By David

Last Sunday the Herald on Sunday published two very important articles on swimming. The first covered the Machiavellian Board Room antics of Miskimmin and Butler. Andrew Alderson’s article was a most important insight into the management of sport in New Zealand. It is unusual for the main stream media to publish a story like this one. New Zealand is a small country. Just about every sport’s journalist depends on Sky Sport for a portion of their income. As you know Jan Cameron’s husband runs Sky Sport. The effect was that, for a decade, swimming got a free ride from New Zealand’s castrated sport’s journalists. Except, it seems, when Alderson decided to inform New Zealand about the political trickery practiced by SPARC and Swimming New Zealand.

It is pretty well accepted that SPARC is now in full control of what goes on in Swimming New Zealand. Miskimmin with his money and hired guns on the Swimming New Zealand Board runs the show. He decided who would be Chairman and President. He appointed the two SPARC observers and nominated and voted for himself to run the latest Review Committee. You can’t buy a paper clip down there without processing a requisition order through the CEO of SPARC. Whatever happens in London is down to Miskimmin. There should be no misunderstanding on that point. The successes and failures of the New Zealand team at the London Olympic Games belong to Peter Miskimmin. London will not be a test of how good New Zealand swimming people are at their job. London will be a test of Peter Miskimmin’s management and the men in dark suits he hired to do his bidding. Swimming people wanted Butler and Wrightson gone – out of there. Miskimmin said they had to stay. Well, Peter, you made the decision, you live with it. You backed the slick insurance salesman from Nelson. We think you were wrong. But now you stand and fall by consequences of decisions that are your responsibility.

Actually it was the second article by Andrew Alderson in last weekend’s Herald on Sunday that really caught my interest. In it Alderson discussed the progress of Melissa Ingram. In particular I was fascinated by the last paragraph of his report. Here is what it says.

Ingram is prepared to leave nothing to chance. The Herald on Sunday understands that could mean moving on from current coach Scott Talbot – potentially leaving the high performance coach with no Olympic swimmers – but she is too loyal to say.

“I’m now in the process of planning my pathway to London and I’m hoping Swimming New Zealand will help me with that.

“I was disappointed with my campaign at the world championships [15th in the 200m backstroke semifinalists], some mistakes were made with my programming. That won’t happen before London.”

I have spoken about Melissa Ingram before on Swimwatch. I would not blame her for being very annoyed that I refer to her without her permission and without ever having spoken to her. For that I apologise. However, with her indulgence one more time, I was taken with what this report said and by what it failed to say.

I first saw Melissa Ingram swim a couple of years ago at World Cup swim meets in Moscow, Stockholm and Berlin. When I first noticed that a swimmer from the New Zealand Millennium Institute was entered, I was prepared to be hugely under-impressed. I thought, here comes another product of the Cameron welfare state. My first surprise was when she turned up in Moscow on her own. Not only that, she went about her business with dignity and calm. But best of all she was a winner. This sceptic was wrong. I was hugely impressed; proud to come from the same country as this fine athlete.

Some of you may know that I spent several years watching the likes of Quax, Dixon and Walker compete and beat the best runners in the world. These were tough professional men doing their job and doing it well. They were all Olympic medallists. Two of them were world record holders and the third won the New York marathon. After watching Melissa Ingram in three meets she was their equal in every way – quite simply New Zealand’s best swimmer. And, in my view, she still is.

If Melissa Ingram struggles in London she will have been let down by Swimming New Zealand and its SPARC owners. She will not have let them down. Melissa Ingram knows more about swimming than anyone running Swimming New Zealand. She knows exactly what will work best for her through to London. For what it’s worth, my advice to Pelorus House is to find out what Melissa Ingram wants and give it to her. If she wants to work out on the dark side of Mars, find a way of getting her there. If she wants McDonalds after practice every morning, send her the vouchers. If, as this article suggests, she wants to change her coach, support that decision. Every swimmer of Melissa Ingram’s standing, must have the right to be coached by someone of their choice. Clearly she has a plan in mind for what she needs to perform well in London. Make sure she gets it. Melissa Ingram is one of the world’s best swimmers. Swimming New Zealand should start treating her like one.

There is a philosophy behind the stance taken in this article. The vast majority of athletes who win the Olympic Games are men and women, not boys and girls. Cameron was a control freak who insisted on disciplines appropriate for grade school but not relevant for adults wanting to win the Olympic Games. Her juvenile treatment of the team was one reason New Zealand performed badly during her time in charge. The remnants of that regime are still there and will take time to wane. But, for Melissa Ingram at least, wane they must if New Zealand is to change its swimming fortunes at the London Olympic Games.

