Board members agree that Eastbay REAP is a Te Tiriti partner organisation rather than a kaupapa Māori organisation. The Commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi policy (GOV 1.2) covers representation, training and practice, and the Board has done professional development together. It was stressed that equity for Māori should guide Board decisions, whoever is on the Board, and it was suggested that development led by Te Tiriti practitioners would help.

Agreeing what Te Tiriti partnership means for decisions responds to Matter #10 (Values & tikanga in decisions). It builds on one of the Board's clearest strengths, and helps that practice carry through as membership changes (Top Rec 7, growing the Board's future members).

A shared understanding of Te Tiriti partnership helps every Board member, new or long-serving, bring it into the decisions the Board makes.

• Hold one wānanga, led by a Te Tiriti practitioner, on what partnership means for Eastbay REAP's governance.
• Start from REAP Aotearoa's Te Tiriti practice framework (Te Tatou Pounamu), which the Commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi policy (GOV 1.2) already names.
• Choose one or two practical steps from the wānanga, such as questions the Board asks before major decisions or further professional development.
• Agree how the Board will seek guidance from kaumātua and mana whenua.

• New Board members may be unsure how to bring the commitment into decisions.
• A chance to deepen one of the Board's clearest strengths is missed.

It is reported that Eastbay REAP met its 1 October 2026 deadline with Charities Services (the government office that registers charities) for the August 2026 Constitution. It is also reported that the Board has updated clause 8.2, so the Chair, the Deputy Chair and the Audit & Risk Committee Chair are elected at the first Board meeting of each year. The copy of the Constitution we hold, re-sent to us on 15 October 2026, still shows the earlier wording, which ties these elections to an Annual Meeting.

Two points need correcting at the next update.

First, clause 19.1 says that certain clauses can only be changed with extra steps. At present the only clause it names is clause 10.5, the Board's power to change its rules. It does not protect clause 3, which sets out Eastbay REAP's charitable purposes.

Second, the Board Terms of Reference sets meeting fees and a Chair payment. The Constitution does not plainly allow Board members to be paid.

Correcting the Constitution responds to Matter #10 (Constitution / Trust Deed). Neither point affects day-to-day governance, so the corrections can wait for the next update.

The Constitution is the founding rulebook of the Trust. Charities Services relies on it when it registers Eastbay REAP, so it needs to match how the Board works.

• Ask Eastbay REAP's lawyer to read the Constitution once, clause by clause, before the Board next changes it.
• Confirm that the registered Constitution carries the updated clause 8.2, so the Board's officers are elected at the first Board meeting of each year.
• Extend clause 19.1, the clause that requires extra steps before key clauses are changed, so it also covers clause 3 (Eastbay REAP's charitable purposes).
• Add a clause that plainly allows Board members to be paid the meeting fees and Chair payment set in the Board Terms of Reference.

• Until the Constitution is corrected, Eastbay REAP's charitable purposes do not have the extra protection clause 19.1 gives to its power to change its rules.
• Until the Constitution is corrected, Board fees rest on the Board Terms of Reference alone, and the Constitution does not plainly allow them.

Section 42G of the Charities Act 2005 requires every registered charity to review its governance procedures at least every 3 years. We have not seen a record of an earlier section 42G review by the Board. If one has been done, this Aromatawai adds to it. If not, recording it now meets the requirement.

Recording this review takes one Board resolution, so it belongs in the first 90 days after the Board receives this dashboard.

A section 42G review is a check, at least every 3 years, that a charity's governance procedures are fit for purpose. It also checks that they help the charity achieve its purpose and comply with the Charities Act.

• At the next Board meeting, adopt the resolution set out in the Charities Act Review section of this dashboard. It records that the Board has received this governance review as its section 42G review.
• Keep this dashboard and the Board minutes as the record of the section 42G review.
• Put the date of the next section 42G review, 3 years from now, in the Board's annual workplan.

Without a minuted resolution, the Board has no record that it met section 42G.

It is reported that the Board has always had a quorum (the minimum number of Board members needed to make decisions), though sometimes only just. Board members said attendance is sometimes uneven, and that more members now join online. The Board meets every 2 months, so a member who misses one meeting loses a lot of context. It is reported that it takes extra effort to include online members in the discussion.

Agreeing attendance expectations is a quick agreement that supports Top Rec 8 (helping new Board members settle in faster).

An attendance expectation is a shared agreement about how Board members take part. It protects every Board member, because each one shares responsibility for decisions made at meetings they miss.

• Agree whether the board wants to set down how many Board meetings a year a member may attend online.
• Agree how the Chair checks in, with care, when any Board member misses several meetings.
• Give each online Board member a named Board member in the room who brings them into the discussion.

