Those Buggers Are Going To Reappoint Cameron

By David

Swimming New Zealand has published a “Proposed Staffing Re-alignment” report. You can read the whole thing at the conclusion of this article. I thought this report would be about the staff changes necessary to replace Cameron and Byrne. There is no question that their departure is long overdue. For six years Swimwatch has explained why they need to be replaced. We have even obtained legal reports of possible unlawful behaviour, nepotism and incompetence. However a close reading of the Proposed Staffing Re-alignment Report has convinced me there is no intention of replacing Cameron. In fact the Report seems to be setting the scene for Cameron to stay around until the London Olympic Games. Eighty three percent of those interviewed by Ineson think Cameron is not up to the job. But, for some reason, Swimming New Zealand treats her as an indispensable aquatic deity.

Here is what the Proposed Staffing Re-alignment Report says.

  1. Cameron’s, General Manager of Performance and Pathways job will be divided into two positions.
  2. One of the new positions will be called Olympic Campaign Manager and the other the Athlete Support and Development Manager.
  3. The Olympic Campaign Manager will do everything involved in preparing the team for the London Olympics. After the Games the job will disappear.
  4. The Athlete Support and Development Manager will be responsible for the non Olympic Games aspects of the High Performance program.
  5. Regan’s coaching job is being downgraded to the same level as Scott Talbot’s job in a classic piece of Cameron nepotism – promoting her son by demoting the opposition. That’s a real good “One Team” move. I hope Regan’s as mad as hell. I would be.
  6. Everything else pretty much stays the same, even the frequently repeated line that the new positions will report to Mike Byrne. That most certainly ensures the whole thing won’t work.

The position that the Report is preparing for Cameron is the Olympic Campaign Manager. Just look at the following facts. Existing staff can apply for the job. Cameron will certainly apply. Preference is being given to existing staff. In fact if a suitable existing staff member exists there is no need for Swimming New Zealand to even advertise the vacancy. And so Swimming New Zealand has built a “Berlin Wall” of employment protection around Cameron. Of course they have written the specification and employment rules exclusively to protect and appoint her.

What hold does this woman have over Coulter and Byrne? Is it her family’s access to Sky Sport? There has to be something. They have a Raleigh type loyalty to their Queen. They may find they pay a similar price for their obsession.

It’s all pretty obvious. They have done a deal with Cameron. They will appoint her to run Swimming New Zealand’s London Olympic campaign. In a year’s time, when all that is done, Cameron has agreed to go quietly; no law suits, no financial pain, no punitive Sky Sport reaction, no blood on the floor, no decapitated head preserved by a grieving spouse.

For months, long term swimming people have said to me that Cameron will survive. I have rubbished their pessimism. No foreigner who has spent ten million New Zealand tax payer dollars and has yet to win a world class swimming race could possible survive. No one who is disliked and scorned by eighty three percent of her constituents could continue to be employed. No one who moonlights for her husband’s television channel when she should be doing her job deserves further employment. Anyone who has created the meaningless elitism in a national sport team that she has should have been asked to leave years ago. But I was wrong.

Cameron will survive. In spite of the Ineson Report; in spite of the overwhelming wishes of the membership, Coulter and Byrne have prepared a cushy little $95,000 a year number for her to serve out her time. And it’s a bloody disgrace – it really is.

Here is the “Proposed Staffing Re-alignment Report”. We will be interested to hear what you think.

GDE Error: Unable to load profile settings
  • Chris

    WHAT?????

    They also have no intention of getting rid of Byrne … and OMG, all that has happened is that he has entrenched himself with even MORE STAFF.

    Sorry, but no matter what bloody tinkering they make with supposed restructuring, NOTHING will change, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will change until that trio are gone. And the thought that Byrne is anywhere near any change process, recruitment, decision-making …. I’m speechless!! In fact, as I read it, Byrne makes ALL the bloody decisions. OMG.

    OK, so they don’t appoint a Head Coach, even though the report specifically mentions it as a ‘no-brainer’, but of course they will say “Ahh but we have a Campaign Manager instead”. No, what you have is Mark Reagan having to re-apply for his job which will be a demoted position, but Scott Talbot doesn’t. And whose swimmers are doing well at the moment? And who has put swimmers on the Olympic podium?

    And if any new position has an applicant who is currently a SNZ employee with equivalent skills and experience, then the current SNZ employee will be given the job. So you are right! They have Cameron lined up for London by simply changing her job title.