By David

It hasn’t been the best of weeks for the New Zealand government. The Prime Minister, John Key, has twisted and turned to avoid a tape of his conversation with ACT candidate, John Banks, being published. Key’s deceptive behaviour suggests there is something on the tape that he will do anything to avoid being made public. One week before a General Election and John Key is behaving like a guilty creep; walking out of meetings, refusing to answer questions and dodging reporters. Deception, it seems, is learned behaviour. The Prime Minister’s underlings in SPARC are proving equally adept at covering their tracks, hiding their bad behaviour. Is dishonesty becoming a defining feature of the John Key government?

On 3 November 2011 I wrote to Murray McCully, the New Zealand Minister for Sport and Recreation, requesting information held by SPARC. Here is a copy of my email.

Dear Sir,

In accordance with the terms of the Official Information Act 1982 I am making a request for information held by the Ministry of Sport and Recreation and in the offices of the organization known as SPARC and in the office of Swimming New Zealand.

In particular I am requesting a copy of the minutes and mediation agreement of a meeting held recently between several regions of Swimming New Zealand known as “The Coalition of Regions”, Board members of Swimming New Zealand and members of the Government funding organization (including the CEO Peter Miskimmin) known as SPARC. The agreement reached at this meeting has been referred to in the press as a Record of Mediation Agreement. This is the document that is the subject of this application for Information.

The Mediation Report is held in the offices of SPARC and Swimming New Zealand and is therefore covered by the Official Information Act 1982. Thank you for your consideration.

This morning I received a reply from Peter Miskimmin, the CEO of SPARC. Here is what Miskimmin said.

I am withholding the mediation agreement under section 9(2)(ba)(i) and 9(2)(j) of the Official Information Act. Under s 9(2)(ba)(i) it is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence and its release would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information from the same source. Under s 9(2)(j) it is necessary to withhold the information to enable SPARC to carry on negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage.

There should be no misunderstanding of what is going on here. Peter Miskimmin is walking roughshod over the rules of swimming. In particular he is in almost daily breach of FINA Rule 13 that says, “These measures include the suspension or the expulsion from the FINA membership if any act by any governmental or other body provokes the activity of the NF or the making or expression of its will to be hampered.”

The Swimwatch application for the Record of Mediation Agreement was made in order to gather further evidence that the CEO of the New Zealand’s sport funding organization, SPARC, is out-of-control. At every turn he is “hampering” the “will” of Swimming New Zealand. Right now he effectively runs the place, lock stock and barrel. FINA do not like governments running their affairs. If Miskimmin’s authoritarian behavior was happening in some central African dictatorship, imagine what we would be saying.

Naturally I expected Miskimmin to decline my request. Open government is not this government’s most endearing quality. Look at the effort Miskimmin made to hide SPARC’s involvement in the drug laced supplement’s scandal. Of course he was going to hide the extent of his direct involvement in the management of Swimming New Zealand. Twice I’ve heard him stand up in public meetings and claim that he would never get directly involved in a sport’s governance structure. All that means is twice I’ve heard him lie like a flat fish. Why doesn’t he tell the truth? He’s up to his eye balls in managing the affairs of Swimming New Zealand.

Anticipating Miskimmin’s response I prepared an appeal to the New Zealand Office of the Ombudsman. The appeal is pretty self explanatory and is copied in full below.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

OFFICIAL INFORMATION COMPLAINT

Sequence of Events

1. On the 3 November 2011 a request was made to the Minister for Sport requesting information known as the Record of Mediation Agreement. This document was an agreement reached between several regions of Swimming New Zealand known as “The Coalition of Regions”, Board members of Swimming New Zealand and members of the Government funding organization (including the CEO Peter Miskimmin) known as SPARC. A copy of the email request is attached to this complaint.
2. The request for information was forwarded to SPARC for their consideration.
3. On Friday 18 November 2011 a reply was received from SPARC declining the request for a copy of the Record of Mediation Agreement. A copy of the SPARC letter is attached to this complaint.
4. On Monday 21 November 2011 this Official Information Complaint was forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman.

