A Time of Gentle Reflection

By David

I was about to write a story on the email written by Mike Byrne telling us that the current Swimming New Zealand Board rejected all ten Annual General Meeting remits proposed by the Bay of Plenty, Auckland and Waikato Regions. In fact I had written the first 399 words. I had written about the exclusion of any mention of a Project Vanguard remit and wondered whether the omission was another example of Coulter and Byrne treachery. I pointed out that the culmination of Coulter’s 10 years on the Board, with 24 other directors, was the most damming organisational report any of us has ever read. I said the Regions seemed to identify the need to ensure SNZ never ended up in this mess again.

And then I recognised I was making a huge mistake. The heat in this debate is increasing daily. The Annual Meeting and Special Meeting are very close. There is a noticeable increase in tension. Swimming New Zealand is plastering their website with all sorts of new information. Memos and emails are jamming servers all over the country. The Chairman of the North Shore Club has waded into the debate telling us that his club has the largest membership in the country and whinging about the Auckland Region not asking his permission to govern. In fact there are four clubs in New Zealand bigger than North Shore and the role of an elected Board is to govern, not to conduct weekly referendum seeking North Shore or West Auckland’s approval. Without question the tensions and heat being generated is damaging the quality of the discussion. Emotion is replacing logic. The benefits of reform are being lost in a maze of accusations. In the vacuum created by Coulter’s indecision, confusion is rampant. The need for leadership is at a premium.

Without question this is not the time for Swimwatch to add to swimming’s problems. Whenever I have been in a stressful situation I have found that by slowing things down; by quietly reflecting, the problem is best solved. A few years ago I was flying myself from Auckland to Wellington. About 100 kilometres north of Wanganui, at 9000 feet, the engine of my Piper Arrow burst an oil pipe and the engine seized. I was lucky. I found a convenient barley field and landed safely. All the way down I recall reminding myself to slow things down, to remember the goal, to never lose sight of the objective, to achieve the original purpose, to bring this airplane down safely.

I was reminded of that occasion when I read the North Shore letter and some of the other correspondence on Swimming New Zealand’s website. An oil pipe had burst and this organisation was descending at 700 feet a minute. It was time to slow things down; time to focus on the purpose of why we were here; time to bring the sport in for a safe and welcome landing.

Bronwen Radford’s email explaining how swimming has arrived at this point is an important document in this regard. She has detailed an unfortunate history that could no longer be ignored. If the Regions had not responded to the deteriorating standard of management at Swimming New Zealand they would have been guilty of neglecting their duties as owners of the organisation.

Several years ago the Regions stood by and watched Swimming New Zealand make an expensive and aborted effort to standardise data management in swimming. During that exercise the Regions became suspicious of the motives of Swimming New Zealand management. Was this simply an exercise to gather additional revenue? The concern of the Regions expressed itself in a remit that became known as the Manawatu Remit being presented to and passed by the 2010 Annual General Meeting. This was aimed at improving Swimming New Zealand’s communication with the Regions.

And from that point the relationship between Swimming New Zealand and its members lurched from one disaster to another. Instead of looking at the reasons that prompted the Manawatu Remit and learning from them and working harder to improve communication and trust, the Board of Swimming New Zealand decided the Manawatu Remit was grounds for a fight. They would show a few rebellious Regions that this Board was not to be taken lightly. They refused to ratify the Manawatu Remit and called a Special General Meeting to overturn the new rule. And they launched Project Vanguard; a whole movement aimed at eliminating Regional power. The Board of Swimming New Zealand declared war.

The Regions agreed to withdraw the Manawatu Remit but strongly resisted Project Vanguard. They saw the disaster a similar structural change had caused Surf Life Saving and Girl Guides in New Zealand and said, “Not for us, thank you.” Swimming New Zealand’s response was another disaster. They altered Annual Meeting minutes. They progressed Project Vanguard way beyond the approval given by the Regions. Without authorisation they closed a Project Vanguard Committee established by an Annual Meeting. It was impossible to imagine behaviour designed to alienate the owners of the sport more. It was just awful management aimed, as always, at accumulating naked power.