    And to think that I was enjoying staying up late this week watching the sport that I love (and we all love) …. sorry, I need to go to bed and hopefully wake up tomorrow and find this has all been just a bad dream.

  • David

    Lol – I’m sorry Chris. It’s the morning and Cameron is still here.

  • Sharon

    “I sat alone and melancholy when from amongst the darkness and gloom there came a voice which said, ‘Cheer up, things could be worse.’ So I cheered up, and sure enough…things got worse!”

    I feel like the a paraphrased version of the title to your previous article. except for me it is “some pain I am feeling now”.

  • chhill

    Blatant and obscene were some of the first words to spring to mind. The others are not publishable.

  • Ex swim parent

    Me again

    OK time for Plan B (might actually be C)

    SPARC have commissioned two reports – the one on the Rowing debacle release yesterday and the one on Swimming released weeks ago.

    Who the heck is ACTIONING these reports – are they just done fror SPARC PR purposes? I hope not

    The CEO of SPARC is Peter Miskimmin and the Minister of Sport is Murray McCully. If I was a swim parent I would contact them. As an ex swim parent I will still contact them but as a taxpayer who is seeing their money wasted and top talent being wasted too

  • Paul Newnham

    At the risk of repeating myself!!

    Hi All,
    This post and all the comments on the last post are great stuff but are not getting the job done it seems. Time to start turning our attention where it should be focused. How bout we all commit to writing a letter to every association president in the regions and get something going.
    We are a new swimming family and really don’t want to squander our child’s chances on an organisation that replies to blog posts but wont take the next step.
    David laid down the gauntlet some weeks ago, this is in our hands now.

    To get us started lets try this.

    1) Post here the name and contact address (Mail or Email) of the person in your region you believe can make this happen.
    2) All of you with kids/clubs/LTS schools etc write to all the names posted here and tell them what you want done. Tell them how the disfunction in the sport impacts you. Tell them your sick of your taxpayer funding being wasted.

    Here is a start. In Auckland the man to voice our concerns is Brian Palmer, brian@akswim.co.nz

    Get it done and let David post some positive stuff!! When I sit poolside and talk to him he has so much passion for this sport and such a depth of experience to offer us here.
    Lets get the rot cleaned out and move on, FAST!!!!

    Regards,
    Paul Newnham

    PS: Im writing to Brian and the other regional CEO’s right now, what are you doing!!

  • David

    A line that upsets me most in the Proposed Staffing Re-alignment Report is contained in the specification SNZ have written for Jan Cameron’s job. Here is what it says – “Results driven – London medals and finals”. That’s upsetting because already the goal is being watered down. For years Coulter, Cameron and Byrne have told SPARC and the NZ public that they will prepare a team that will win medals in London. SPARC and NZ accepted that assurance. Now, making a final is being added. Now making a final is being slipped in as qualifying as a “result”.

    When I was coaching Toni Jeffs we went to what was then the World Short Course Championships. Toni won a Bronze medal in the 50 freestyle. Toni thought she could have done better but I was pretty happy with the result. When we got back to Auckland I went around to Arthur Lydiard’s home to report on Toni’s success. He patted me on the shoulder and gently said, “A Bronze is not really good enough, David. Toni is right, we go to World Championships to win them.”

    I really shudder to think what he would make of a final becoming an acceptable goal. But then there is no one in Swimming NZ fit to clean the shoes of men like Lydiard, Robertson, Allen and Jelley. That sentance, on its own should alert SPARC to the reality that the people are wrong. They are a bunch of loosers – without any idea of what they are charged to achieve.

  • Stevie

    SPARKITUP
    When SPARC allowed the Bd to build a “hp governance committee” in response to SPARC’s report (the Ineson report), it was highly likely that those responsible for the disgrace that has been SNZ governance and management, would survive. Are you really that surprised at the release today of this re-appointment job plan?

    Two of the 5 people on hp governance committee have worked for SPARC and so SPARC’s influence is there. And Paul Mersi is supposed to be overseeing process. However there are big problems.

    The composition of the hp governance committee is flawed – Ross Butler as chair! I don’t think so! He shouldn’t be on it. Conflict of interest 101. The very Bd member who had led for years the governance side of SNZ, effectively reacting to his own performance and the performance of his colleagues and CEO in relation to all HPC matters that led to the Ineson report. Ross Butler can declare his conflict of interest, as the chairman of the SNZ committee responsible for governance, and not vote on “hp governance committee” matters. Yes, but why have him if he is conflicted. Why at a procedural level allow the Vice President into what is supposed to be a clean up and have him as part of an investigation triggered by a damming report?