Reason for Declining the Request for Information

1. The SPARC letter from CEO, Peter Miskimmin, explained the reasons for declining the request for information as follows:

   “I am withholding the mediation agreement under section 9(2)(ba)(i) and 9(2)(j) of the Official Information Act. Under s 9(2)(ba)(i) it is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence and its release would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information from the same source. Under s 9(2)(j) it is necessary to withhold the information to enable SPARC to carry on negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage.”

Discussion of SPARC’s Reasons for Declining the Request for Information – One

1. The first reason is section 9(2)(ba)(i) of the Official Information Act. SPARC describe the terms of this section as protecting “information which is subject to an obligation of confidence and its release would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information from the same source.”
2. The wording used in the Act is as follows, “protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information — (i) would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.
3. For the CEO of SPARC to suggest that providing a swim coach in Auckland with an agreement reached between several swimming regions and Swimming New Zealand would be likely to “prejudice” the supply of future information from the same source has no merit.
4. Swimming New Zealand receive two thirds of their annual funding from SPARC. Without SPARC Swimming New Zealand does not exist. SPARC has two appointed observers permanently sitting on the Swimming New Zealand Board. Not one decision is made at Swimming New Zealand without SPARC’s approval. It is important to remember that the purpose of this information request is to investigate the strength of SPARC’s involvement in Swimming New Zealand; not its weakness.
5. To suggest that there is the even the slightest chance that Swimming New Zealand would decline a request from SPARC for further information because SPARC was required to provide the Mediation Agreement to an Auckland swim coach is beyond belief and has no merit.
6. This reason for declining the request needs to be seen for what it is – a charade of an excuse designed to avoid SPARC’s influence over a sporting body in New Zealand becoming known and conveyed to the world headquarters of the sport.
7. It is certainly in the public interest that the extent of SPARC’s involvement in the management of swimming becomes known to the members of Swimming New Zealand.
8. It is even more absurd to suggest that the Coalition of Regions would withhold information from SPARC if the Record of Mediation Agreement was made available. I know many of those involved in the coalition. Most would welcome a FINA investigation into SPARC’s activities. Far from causing them to withhold information, the success of this application is very likely to encourage them to more generous with information in the future.
9. The transparent failings of this reason given by SPARC prompt us to request that the Office of the Ombudsman recommend that the Record of Mediation Agreement be released.

Discussion of SPARC’s Reasons for Declining the Request for Information – Two

1. The second reason is section 9(2)(j) of the Official Information Act. SPARC describe the terms of this section as protecting the Mediation Agreement “to enable SPARC to carry on negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage.”
2. The wording used in the Act is as follows: “enable a Minister of the Crown or any department or organisation holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations.”
3. Using this section to avoid making the Mediation Agreement public is also a case of finding any reason to avoid SPARC’s public responsibility to provide this report. The Mediation Agreement does not cover ongoing and extended negotiations. It covers an agreement reached at one meeting that decided to form a couple of committees to investigate the management of Swimming New Zealand. Those Committees have now been established and are going about their work. There is no reason for any further, extended negotiations on this subject. Effectively there are no further negotiations to protect.
4. The intent of the Act is to protect ongoing and serious matters of state being improperly used. This application for the release of the Mediation Agreement comes nowhere near that level of importance. No serious future negotiations are being put at any risk by the provision of this information.
5. As this complaint has already mentioned, future discussions between Swimming New Zealand and SPARC would not be affected in any way by the release of this report and discussions with the Coalition could very well improve.
6. SPARC are clearly very concerned at the possibility of this information becoming public. But their concern has nothing to do with protecting SPARC’s relationship with Swimming New Zealand and the Regions. SPARC’s interest, in this case, is to protect itself. And that is not a reason offered by the Official Information Act.
7. Section 9(2)(j) is not a valid reason for declining to provide the Mediation Agreement Report. We would ask the Office of the Ombudsman to rule that the Mediation Report be supplied in accordance with the terms of the Official Information Act. It is in the public interest for that decision to be taken.

Conclusion

1. This complaint is made in the belief that no harm will come to SPARC, Swimming New Zealand or the Coalition of Regions by the release of the Mediation Agreement. In fact it is probable that only good will occur.
2. Certainly the sections of the Act identified by SPARC as protecting the release of the Mediation Report were never intended to be used in a case such as this one. This is not an ongoing sensitive negotiation. There are no security or commercial factors at play that would be likely to damage the state or the public interest.
3. This is simply a record of events that took place at a meeting held to discuss the future of a sporting organization. It is in the best interests of the members of the sport that they are made aware of what went on in that meeting. SPARC may want to hide their involvement. That does not make it right. The Act was put in place for a situation just like this one. We would ask the Office of the Ombudsman to rule accordingly.