Finally, and way too late, SPARC realised there was a problem. SPARC had invested $16 million in Jan Cameron’s folly and she had returned them nothing. And now the grass roots of the sport were telling them that sector was in disarray. SPARC commissioned the Ineson Report. I never thought Ineson would reveal the shambles in swimming. I thought his report would be a cover up. I was wrong. Ineson laid bare a picture of conflict and disharmony. SPARC ordered the Board to reform.

The Board responded. They formed a Committee and wrote another report. Nothing else changed. They pushed on blindly with a dying Project Vanguard. They spent money on gala events at the Mirimar Golf Club. Jan Cameron toiled away behind the scenes, undermining the National Coach’s position, preparing personal grievances, wasting the few months left before New Zealand’s best swimmers have to compete in the London Olympic Games.

Bronwen Radford saw all this and could wait no longer. She asked the Board of Swimming New Zealand to resign. She did that, not as a punishment, or as final push in long standing war. I believe Bronwen Radford did that because she realised the relationship between this Board and the owners of the sport was irreparably broken. There simply was no way that Coulter, Byrne and Cameron could win back the trust of the Regions. That was gone forever. Swimming New Zealand’s war had caused too much damage. It was time to begin again. It was a time for healing.

The best way to do that was to form a new Board in which every Director had the full support of the membership; a new Board with a fresh mandate to govern. She recognised it was the only option. And that’s where we are today.

Bronwen Radford has done a fine job. She has guided us well. She has found a great barley field. We are on finals with good height and good speed. We should elect a new Board and get this craft safely home.

  • NSS parent

    David and readers of Swimwatch. I have been a reader of late and have been watching the national debate with interest. I think your comments above are very measured, but I am afraid I will not be so as it relates to a disgusting memo and letter emailed to me by my club a few days ago.

    As a parent of a NSS swimmer I am very, very angry that my club’s Board have presumed to speak on my behalf, and might I add, on behalf of other parents of this club who similarly feel very strongly that the stand being taken by our region and others is absolutely the right one and it is about time that something was done. So to criticise the region for supposedly not seeking a mandate (or as you rightly say, not asking their permission) from the NSS Board, and yet doing the same thing by publicly firing off a letter around the country without first asking its own membership is crass and double standards.

    The letter was reproduced by an undoubtedly gleeful and colluding SNZ on their website. How do I know that? Because it appeared on the SNZ website before it appeared in my Inbox later that day. This has done nothing other than reinforce the arrogance of the leadership of my club and further isolates us from the rest of our community. When I talk about leadership I am not referring to the coaching leadership of Thomas Ansorg and his team, including the office administrators, who have turned this club around in the last year from a major split and losing members, hand over fist, to a more stable and settled place. It still has major challenges, but the “feel” of the club is different with Thomas.

    However, Mr Mitchell is so detached from the reality of swimming and has been for many, many years. Not just nationally or regionally, but detached even from his own club. I have never seen him poolside at any swim meet, not at Level meets, not Auckland meets, certainly not national meets. In fact, I can’t recall seeing him even at our own Club champs or Club nights. I have never seen him at League (which incidentally my swimmer absolutely loves, despite members of the Board trying to discourage it). In fact, probably the best event this year for our family was the ANZAC swim meet, and no surprises, Mr Mitchell was nowhere to be seen.

    I apologise for the length of this comment, but your readers need to understand that I am aware of many parents and swimmers from NSS who are embarrassed and bemused by these antics. We are supportive of our region, love coming out to Auckland meets, love league and are grateful for the hard work that gets done on our swimmer’s behalf.

  • Northern Swimmer

    To breathe through one’s nose.

    With regard to the 1st remit proposed by BOP – that there be the ability for regional delegates to remove one, some or all of the Board – Mr Byrne says that:

    “No one on the Board or the SPARC advisors has ever come across a measure
    like this before. Also, there is no awareness of a similar ability for clubs to remove regional board members or boards. An SGM can be called at any time to pass a remit should it be deemed necessary.”
    He goes on to say that:
    “Any removal of the entire Board would create major practical problems in terms of who replaces the Board” and that “it would render the organisation rudderless.”