    SNZ has been seen to make a big thing of having on its Bd 2 “independent directors”. What they mean is that Ross Butler and Jane Wrightson were appointed to their positions by the SNZ Bd itself, as opposed to being elected to the Bd through the membership ranks. In that sense the label “independent” is in illusion.

    Alison Fitch is on hp governance committee – another Bd member. But she joined the Bd in May 2010 so she is largely free of the blame for the matters relating to findings made in the Ineson report. However, was it wise to bring into such a difficult situation – the internal lobbying etc to be carried out by hp governance committee – two former athletes (Fitch and Norfolk) who have in earlier times been under the direction of existing HPC management?

    Ross Butler has a mortgage broking background. In 2009 he chaired a government Financial Advisors Code Committee – in releasing some findings he announced that financial advice in NZ needs to be “independent and objective”. He appears to be taking a different approach in 2011, doesn’t he, in choosing to lead the clean up of the debacle created and overseen by the Bd on which he is, and was, a prime mover?

    So who has done the work on the hp governance committee? It shouldn’t have been Ross Butler. Hang on – there’s a story on your site about Ross Butler commenting on all the difficult voluntary!? uggh work he is doing on hp governance committee.

    So has SPARC, or Paul Mersi, dropped the ball on this? Don’t think SPARC has really. Paul Mersi appears to have.

    SNZ is a difficult “animal” to deal with. The Bd espouses a “one organisation” approach (ref 2009 Annual Report) but has known or ought to have known of the shortcomings of its management for years. It makes the right noises in public. That same annual report said its values are openness and honesty. But in June 2011 the dysfunction became publicly known.
    SPARC acted decisively when – after the Delhi Games – they learned from the athletes what they felt and what they had to put up with: SPARC obtained an independent assessment (the Ineson report). That showed leadership.

    However, it appears that SPARC is still learning what it’s dealing with. A long time ago the SNZ Bd said they would have the right performance plan for London 2012 completed by June 2009. That’s written down, but can Ross Butler be expected to remember – and face the consequences of the huge stuff up in that respect – he was involved for years and was (and remains) chair of the real SNZ “Governance Committee” (as opposed to the hp governance committee)?
    .
    There is something else in all this. Step ONE should have been the despatch of the CEO.The CEO should have gone immediately and his replacement could have been charged with applying / implementing a process for the Ineson report’s findings. But the Bd found a Clayton’s solution – do nothing structural in the first instance and see if the Ineson ramifications can be re-engineered.

    When the report came out the SNZ Bd said that they would “take the report on the chin”.That was the “openness and honesty” that they pay lip service to. But in reality they set up a mechanism to mess around with the Ineson issues. The new hp governance committee would “identify and remove barriers” in high performance regarding London. See

    http://www.swimmingnz.org.nz/competition/hp-governance-committee

    That’s identical to what Ineson was engaged to do – and effectively did!!!!!

    Who in their right mind would let SNZ rework Chris Ineson’s work? Has the hp governance committee been interviewing athletes? Was there doubt about what the athletes had actually said (anonymously) to Ineson in the SPARC investigation? No. Behind closed doors it’s not such a nice place. Paul Mersi your help again please.

    Still surprised about today’s plan to rearrange the villains’ deck chairs on the HPC front…or the bizarre aspects of their not needing a good head coach?

    Ross Butler and the others have terms of reference that include re-inventing or re-interpretting the way forward that is effectively already apparent from the Ineson report. Why is that so? SPARC may have dropped its guard. The hp governance committee would say it is implementing the report – but conflict of interest 101 puts paid to that suggestion, unless 2 (the 2 SNZ Bd members) of the 5 members in the new “committee” don’t vote or participate actively, or they step down.

    Is there still time to correct errors around a Coulter/Butler agenda to protect themselves from the consequences of the Ineson report? Moving to get a new CEO would have been a straight-forward initial step towards implementation of the report. But would that have suited a Bd that has been in slumber for a long time until now?

    Here’s hoping there is a way thru that doesn’t end up reflecting badly on those responsible.

  • Colin

    Why did they bother creating a Review Committee, they simply believe that they are Swimming in NZ. We are obviously all morons in their opinion!!!

    How “Big are the balls” of our regional delegates?
    Have they got, what it takes???
    Will the Vote of No Confidence in the board, card be played?
    Surely we have the numbers to STOP this B…S…..