David Wright – Swim Coach, Auckland

I have just read the following report in the November 13 2011 issue of the New Zealand Sunday Star Times.

SWIMMING: FINA STEPPING IN

World Aquatics body Fina is to contact Swimming New Zealand over long-term administrative hostility.  Executive director Cornel Marculescu has confirmed Fina will be seeking information over prolonged governance issues blighting Kiwi swimming.   Extensive problems have included calls for the Swimming NZ board to resign en masse, debate over potential constitutional breaches by senior officials and high performance structural inadequacies.  But it appears Swimming NZ has not communicated its difficulties to Fina.  “Fina is not aware of any problems within Swimming New Zealand,” Marculescu said.  “We will contact Swimming New Zealand asking for any information.”  Swimming NZ general manager Mike Byrne said he was not in a position to make public comment.

Recently Swimming New Zealand has had all the openness of a 1960s Soviet Politburo. Normally sources close to Swimwatch find out what’s going on and tell me all they know. I’ve told you before about my contact in Australia who knows a Swimming New Zealand staff member and a close friend in Italy who has a relative involved in the SPARC organization. I asked them for more information about this item in the Sunday Star Times. All they could tell me is that no one is talking. My Italian friend did say that she had heard that SPARC had influenced the Board of Swimming New Zealand to reappoint Butler and Wrightson as independent Directors. SPARC’s pressure was applied, she thought, after the Board had initially voted against the reappointment of Butler and Wrightson.

I realize all this is not much information to go on, but if it is true the Board of Swimming New Zealand and SPARC have acted in clear breach of FINA Rule BL13. Certainly the rumours I was hearing make it worthwhile laying a complaint with FINA and having FINA determine the truth. Because, if there is merit in the accusations being made, SPARC and the Board of Swimming New Zealand are leading this sport into a very dark place indeed.

Here therefore is the complaint I will be sending to FINA tomorrow morning. It sets out the information I have on some very corrupt deals in the Swimming New Zealand and SPARC Board Rooms.

COMPLAINT AGAINST SWIMMING NEW ZEALAND

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

This complaint asserts that at the Board Meeting of Swimming New Zealand held on Sunday 6 November 2011 the New Zealand government agency known as SPARC exerted undue financial and political pressure in order to alter a constitutional vote of the Swimming New Zealand Board and secure the reappointment of two independent directors to the Board. This complaint argues that the political and financial pressure applied by SPARC in order to alter a proper vote by the Swimming New Zealand Board was in breach of FINA Rule BL13.

FINA Rule BL13 reads as follows:

BL 13 AUTONOMY OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATIONS MEMBERS OF FINA

By Laws

When the autonomy of a NF is being, or is, compromised the FINA Executive is entitled to take any appropriate decisions in order to protect the benefits of Aquatic Sports in the Country or the Sport Country of a NF. These measures include the suspension or the expulsion from the FINA membership if the constitution, law or other regulations in force in the Country or Sport Country of the NF concerned, or any act by any governmental or other body provokes the activity of the NF or the making or expression of its will to be hampered. The procedure shall be as established in FINA C 12.

In particular this complaint contends that the action taken by SPARC is in breach of the section of this rule that says, “These measures include the suspension or the expulsion from the FINA membership if any act by any governmental or other body provokes the activity of the NF or the making or expression of its will to be hampered.”

In this case the Board of Swimming New Zealand had expressed its will and had declined to reappoint two independent directors. That “will” of the Board was then “hampered” by the intervention of a “governmental” agency.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPLAINT

1. The Annual General Meeting of Swimming New Zealand was held on Sunday 30 October 2011.
2. At that Annual Meeting two new members were elected to the Board – Suzanne Speer and Nevill Sutton. The two new Board members were joined by four returning elected Board members Mark Berge, Ron Clarke, Alison Fitch and Humphrey Pullon.
3. The following Sunday, 6 November 2011, the Board of Swimming New Zealand met for the purpose of considering the appointment of two independent Directors to the Board and to appoint a Chairman of the Board. The business of this first Board Meeting following an Annual Meeting is covered by Rule10 of the Swimming New Zealand Constitution. Rule10 says:

10.1 The board shall comprise of:

(a) Six elected Directors.

(b) The elected Directors may appoint up to two appointed Directors on the basis of specific knowledge or skills, for a term no longer than two years. Upon expiry of that term the Board if it thinks fit may reappoint such Directors for a further term.