    He argues for continuation of current situation which allows for gradual rotation board members through the current electoral situation. I am not sure whether he and I are talking past each other, whether he is attempting to obfuscate the issue, or whether “the Board or the SPARC advisors” need to broaden their experience.

    A simple check of Telecom’s Constitution shows that under
    PART C: DIRECTORS
    APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL

    72 Removal of directors
    Any director may be removed from office by an ordinary resolution passed
    at a meeting called for the purpose of, or for purposes that include,
    removal of the director.

    and under
    MEETINGS OF SHAREHOLDERS
    64 Company may hold special meetings of shareholders
    A special meeting of shareholders entitled to vote on an issue:
    64.1 may be called at any time by the Board; and
    64.2 must be called by the Board on the written request of shareholders
    holding shares carrying together not less than 5 percent of the
    voting rights entitled to be exercised on the issue.

    http://www.telecom.co.nz/binarys/constitution_as_at_4_october_2007.pdf

    Surely what is considered good governance practices for New Zealand’s largest listed company, and keeps the Board in touch with their shareholders, could easily be adopted for our sport to ensure that our Board is kept in touch with its stakeholders?

    ps. Thank you to Sensible Swimming for your description of the AGM process, and clarification of the limitation of service remit. In my haste I had mis-read it and thought that it was an absolute limit to service length rather than a limit to unbroken service. In this light I would argue that a shorter limit of 5-6 years should be proposed as you would more likely have people stand again after such a term, and enforced break, than following an 8 year term and enforced break.

  • swimfan

    I hope NSS parent sends the above comment to SNZ….. and wonder if they will post it on their website.

  • Paul Newnham

    Dear NSS Parent,
    At WAQ we love the league too and its all about the kids. It has to be enjoyable for the whole family or its not worth the effort. Enjoyable means ribbons, PB’s and good mates poolside. That goes for the kids and the grown ups. We all have a common goal within the grass roots of the sport. You obviously think like us so come join us for a coffee some time so we can foster better relations within the region.

    Regards,
    Paul Newnham

  • Legally Swimming

    Murray, Murray, Murray

    You resigned because people were making it hard for you to do your job. Are you serious? Did you not read the Ineson Report? Or were all those nasty people ganging up on you as well. Grab a tissue, man up and grab Koru as you walk out the door in Wellington and please stay away from the governance of Swimming in New Zealand.

    Having known you for 20 years I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when the Ineson Report came out. Surely you would have admitted your mistakes, stuck your hand up and realised, that hey something wasn’t going right in the sport that you loved so much. But low and behold you decided that no, you knew better then everyone else and everything was great. Project Vanguard is going to take Swimming down the same road as Surf Lifesaving (bankrupt and basically useless) and yet you are supporting this unconditionally. We finally get a world renown coach at the High Performance Centre and you want to belittle him by making him have the same title as a coach with 3-4 years experience (by the way, whose swimmers swam the best at Worlds and the Uni games?) it would be like a BNZ bank teller, having your fancy BNZ title. Not exactly fair is it.

    The regions aren’t ganging up on you. They wanted you to lead from the front, rather then hide behind politics. When the changes were needed to be made, you didn’t make them. You didn’t act like a President. You acted like a child who had had their feelings hurt. You and your cronies have tried to bully the regions to change their minds. Did you seriously think that a letter from the NSS President was ever going to be good? He is obviously as out of touch about what is going on as you are.

    I wish you the best for your future endeavors, but please pick another sport – maybe with Bike NZ? That way you can take Koru with you.

  • Tom

    I’m guessing we’ve all seen this by now: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10749036

    Murray has resigned.

  • Tom

    I find Coulter’s comments illuminating. Gracious in departure he is not.

    Take this, for example: “I am very distressed at the personal attacks our staff and board are currently enduring. These attacks mean that a small number of people are bringing our sport into disrepute.”

    – He must be referring to you, David. Surely, the “small number of people” can’t be a reference to over half the regions in New Zealand who called for him to resign?

    Also, didn’t the Ineson Report find it was in fact SNZ’s members were afraid of “personal attacks” is they stepped out of line? And Coulter may have forgotten, but Ineson reported it was the governance of SNZ who had brought the sport into disrepute, not the activities of “a small number of people”.

