Where To From Here?

By David

I see Simom Plumb Of the Sunday Star-Times has written a piece in this week newspaper entitled “Funding threat lifted as SPARC rallies for AGM” In it Plumb reports on a discussion with SPARC boss, Peter Miskimmin. Evidently Miskimmin told Plumb he “categorically ruled out changes in government funding as an immediate reaction should the current Swimming New Zealand board resign en masse”. But Misskimmin was concerned that SNZ “stop squabbling, or expect to pay the price”. “If it continues to be a fractured and fragmented situation, dysfunctional, then we [Sparc] are going to get further and further concerns” and will agree a consequence then,” he said.”

There are three important points that come out of the Sunday Star-Times report.

  1. Many of the problems associated with sport in New Zealand come about as a result of poor and weak leadership. The Misskimmin interview is a classic text book case. He says we (SPARC) do not care who sits on the Board of Swimming New Zealand. Just make sure there is a happy resolution as quickly as possible. At the same time Kerry McDonald and Nelson Cull, SPARC’s $1500 a day hired guns on the SNZ Board, are wandering around Wellington telling the SNZ Board not to resign and the Regions to back off with the call for a mass resignation. The mixed messages and confused leadership are just awful. Misskimmin cannot tell Swimming one message (we don’t mind who is on the Board) and allow his employees to preach something totally different (we want the current Board to stay). By allowing that Misskimmin is directly responsible for the confusion he says will result in SPARC’s wrath. Right now SPARC have reaped exactly what they deserve. A bloody mess.

    A 60% majority of the voting power of the sport has called for the Board to resign. They have quoted chapter and verse the misdeeds that have brought about their demand. At that point good management demanded that SPARC back the call for change. But I bet Miskkimmin hasn’t even called Bronwen Radford. Instead, through the newspapers, he has told her to sort the shambles out as best she can and behind her back has instructed his representatives on the Board to defy the demands of the majority, she represents. Right now, Peter Miskimmin, this mess is down to you – 100%. You may recall Swimwatch told you a year ago this Board was incompetent. We told you to never use the excuse you didn’t know. Well, you did know and you did nothing about it then. You should take control now and back a talented lady in Rotorua who is trying to sort this mess out; who is trying to make a difference.

  2. The weakness of Coulter continues to damage the sport. Even in this Sunday Star-Times report he says “his resignation was still under consideration”. He is reported as going on to say that while “the board remains unified; he is still chewing over the idea of resigning.” “I don’t think I’ve made up my mind of whether I’d like to stay on the board,” Coulter told the Sunday Star-Times. “When I get the formal response of the regions, then I’ll decide my personal position.” Isn’t that just great? Our esteemed leader is sitting there defying a 60% majority of his membership and telling the world he might bugger off at any minute. That’s as close to fiddling while Rome burns as I’ve seen. Certainly it is the sort of weak management that has led the sport to this dark, dark place. That and Miskimmin’s mixed messages. Coulter, do something decisive. Do something that is best for the sport. Resign, clear the decks for a new crew. Be remembered as the guy that did the decent thing. Hand the reins over to Bronwen Radford and get out of there. That one act can save the sport; can save SPARC’s funding and can save your reputation.
  3. The Sunday Star-Times article was predicated on the thought that losing SPARC’s funding would be a disaster. Of course it would be better to preserve the current level of support. However Miskimmin should not run away with the idea that his presents are essential. There is even merit in the thought that an independent sport, free of government welfare, may be stronger than the current bloated welfare dependant fat cat organization. Even Ineson recognized the sport was oversized and overstaffed. It could be that the following image of life without SPARC has merit.

The new CEO was certain the sport could make ends meet. After all Auckland’s regular income was about $250,000. Add to that national affiliation fees of $300,000, meet entry fees of $200,000, the awards dinner $60,000, profit on clothing sales $50,000, interest of $40,000 and sponsorship funding of $150,000 and the new trimmed down Swimming New Zealand was going to have to survive on an income of $1,050,000 or about 30% of the income of the old SPARC dependant organization. Costs, of course, would need to be slashed. No more involvement in learn to swim. Responsibility for that activity would revert to the clubs where it should have been all along. No more golf club lunches or company cars. No more tuition programs or subsidised travel for junior swimmers; not in the short term anyway. And best of all, no more Millennium Institute coaches or support staff to pay. Gone were the army of hangers on, gone were the uniforms and team costs that had burdened New Zealand swimming for a decade.