10.2 President and Vice President

(a) The members of the Board shall immediately after the AGM, or as soon as possible in the event of an extraordinary vacancy, convene a meeting to elect the President and Vice President.

1. Two independently appointed Directors were seeking the approval of this first Board meeting to be reappointed for a further two year period – Jane Wrightson and Ross Butler. Whether either of these Directors should have been seeking reappointment is open to serious doubt. Ross Butler had already served three, two year terms (six years) on the Board of Swimming New Zealand and Jane Wrightson had served two, two year terms (four years). It appears conclusive that the reappointment of both Directors therefore was in contravention of Rule10.1(b) which restricts independent Directors to two terms of two years. However, whether it is constitutional or not, both these Directors were seeking the approval of the new Board for further terms as independent Directors.
2. Ross Butler was also seeking the approval of the Board Meeting to be appointed Chairman of the Swimming New Zealand Board and President of Swimming New Zealand.
3. The meeting voted on the reappointment of Wrightson and Butler and on the appointment of Butler as Chairman/President. All the appointment remits were lost by four votes to three. The four elected members voting against the motions to reappoint Wrightson and Butler as the two independent Directors were Speer, Sutton, Pullon and Fitch. The three Board members voting for the appointments were Berge, Clarke and Wrightson. It needs to be noted that Butler was absent from this meeting.
4. Once the vote of reappointment to the Board and appointment to the position of Chairman/President was lost, the three members who had voted for the appointments and the two SPARC Board observers (Kerry McDonald and Nelson Cull) left the meeting. I understand they left after expressing their disgust at the appointments being rejected by the Board.
5. Fifteen minutes later the three directors and the two SPARC observers returned to the meeting. I understand that Nelson Cole proceeded to lecture and harangue the four negative voters and ordered them to change their vote. I understand there was a clear threat made that SPARC’s funding was at risk if the votes of the dissenting Board Members were not changed and the appointments proposed in these remits were not confirmed by the Board in a revote. The discussion took twenty minutes and was clearly a case of governmental/political interference in the management of a sporting organization. Cole called the Board dysfunctional and said he would report to SPARC that it was not capable of managing the sport. He would recommend that the current Review of the sport be discontinued. These were all clear threats to the Board of Swimming New Zealand by a New Zealand government agency; a clear case of intimidation using the power of the state.
6. A second vote was ordered. Three of the four dissenting Directors folded and changed their vote to approve the appointments. Only Suzanne Speer continued to vote against the appointments.

10.  I believe that in the fifteen minutes the Board Directors and SPARC observers left the meeting they called Peter Miskimmin, the CEO of SPARC. I believe Miskimmin ordered his observers to bring the Board of Swimming New Zealand into line and to ensure the dissenting Directors fold to SPARC’s political pressure. I believe Cole and McDonald followed those instructions.

SANCTIONS RECOMENDED

1. The actions of SPARC and the Swimming New Zealand Board are a clear breach of FINA Rule BL13. Political interference of this nature has no place in a democratic society.
2. FINA Rule12 covers the remedies available to FINA in the case of breaches of FINA’s rules.
3. In this case I recommend FINA order SPARC to remove its two observers (McDonald and Cull) from the Swimming New Zealand Board. They have breached all standards of good behaviour and have applied powers they have no right to exercise.
4. I recommend that FINA order the Swimming New Zealand Board to reinstate the original negative vote of the Board declining the appointments of the two independent Directors (Wrightson and Butler).
5. I do not recommend that a second revote is ordered. The SPARC threat is still present and continues to prevent a fair and honest Board vote.
6. I recommend FINA order the Swimming New Zealand Board to reinstate the vote declining the appointment of Butler to the position of Chairman/President.
7. I also recommend that FINA lobby the New Zealand Government with a view to having Miskimmin removed from the office of CEO of SPARC on the grounds of gross misconduct. I understand that Miskimmin has said since the Board meeting that the requirement for “stability” of Board membership justified SPARC’s dictatorial intervention in this case. An individual holding these views has no place in sport’s management. The end does not justify the means.

CONCLUSION

1. The behaviour of SPARC and the Swimming New Zealand Board in this case cannot be allowed to pass. It is important to FINA that the sport of swimming in New Zealand is run by an organization that is responsible to the world body.
2. SPARC are not responsible to FINA. Their actions in this case need to be addressed by the sport’s governing body.