.2. 2014 BOT & COM meetings – dates and locationsThe board agreed to hold the next board meeting in Singapore on:

March 27th - Audit Committee & Executive Committee 1 Post Meeting Note: IAPB’s governing documents include the Memorandum & Articles of Association and the Byelaws. The former contains rules on the charity’s objects, proceedings and business to be conducted at annual general meetings, proceedings of the board of trustees, accounts, audit and dissolution, and can only be amended by members at the AGM; the latter contains rules made by the Trustees for the proper conduct and management of the charity, including membership fees, categories and benefits, procedures of the Board of Trustees not covered by the Memorandum & Articles of Association, and sub-committees – byelaws can be amended by the Board of Trustees (Art. 20 of the Articles of Association).


March 28th – Advocacy Committee (AM); Board of Trustees (PM)March 29th – Board of Trustees

With regards to the Board and Council meetings in September the proposal to hold the meeting soon after the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ESCRS) annual meeting in London was discussed and it was ultimately rejected as it could have caused a clash with the yet to be announced NTD NGDO Network (NNN) September meeting.

As a general point, the principle of choosing a location which would facilitate broad attendance due to its accessibility and entry requirements was confirmed as the overriding factor.

It was ultimately decided the Executive Committee would wait for confirmation of dates for the NNN meeting and make a new recommendation in due course.

9. Any Other Business

Fraud reporting policy – R. Chappell noted minor changes to the text of the policy:

Delete the text ‘by a member of staff’, and change the word ‘disciplinary’ with ‘relevant’, so that the policy would be applicable beyond merely IAPB staff, but also to trustees and all other relevant parties.

A. Poffley moved the following motion, seconded by P. Albano:

RESOLUTION: To approve the so amended Fraud Reporting policy.


IAPB Trading – J. Trimmel brought to the attention of the board that S. King, who was stepping down from the IAPB board after this meeting, would still be Director of IAPB Trading, the charity’s trading subsidiary. He noted that the Executive Committee would in due course be looking at the composition of the IAPB Trading board and advise whether changes were necessary to ensure the IAPB board continued to have a presence on it (currently the other two directors were P. Ackland, staff, and C. Cross, external).

Membership update – the Regional Chair for Europe, having consulted with the UK Co-Chair and the representative of the World Council of Optometry on the board, provided the following post-meeting motivation


for rejecting Eye Need Sight’s membership application (see agenda item 1.1 above):

Mr. John Snelgrove, an English optician and Chairman of Eye Need Sight (a recently registered charity) is developing a new spectacle frame (Style-Eyes), which is designed to adjust to every person’s individual face, including papillary distance and nose size. In the Style-Eyes optical frame, the lenses can easily be moved along the frame to fit

the exact papillary distance measurement and exact nose size (this is not the so-called adjustable spectacle, as it is an adjustable optical frame.)

There are concerns that he appears to intending to use IAPB to endorse the product, which is something we cannot do. The suggested donation of the new spectacle frame to IAPB included in its application would be on a “buy-one-donate-one” basis, which, as the costs of the donated goods can be reclaimed against tax, is free to the retailer.

This appears therefore to be a commercial business with a charity offshoot which is not yet well established. The design of the optical frame looks well, although probably not so cost-effective as readymade glasses, however there are still trials to do.

For these reasons the application should be rejected until the chairity and product have gone through further developments.

New and resigning trustees - the board welcomed L. Monz, M. Head and D. McComiskey as new trustees, and thanked the resigning ones for their contribution and engagement over the years - M. Kaschke, S. King and D. Haddad.

As there was no other business the meeting was declared closed.


Appendix I

Consent Agenda – Resolutions

2.1

2.2

2.3a

2.3b

2.4b

To appoint Matthew Head and Ludwin Monz and re-appoint Caroline Harper as IAPB trustees and note the resignations from the IAPB board. To approve the new membership applications listed in consent agenda paper 2.2.To approve the terms of reference for the IAPB Diabetic Retinopathy Work Group and the appointment of Nick Kourgialis as its Chair.To approve the above terms of reference for the IAPB Refractive Error Work Group and the appointment of Robert Chappell as its Chair.To approve the policy on bribery and corruption.


Appendix 2 - AttendeesTrustees1) Mr. Johannes Trimmel (Vice President)2) Mr. Adrian Poffley (Treasurer)3) Dr. Abdulaziz AlRajhi (IMPACT-EMRO)4) Dr. Juan Batlle (Reg. Chair, Latin America)5) Dr. Robert Chappell (WCO)6) Dr. Taraprasad Das (Reg. Chair, South East Asia)7) Mr. Brian Doolan (FHF)8) Dr. Danny Haddad (ITI)9) Dr. Caroline Harper (SS)10) Dr. Adrian Dennis Hopkins (MDP)11) Ms. Jenny Hourihan (ORBIS)12) Mr. Stephen King (RNIB)13) Prof. Richard Le Mesurier (Reg. Chair, Western Pacific)14) Mr. Dave McComiskey (CBM)15) Dr. Ludwin Monz (ZEISS)16) Prof. Kovin Naidoo (Reg. Chair, Africa)17) Prof. Janos Nemeth (Reg. Chair, Europe)18) Prof. Louis Pizzarello (Reg. Chair, North America)19) Dr. Serge Resnikoff (Vision CRC)20) Mrs. Kathy Spahn (HKI)


Observers1) Mr. Phillip Albano (LCIF)2) Mr. David Allen (RNIB)3) Ms. Jennifer Gersbeck (VISION 2020 Australia)4) Ms. Penny Hartin (WBU)5) Mr. Terje Iversen (NABP)6) Ms. Lesley Podesta (FHF)7) Prof. Hugh Taylor (ICO)

Staff1) Mr. Peter Ackland2) Ms. Joanna Conlon3) Mr. Alessandro Di Capua4) Ms. Blandine Labry

Apologies1) HRH Prince Abdulaziz Ahmad Abdulaziz Al Saud (Reg. Chair, EMRO)-

proxy to A. AlRahji2) Mr. Matthew Head (Alcon)3) Prof. Brien Holden (BHVI) - proxy to K. Naidoo4) Mr. Arnt Holte (WBU)5) Mr. Bob McMullan (President)6) Prof. Bruce Spivey (ICO)

€¦ · Web viewP. Ackland referred to the attached paper, which included the first attempt to...

Documents

Transcript of €¦ · Web viewP. Ackland referred to the attached paper, which included the first attempt to...