The cost figures the new CEO proposed taking to the Board meeting tonight included salaries for the CEO, the office staff and a Coaching Facilitator of $400,000, accommodation costs of $15,000, other administration costs of $140,000, depreciation and equipment costs of $60,000, swim meet expenditure of $120,000 and payments to eight swimmers and their coaches of $35,000 per swimmer, $280,000. That, he thought, would leave a profit of $35,000; only 3% of sales but as the price for a standalone proud little sport, not a bad place to start – not a bad place at all.
The Sunday Star-Times report concludes with this thought – “Whether the SNZ board, or the coalition, blinks first remains to be seen.” We wish the coalition well. It is surrounded by Coulter’s weak management and Miskimmin’s bureaucratic politicking. Only the coalition seems capable of providing the sport with very much needed good and strong management. Here at Swimwatch we wish you, God speed.

  • Chris

    David – you will be interested, I am sure, that the Herald online ran this today:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10746584

    I just get the sense that the tables are turning on our beloved SNZ.

  • Tom

    Coulter’s claim that “I don’t think I’ve made up my mind of whether I’d like to stay on the board ‘ is at complete odds with his earlier pronouncement that resigning would be “catastrophic”. These statements hardly encourage confidence in his leadership.

    It would also seem head of Sparc, Peter Miskimmin, is concerned Kerry McDonald and Nelson Cull have overstepped their authority in counselling the board not to resign. His comments in The Sunday Star-Times article are more a less a public admonishing of the pair.

    Also of note, Kerry McDonald appears to give two varying accounts of the circumstances by which Danyon Loader was denied entry to last week’s meeting. In the Herald on Sunday, McDonald says Danyon had attempted to enter the meeting, when he, intervened and “explained the circumstances to Danyon and said it was better if he wasn’t at that meeting and that we could meet later.”

    “Danyon’s interests were entirely legitimate but I felt it was best to focus on the regions so they could have their say.” (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10746584).

    Then, in the Sunday Star-Times, he says he had been in email contact with Loader, to make him aware he would not be entitled to attend the “special regional meeting” on the grounds he was not a regional chairperson – the specific requirement set out by the SNZ board.

  • Northern Swimmer

    Dear All,

    The ‘Kerry McDonald letter’ written and signed off by Murray Coulter, and “specifically authorised” by each of the SNZ directors asks for the regions and SCAT to withdraw their request for the Board to resign. This effective signature of each Board member goes beyond collective responsibility and is likely to further the resolve of the regions for a complete clean out of the board.

    However, I fear that the regions will not call a Special General Meeting to dissolve the Board, but rather will do what seems to be the practical thing and wait to pass a remit for this at the AGM in September. This seems prudent as I understand that it is a bad look for the sport to have this occur, and would probably have a significant cost attached – both in having delegates attend a SGM, and if SPARC called the regional coalition’s bluff reducing (they are unlikely to remove all) funding.

    What concerns me is that SNZ High Performance Proposed Staffing Re-alignment has a timeline on pages 7 and 8 that reads that the changes to the structure are being considered right now, or have already been decided, and are to be implemented before the AGM.
    see:
    http://www.swimwatch.net/2011/07/snz-report.html

    Based on what has appeared on Swimwatch, in the media, and what has come my way on good authority, I anticipate there will be a revolt from the regions which will remove the whole of the Board to give us a fresh start. However, all this will be for naught if we are left with a structure devised by Coulter’s board.