• Without an agreed attendance expectation, Board members carry responsibility for decisions they did not hear discussed.
• The Board loses the views of members who come to meetings less often.

The Board Terms of Reference sets out the Executive Committee and the Audit & Risk Committee, with their delegations, and asks each committee to report in writing. In practice, the Chair, the Deputy Chair and the CEO meet regularly and informally, and the Chair uses judgement about what to raise with the Board. Some Board members are unsure who sits on which committee. The Chair's duties sit across 3 documents, with nothing on what the Chair may decide alone.

Agreeing what always comes to the full Board responds to Matter #3 (Board committees & working groups) and Matter #4 (Role descriptions). Both are about who decides what between meetings. It also helps Top Rec 8 (helping new Board members settle in faster), because new members learn from day one how decisions are made.

Delegation is the Board's agreed record of who may decide what on its behalf, and what must come back to the full Board. It protects the people who act between meetings and keeps every Board member equally informed.

• Walk the Board through the Terms of Reference for the Executive Committee and the Audit & Risk Committee, and agree whether each still fits how the Board works.
• Agree a short list of matters the Chair always shares with the full Board, such as a legal claim, a serious risk to staff or the loss of a contract.
• Write down what the Chair may decide alone between meetings, in a one-page role description for the Chair and the Deputy Chair.
• Agree whether the Executive Committee reports to the Board in the same way the Audit & Risk Committee already does, through minutes on BoardPro and a list of topics in the board pack.
• Consider whether the CEO joins the Audit & Risk Committee as an attendee rather than a member, which is common practice for the committee that oversees the audit.

• Board members may hold different pictures of what has been decided on their behalf.
• The Chair, the Deputy Chair and the CEO carry more personal risk if a decision is later questioned.
• New Board members learn how decisions are really made only by watching.

It is reported that the Board raised the CEO's limit for spending outside the budget to $50,000 after a review by the Audit & Risk Committee. In the versions we reviewed, the Board Terms of Reference said $10,000 and the Management Policy said $50,000.

Confirming the limit keeps the Board's documents in line with its own decision. It is a short check.

A spending limit is only useful if every document shows the same figure.

• Ask the CEO to confirm that both documents now show $50,000, and note it in the next board pack.

Two documents with different limits could cause confusion if a decision were questioned.

Board members take turns to lead a strategic session at Board meetings, on topics the Board agrees each December to shape the next Annual Business Plan. It is reported that these sessions have been held less often recently, so newer members have seen less of them. Several Board members would like to contribute earlier, while the thinking is still open. Some also asked whether the Strategic Plan covers more work than Eastbay REAP can do well, given the reporting load of many government contracts.

Bringing the Board into strategy earlier comes first because other recommendations draw on it. A Board that shapes its own direction is well placed to plan for a change of CEO (Top Rec 2), to see learners' longer-term outcomes (Top Rec 5) and to grow its future members (Top Rec 7). It responds to Matter #2 (Strategic plan & direction).

The Strategic Plan sets Eastbay REAP's direction to 2030, the Annual Business Plan turns it into each year's work, and the strategic conversation at each Board meeting keeps it current. A Board-led strategy means the Board shapes the choices in all three, with the CEO and staff bringing evidence and options.

• Set a strategy input session in the Board's workplan each year at mid-year (e.g. June), before the next Annual Business Plan is drafted.
• Re-start the Board member-led strategic sessions, with topics agreed each December that feed the next Annual Business Plan.
• Consider the topics the 2025 sessions held over for 2026, such as economic impacts and alternatives, and embedding strategic measures of equity and impact.
• Use the mid-year session to agree 3 or 4 questions the Board wants the next Annual Business Plan to answer, including where Eastbay REAP could do less to have more impact.
• Te Whare Hukahuka can facilitate the first mid-year session if the Board would like support.

• Board members' experience stays under-used in setting direction.
• The Board has less practice in setting direction itself when the CEO moves on.
• New contracts can keep adding work without a Board conversation about what to stop.

The Annual Business Plan 2026 tracks delivery well, and in June 2026 staff marked most of its measures as on track. That reporting shows how well the work is delivered, and the learner stories show who is better off. Some Board members would like to see more of the longer-term change for learners. The CEO is also doing national work with the Ministry of Education on measures that show the barriers REAPs remove for learners.

Building on existing outcome work helps the Board see whether its strategy is making the difference it intends (Top Rec 3). It responds to Matter #5 (KPI setting & monitoring), and it uses work Eastbay REAP has already paid for.

Operational reporting tells the Board whether the work is delivered well. Outcome information tells the Board whether learners' lives change over time. The Board needs both, for different decisions.