    Your so right ! Words constantly fail me.

    Keep up the good work , David .

  • Rhi Jeffrey

    Sadly, in my short time in this world I have come to learn usually the stupid and badly appointed people get ahead. I had a manager at Apple in the States that was awful! She had complaints written in about her by employees and customers alike. She was written up countless times by corporate. It was complete bullshit. She kept her job for 5 years….. No one knew how or why, but that’s just an example of the shit we have in leadership positions everywhere. True leaders are ones that never fight that hard to stay in their top spots. They just get followed wether they like it or not. Cameron is someone who is manipulating someone in just the right way to stay where she is. Until the real reason is uncovered, she’s going nowhere.

  • David

    Stevie, your comment really interests me – could you email me at nzdaw@yahoo.co.nz?

  • Chris

    David. They have already started.

    SNZ’s PR: “New Zealand is on course for their best performance at a world championship in terms of the number of finalists.” Oh … FINALISTS now?

    Credit where credit is due. With all that has been going on, some of these guys have done better than many of us had dared to hope for. That is huge credit to them as people and as athletes. And not wanting to state the obvious, but which COACH is providing the most “finals” if that is now the new benchmark? And, has that coach been offered a new position in the new structure, or is he expected to re-apply for a lesser position? Does he even have a job after Shanghai? It beggars belief that he wasn’t restored to the position of Head Coach after the Ineson Report, and what is happening now? Butler and his buddies are re-litigating or REVIEWING THE REVIEW that SPARC paid a truckload of money for.

    The 4 x 200 team. Fabulous to see that swim last night and qualify an Olympic berth. With an 8th place world ranking after Delhi, they have retained it, but goodness me, they are still a long way off being medal prospects. And just remember, after Melbourne 2007 we had THREE RELAY TEAMS qualify for the Olympics. There will also be some tough, tough competition to secure a top 8 place in London and they were only 1/100th in front of Japan. The real question that now confronts them is “how do you get an average 1.5 – 2 sec improvement in EACH swimmer to put them genuinely among the medals in London?” What was gratifying last night was that the WHOLE team stepped up, and were not just swimming on the back of Lauren.

    Speaking of Lauren. I mentioned before in your last post about her – is she challenging us to dare to hope that she has the right stuff? I have no doubt that she is capable. However, to be a genuine medal prospect for London requires an even bigger step up from where she is today. If she, and those around her are seduced into thinking that a final is good enough, then she will not make the steps necessary to be a genuine medal contender. I think she is tougher than that, and more importantly, I don’t believe for a minute that Mark Reagan is seduced by the notion that a final is good enough. WHY? Because he has done it before and knows what is needed. David, I am sure that you already know that apparently Pelligrini swims 120 – 130 km a week. I am sure that Adlington would be doing similar conditioning. I am less sure that our system accommodates this level of conditioning. But there is the hope. If Lauren has achieved what she has done off lower conditioning levels, it means that there is still the capacity left to improve, and we should be encouraged by that. But is it enough?

    I have no doubt that Mark Reagan is clever enough to know what needs to be done. My question is: ARE MIKE BYRNE, JAN CAMERON, MURRAY COULTER, ROSS BUTLER et al CLEVER ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? Sorry, silly question!

  • My Name is Ringo

    Interesting comments here about Sparcs role in all this. After the report I wrote to Ineson adn McSkimming saying that I believed the report to be correct but I believe not enough heat was placed on sparc for their lack of checks in balances in funding the sport. I guess with the rowing report coming out now that has reaffirmed my opinion.

    The report begins with the statement of fact that we have not won a medal since 1996 in swimming, so why review in 2011. There has been but one constant in that time? The report also mentions that swimming became a targeted sport (even more funding) in 2006? Why did sparc do that after 10 years without a medal?

    My only conclusiuons is that thier research is done by swimming NZ’s publicity arm, the same arm that gives us the daily updates about how this is our best world champs beating 2007. I was at Montreal in 2005, I think we had at least six or seven finalists. (admitted it was post olympic year and fields were not as deep) or a report that Sophia Batchelor is back to her best after her 50m Back swim, despite being over a second down on her NAGS times?

    Does sparc do any analysis on why our top of world age group swimmers fail to make the step up? Swanepoel, Bell, Faaumisili, Bentley, Wiegersma, Thomas, Bassett etc, No probably not, because their swimming knowledge would be about 1% of some of the contributors to this website, alas they have the bags of money and just instigate another “report” when things go wrong absolving themselves. totally, and wonder why the turkeys keep calling off Christmas for another year.