    I do not have time to do a decent analysis of the proposed changes vis a vis the Ineson report; indeed I am sure there are contributors out there better positioned and skilled to do so than I.
    What I will say is that the proposed structure sees six positions become eight, despite the first conclusion in the Ineson report being “SNZ’s HP structure is not appropriate for the size of its HP programme”. This Pelorus Empire building will be hard to un-do.
    What is even more frightening is that the proposed structure does not include the appointment of a long-term head coach position. Instead we are adopting and endorsing Cameron’s ‘give me London success or give me death’ approach with an Olympic Campaign manager role, potentially even being filled by her.

    I am sure that there will be many a celebratory drink when the current situation is resolved, what concerns me is that we may all be left suffering a very nasty hangover for a long time after.

    Kind Regards,

    Northern

  • Chris

    Just a little aside for a moment (I am still digesting the above to get my thoughts together), but the latest post on the SNZ website:

    “Swimming New Zealand would like to congratulate the NZ team at the 2011 University Games in Shenzen, China after a medal haul of 12 including 5 gold and also coming in third on the overall medal rankings.”

    They then place a link with the medal table, and NZ is in fact fourth.

    Now I am sure that detractors here will probably say that I am just being ridiculously picky and negative, blah, blah, blah. But, I don’t know about you lot, but I get so tired of the bloody nonsense that gets churned out from this organisation on a daily basis (it seems).

    What a bloody stupid piece of spin this is, and so unnecessary. We don’t need to be patronised about these fine swimmers’ results at the World Uni Games. We already know what a brilliant job they have done, how Lauren and Glynn have just carried on from where they left off at Worlds a month ago, and have no doubt been inspirational to the rest of the team that consists of some Aqua Blacks, and also a lot of “second tier” swimmers. Sure, its not Pan Pacs or even Comm Games, but a Lauren and Glynn’s swims have been world class.

    So don’t treat us like we are stupid by saying they were 3rd on the medal table (no matter how you decide to count the medals) and then bloody including a link for the Medal Table that clearly shows them as 4th. As long as I have known, medal tables are always calculated on the basis of quality first, quantity next.

    ARGHH … the constant barrage of nonsense just seems to be endless.

  • David

    Chris – I agree with you and do not think it is picky at all. It goes to the heart of honesty – why are the figures always wrong? Why do they always favor the Cameron regime? The sad thing about it all is that her lies assume more importance than the efforts of New Zealand’s athletes. It is well past the time that she should be gone. Does anyone know why she is still here?

  • Paul Newnham

    Unbelievable, usually when your in trouble you keep your head down and your nose clean!!

    Does anyone know when the special general meeting is???????
    Soon I hope.

  • Hurf Durf

    Chris – well said point. Swimming is a sport revolving around specific numbers. Accurate use of numbers is essential.

    It is a pity because it does detract from the fantastic job Lauren and Glenn have been doing.

  • Chris

    Isn’t it quite sad and pathetic how Murray Coulter’s delusions have him convinced that his continued tenure on the SNZ Board will be solely his decision, as in “I don’t think I’ve made up my mind.”

    Actually, he has no choice because he is up for re-election anyway. And to be re-elected he would have needed to have his nomination in by now (the deadline would have been last week some time). But even if someone was delusional enough to sign his nomination, let alone second it, he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of being voted back on the Board.

    I also think that the Magnificent 9 have already told them they are holding firm, and the letter remains. Which means that they will have to be forced out.

    So with over 60% of the voting membership telling them to do the right thing and step down, and renominate yourself if you wish in order to get a new mandate to act, they have defied reason and good sense and are determined that they will make this as messy as they possibly can – and then of course, blame it all on the regions.

    What will be interesting will be to know what business has been put forward by the regions, because along with the close of nominations, the deadline for proposed remits for the AGM would have also closed by now.

    I would put money on it that some of the Magnificant 9 have put forward remits to change the constitution to enable them to get rid of the Board, because unlike most other sports, there is no mechanism in the present Constitution to allow them to do that.

    It will be an interesting few weeks I think David.

  • Tom
  • Chris

    Tom – ah, that’s interesting that Mrs Radford is mentioning a change in the Constitution (which I thought would have had to be part of the clean-out process anyway), but to say as much … very interesting. What’s the bet that Bay of Plenty have put forward something along those lines.

    Oh to be a fly on the wall down at Pelorous House at the moment.