• Ask the CEO to present the Impact Lab report and the progress on the outcomes dashboard at a Board strategic conversation.
• Agree which longer-term results the Board will see each year, and how each links to a strategic goal.
• Consider extending the Impact Lab approach to a second programme as resources allow.
• Keep the learner stories in the CEO's Performance Report, which Board members value, and link each one to a strategic goal.

• The Board keeps seeing strong delivery without knowing how learners progress later.
• Board conversations about strategic impact rely on single stories more than patterns.
• Funders who ask about outcomes get a thinner answer than the work deserves.

Board members said actions agreed in discussion are sometimes lost, and that a push to track them a year or so ago lapsed as people became busy. The Action List in the August 2026 board pack held 3 actions that were 10 to 19 months overdue. Good ideas for later also have nowhere to be kept.

Following actions through responds to Matter #8 (Action follow-through). It is a quick routine to set up, and it helps every other recommendation land.

An action list is the Board's record of what it has asked for, who is doing it and by when. Reviewing it each meeting keeps the Board's decisions moving.

• Review the Action List at the start of each Board meeting, oldest action first, and close, re-date or drop each one.
• Give every action an owner and a due date when it is agreed.
• Keep a short list of good ideas for later, and look at it at the Board's mid-year strategy session.

• Board decisions take longer to turn into results.
• Good ideas are lost between meetings.
• The Board loses track of what it has asked for.

From January 2027 the CEO will also be a National Advisor to REAP Aotearoa, the national body for the 13 REAPs. It is reported that the role takes 1 day a fortnight. REAP Aotearoa passes some government funding to Eastbay REAP, so the two roles could sometimes pull in different directions. The CEO is already Deputy Chair of REAP Aotearoa, and that role is in the Interests Register.

Oversight of the CEO's National Advisor role supports Matter #1 (Succession planning) and Top Rec 2 (planning for a permanent change of CEO). It is a short piece of work. It gives the CEO and the Board an agreed way to handle any conflict between the CEO's national and Eastbay REAP work.

Oversight of an outside role means the Board knows how much time the role takes, how Eastbay REAP benefits, and how any conflict of interest is managed. The Board reviews it once a year.

• Add the National Advisor role to the CEO's annual review.
• Write down how conflicts of interest between the CEO's national role and the Eastbay REAP role are declared and handled.
• Review how much time the National Advisor role will take, and its benefit to Eastbay REAP, after its first 6 months.

• Without written oversight of the CEO's National Advisor role, a conflict of interest could arise with no agreed way to handle it.
• The CEO's time could be stretched between the 2 roles without the Board noticing.

The audits of Eastbay REAP's 2024 and 2025 accounts ran late after Eastbay REAP's previous auditor left and a new auditor took over. The CEO copied the Chair and the Deputy Chair on his correspondence with the auditor, the Chair joined the most recent meetings with the auditor, and the matter was raised with the Office of the Auditor-General. The Board receives papers on it, and Board members described the status of the 2025 audit in different ways.

A short review closes a difficult process and records what the Board learned, so the next audit can run more smoothly.

A close-out review records what happened and what was learned, so the Board can put a matter to rest with a shared understanding.

• When the 2025 audit is signed, ask the CEO and the Audit & Risk Committee for a one-page review to the full Board.
• Confirm in the same review that the 2025 accounts have reached Charities Services (the government office that registers charities).
• Note any steps that would help the 2026 audit run smoothly.

• Board members may hold different understandings of how the matter ended.
• Lessons from a hard process are not recorded for future Boards.

The Leadership Succession Plan hands 4 areas of the CEO's work to the COO and the sector leaders (the staff who lead early years, schools, youth and adult services) during an absence, with the Chair consulted. The CEO Appointment & Appraisal Procedure (GOV 1.4) sets out an appointments committee, the full Board's input on what the role needs, and a recruitment timeframe of three to four months. It is reported that the CEO has no plans to leave. From January 2027 he will also take on a National Advisor role to REAP Aotearoa, the national body for the 13 REAPs.

Planning for a permanent change of CEO answers Matter #1 (Succession planning). It draws on Top Rec 6 (connecting Board networks to Eastbay REAP's priorities), because relationships known to more than one person are easier to keep through a change.

A plan for a permanent change of CEO says how the Board would hold the CEO's relationships and knowledge, and who leads in the meantime, while the recruitment process in GOV 1.4 runs.

• Ask the full Board to review the Leadership Succession Plan and the CEO Appointment & Appraisal Procedure together, and agree what a section on a permanent change of CEO should add.
• Name the staff leaders with the most potential to grow into parts of the CEO role, and plan their development.
• List the CEO's 10 most important external relationships, including the national ones, and note who else knows each one.
• Agree the Board's first steps after a CEO resignation, including who acts as CEO, when the appointments committee is formed and who speaks with key funders.