  • My Name is Ringo

    Interesting comments here about Sparcs role in all this. After the report I wrote to Ineson adn McSkimming saying that I believed the report to be correct but I believe not enough heat was placed on sparc for their lack of checks in balances in funding the sport. I guess with the rowing report coming out now that has reaffirmed my opinion.

    The report begins with the statement of fact that we have not won a medal since 1996 in swimming, so why review in 2011. There has been but one constant in that time? The report also mentions that swimming became a targeted sport (even more funding) in 2006? Why did sparc do that after 10 years without a medal?

    My only conclusiuons is that thier research is done by swimming NZ’s publicity arm, the same arm that gives us the daily updates about how this is our best world champs beating 2007. I was at Montreal in 2005, I think we had at least six or seven finalists. (admitted it was post olympic year and fields were not as deep) or a report that Sophia Batchelor is back to her best after her 50m Back swim, despite being over a second down on her NAGS times?

    Does sparc do any analysis on why our top of world age group swimmers fail to make the step up? Swanepoel, Bell, Faaumisili, Bentley, Wiegersma, Thomas, Bassett etc, No probably not, because their swimming knowledge would be about 1% of some of the contributors to this website, alas they have the bags of money and just instigate another \report\ when things go wrong absolving themselves. totally, and wonder why the turkeys keep calling off Christmas for another year.

  • Chris

    Ringo – huh! You are right.

    8 Finals in Montreal. Who bloody writes this stuff?

  • Chris

    At it again in the Herald this evening:

    “It means that this New Zealand team has become the most successful in terms of number of finals and semifinals”.

    What a load of rubbish! The problem is that SNZ PR (Ian Heppenstall/Tania Black) writes up a bulletin, sends it to the Press Association, which is then lifted throughout the national media (if it is considered newsworthy!!) Sometimes they might edit bits of the bulletin, mainly for brevity, but the problem is that they ASSUME that anything coming from the national body is correct. Big problem, Heppenstall doesn’t understand the sport (nor does Tania Black), he gets FED information from the likes of GMPP et al, and if it suits their political purposes, he will simply spin it.

    In 2005 Montreal, there were 8 Finals and 13 Semi-finals; 2007 Melbourne, 3 Finals 8 Semi-finals; 2009 Rome, 4 Semi-finals; 2011 Shanghai so far, 4 Finals, 8 Semi-finals (haven’t gone back far enough to do the rest), so with 2 more days to go in Shanghai, they don’t have enough events left to better 2005. And the reality is that all of this is complete crap in SPARC terms and in the public eye because all they want is to see Kiwis getting medals.

    This makes me really angry. It makes our swimming community look bloody stupid. Time and time again they report garbage, but the thing is, it is totally unnecessary and takes away from the legacy of past swimmers. The only reason to be attempting to purport that this is the most successful Worlds LC team since Danyon Loader’s era is to create the illusion that the HP era under Cameron, in fact, has been a roaring success. And yet in this year’s campaign, the swimmers that are doing well (whatever that means) are coached by the very person that Cameron loathes. And yet, they are prepared to continue the deliberate lie that Mark Reagan was Lotte Friis’ coach. Again, why would they do that? Because as much as they hate Reagan, it suits their purposes by giving the HP programme reflected credibility.

    Honestly, UGHHHH clean that whole place out.

  • Rhi Jeffrey

    Wait, finalists or semi-finalists? Because I sure as hell didn’t see many of yall in the actual finals…..

  • Chris

    Hahahaha – “Yall” – that’s funny. Hey Rhi, have you found a Piggly Wiggly out West?

    Yeah, it was Finals and Semis, but of course I didn’t look at 2003 Barcelona, but just going through that now, we only had 3 semis. But I did see your finals and semi. Wow, back in 2003, that’s impressive. Fastest lead-off leg in the heats, and one of the fastest take-over legs in the Finals – great stuff.

  • Rhi Jeffrey

    Hahah thanks Chris. Too bad that isn’t fast at ALL any more. My how times have changed lol. As far as the semis and finals thing goes, I really don’t think this is any fault of the swimmers. I think it is bad coaching. I ask David sometimes if I can take swims easy in the morning at meets and he about has a heart attack. He says that’s just begging to form bad habits. All the US coaches as well drill into our heads at young ages that EVERY morning swim matters, even at smaller meets where you could coast into finals. Then you start developing the habit of not being able to perform in the prelims.