    Coulter continues: “If I remain I will damage our sport and I am not prepared to do that. I hope my standing down will help us move past the negativity and help begin the process of change we know that our sport desperately needs.”

    – Again, the Inseson Report found the “negativity” was fostered by a culture of mistrust at the top, not by members. Yes, standing down is the right thing to do. It should have been done long ago. By not stepping down immediately after the release of the Inseson Report – and from your statements today – you have demonstrated you take no responsibility for the failure of SNZ.

  • Chris

    Murray

    I tried, I really, truly did try, to read through your resignation letter, but I was gagging so much I had to stop.

    Surely this was the time to be presidential, to show some dignity and grace. But no, you just couldn’t resist the temptation to dish out the same garbage that has been dished out for years – it’s everyone else’s fault, its Bronwyn Radford, its a few outspoken people ruining the sport, its devious Auckland, blah, blah, blah.

    Actually, I do feel sorry for Murray (I know, I know, David, I’m getting soft). He has been very badly advised. Clearly he should have fallen on his sword a long time ago, but he was so weak and had his head firmly stuck in Wellington “sand”.

    I am amused by the “few” – so I guess 83% of the 86 people interviewed by Ineson who criticised the leadership of SNZ is a “few”. Or even over half the regions in New Zealand is a “few”. And to try to take on Bronwyn Radford – he was always going to be on the wrong side of that fight.

    I tell you what Murray – how about joining the North Shore Board. They seem intent on backing losing horses.

  • Chris – yes, the vast majority does not exactly equal “a few.”

    His saying that is an attempt to marginalise the opinions of people who dissented. If it really were only “a few”, he wouldn’t have resigned.

  • David

    Tom – Thank you for the comment. You are right. I have never read a less gracious document. He is pretty classless. The letters demonstrate why we have a problem.

  • Chris

    Northern Swimmer – thank you for your post re. Remit 1 Removal of the Board

    I have just done a bit of checking. This, I think, is going to be a lot of fun!

    So Byrne writes (and don’t think for a minute he wrote this on his own – the “scholar” that he is):

    “No one on the Board or the SPARC advisors has ever come across a measure
    like this before”.

    Duh .. check out the Constitution of … none other than Bike New Zealand. They have a clause exactly like the one proposed by Bay of Plenty. Hahahaha! You couldn’t script it. So who was the unfortunate previous employer of Koru … Bike NZ. He clearly couldn’t read even then.

    But, I’m not finished. Check out the Constitution of …. Athletics New Zealand. Ummmm …. the same clause.

    Did it ever occur to “the Board and SPARC advisors” to check!

    So here is the game Swimwatchers. Find all the other sports organisations in New Zealand that have Constitutions that have the same “Remit 1 Removal of the Board” as outlined by Bay of Plenty.

    That should keep everyone amused for the evening.

  • James T

    Chris. Basketball New Zealand has the same clause.

  • James T

    Tennis New Zealand has a similar clause removing “any Board Member”.

  • Sensible Swimming

    Softball NZ – different words, but same clause.

    This has been very interesting. I also checked out Surf Lifesaving. The clause they use is Clause 16.11, and found here:

    http://www.slsnz.org.nz/Resource.aspx?ID=14027

    This is quite outrageous. Kerry McDonald was on the Surf Advisory Board for Project Groundswell and you would have thought that in that capacity, he should have known the new Constitution introduced as part of Groundswell, inside-out.

    So, who is kidding who here? Either Mike Byrne hasn’t spoken to Kerry McDonald before authoring that Kerry McDonald has never “come across a measure like this before”. Or Kerry McDonald doesn’t do his homework.

    And these are the people racing around saying that these remits are there to knobble the Board and make our sport “ungovernable”? Dear, oh dear. Who is looking foolish now.

    Incidentally, many of these clauses seem almost to be drafted by the same legal counsel. I would suggest that this coalition group is getting very good legal advice. Clearly, much better legal advice than SNZ at the moment.

  • Sharon

    Ohhhh – how sweet, Murray’s been released into the wild. He can keep Koru company.