• Key funder and partner relationships could weaken during the months a recruitment takes.
• Knowledge held only by the CEO could be lost before a new CEO starts.
• Staff leaders may not be ready to step up when they are needed.

Board members described a recruitment process that looks first for people who share the kaupapa and its values. Board membership is changing fast. 3 members have joined since August 2025, 2 more are being recruited, and one long-serving member leaves at the end of 2026. It was suggested that a standing list of possible future members would help, and Board members hold different views on how much of the early recruitment work the CEO should lead.

Growing future members responds to Matter #7 (Rangatahi involvement). It keeps the Board's renewal steady as membership turns over, and builds the Board's own experience of finding leaders, which helps with Top Rec 2 (planning for a permanent change of CEO).

Recruitment fills today's vacancies. Board succession looks ahead to the skills and people the Board will need in 3 to 5 years, and gives potential leaders time to grow.

• Once a year, agree the skills and perspectives the Board will need over the next 3 to 5 years, using the skills matrix and the strategy.
• Keep a short, informal list of people in the community who could one day join the Board, and invite them to an open Board session or an Eastbay REAP event.
• Offer rangatahi a range of ways in, such as observing a Board meeting, joining a project group, or meeting the Board with young learners each year.
• Agree who leads each step of finding future members, so the process holds steady whoever is CEO, and keep drawing on the CEO's knowledge of people who understand REAP.

• The Board has to find new members quickly each time a vacancy arises.
• Rangatahi perspectives stay outside the Board's governance.
• Knowledge leaves with long-serving members before newer ones are ready.

New Board members found induction welcoming and said it takes time to understand the Board and where they can add value. The Board Induction Checklist walks new members through the documents. It does not yet include a buddy, a session on the strategy or a handover from departing members. If both appointments go ahead, 5 of the 9 Board members will have joined since August 2025, once one long-serving member leaves at the end of 2026.

Additional support to help new members settle in responds to Matter #9 (Trustee induction gaps). It is timely because 2 new members are joining now, and it runs alongside Top Rec 7 (growing the Board's future members).

Induction is how a new Board member comes to understand the kaupapa, the people and how the Board really works, so they can contribute with confidence.

• Pair each new Board member with an experienced one for their first year, as tuakana (the more experienced) and teina (the newer member).
• Add a one-hour session on the strategy to every new member's induction.
• Ask each departing Board member for a short handover note and a list of key relationships, and invite them back as subject experts.
• Add a short cover note to each Board paper saying why it is here and what the Board is asked to do, which helps new members follow the discussion.
• Give each Board member a development plan funded from the Board's professional development budget, including training for the Board's leadership roles.

• New members take longer to contribute fully at a time when many are new.
• Knowledge leaves the Board when experienced members leave.
• The professional development budget stays under-used.

The Strategic Risk Register lists 18 risks, and the Board reviews changes to it at its meetings. Board members were less sure about the Board's processes for managing risk than about most other areas in the survey. The risks Board members named most often were reliance on government funding and losing the CEO. Some also named the load of contract reporting.

An annual review gives the whole Board time on its biggest risks together. It supports Matter #1 (Succession planning), because losing the CEO is one of the risks Board members named most often.

A risk review is time set aside to test whether the Strategic Risk Register lists the right risks, rates them fairly, and has steps that are working.

• Give the Strategic Risk Register an hour at one Board meeting a year.
• Ask each Board member beforehand for their biggest risk, and test the Strategic Risk Register against the answers.
• Choose one high-level risk each year for a deeper look. It is reported that the Board has done this with climate change.

Without an annual review of the Strategic Risk Register, risks that matter stay off it until they become urgent.

The CEO and staff hold strong relationships across the region, and the CEO shares a Relationships Register with the Board at each meeting. Board members bring connections across education, iwi, local government and business. Board members and the CEO agree the Board could do more to speak for Eastbay REAP in the places its members already go, and the Board has not yet found a practical way to do it.

Connecting the Board's networks responds to Matter #6 (Stakeholder involvement). It also supports Matter #1 (Succession planning), because relationships known to more than one person are easier to keep through a change of CEO.

A shared view of who knows whom lets the Board support Eastbay REAP's partnerships with care, without stepping into management's role.

• Workshop the Relationships Register at a Board meeting, and note where each Board member already has a connection.
• Line those connections up with the strategic priorities, and agree where a Board member could make an introduction or speak for the kaupapa.
• Ask the CEO to share how Eastbay REAP works with mana whenua now, and agree how the Board would like to hear from mana whenua directly.
• Revisit the connections once a year at the Board's mid-year strategy session.

• Board members' networks stay an untapped support for the kaupapa.
• Key relationships rest on fewer people than they could.
• Chances to speak for Eastbay REAP in places Board members already go are missed.