Last week I wrote a blog post on Peter Miskimmin’s claim that his meddling in the affairs of Swimming New Zealand had resulted in a more “diverse”, female-friendly board room. His claim is difficult to believe when the “old” board included three women and the new Miskimmin board has only one. The facts make Miskimmin look silly, guilty either of blind ignorance or a bad case of corporate spin.
But there was something else in the New Zealand Herald story that disturbed me; something more sinister than manipulating the truth; something that the CEO of Sport New Zealand should never be part of. In case you missed last week’s story here is the New Zealand Herald’s account of the Miskimmin philosophy on gender issues.
A lot of sports have been hamstrung by their own constitutions, which don’t make it easy for women to go on boards. Most old constitutions have used an electoral system, whereby to get on a board candidates have to get voted on. This system tends to favour men, who look within their own networks to fill roles.
“Typically, women have not fared so well in that process – going to AGMs, putting themselves up there, doing the lobbying to get themselves voted on, is something that women don’t necessarily gravitate towards,” said Miskimmin.
As sports change their constitutions, allowing for a more even ratio of elected and appointed directors, it will provide more opportunities for women to be placed on boards.
It’s an article full of insufferable arrogance. It’s hard to escape the impression of a white male sitting in his plush Wellington office, quaffing Chardonnay with his Institute of Directors friends, craving all the power and sycophantic reverence his job of distributing our money can yield.
Read his words carefully. Miskimmin doesn’t like old, electoral constitutions. That is hardly surprising. Miskimmin can’t control democracy. None of the tax payer’s money Miskimmin distributes ever reaches the grass roots members who voted for the board of Swimming New Zealand when the sport had an electoral system. What Miskimmin thinks or wants was of little import in the decisions making process of grass roots members. Swimming got the representatives its members wanted – and Miskimmin certainly did not want that. He’s just said so, in the New Zealand Herald.
Miskimmin wants power. He wants to appoint directors. He wants Boards and management structures that depend on him; stacked full of people just like him – middle aged, white guys. He told the New Zealand Herald that the “old” electoral “system tends to favour men, who look within their own networks to fill roles.” That’s just sick. Take a look at the facts of Miskimmin’s recent appointments to positions of power in Swimming New Zealand.
Kerry McDonald – Miskimmin representative on the old Swimming New Zealand Board – middle aged white guy from the Institute of Directors
Nelson Cull – Miskimmin representative on the old Swimming New Zealand Board – middle aged white guy from the Institute of Directors
Chris Moller – Miskimmin representative to the Swimming New Zealand Review Committee – middle aged white guy from the Institute of Directors
Sue Suckling – Miskimmin representative to the Swimming New Zealand Review Committee – middle aged white woman from the Institute of Directors
Brent Layton – Miskimmin representative to the new Swimming New Zealand Board – middle aged white guy from the Institute of Directors
Bruce Cotterill – Miskimmin representative to the new Swimming New Zealand Board – middle aged white guy from the Institute of Directors
Geoff Brown – Miskimmin representative to the new Swimming New Zealand Board – middle aged white guy possibly from the Institute of Directors
Diversity obviously had a different meaning at the school Miskimmin went to. The rest of New Zealand thinks board room diversity means including a mix of ethnic, gender and class members. Miskimmin clearly believes diversity is a measure of how long you’ve been a member of the Institute of Directors. If swimming is anything to go by Miskimmin makes his appointments from an old boy’s network of Miskimmin clones. Building and holding power in that situation is very simple. They are all mates together supping from the same state trough.
Miskimmin would do well to remember that many of us had parents who went to war and came back damaged and broken in the defence of the concept he is so willing to trash – the concept called democracy. I do not like the oligarchy Miskimmin has created in swimming. I will do everything I can to cause it harm. I like it even less when he claims his grab for power is actually a move to defend the rights of women. That’s just the arrogance of power, characteristic of many flawed leaders.
A few years ago I did the MA course in Recreation and Leisure Studies at Victoria University in Wellington. Part of the program discussed the question of gender involvement in the administration of sport. In my first book on swimming here is how I described what happened.
When I coached Alison, I saw myself as being in the vanguard of liberal-thinking coaches. I set schedules identical to those of international male athletes. I said things like, “You can train as hard as John Walker.” She did. She regularly completed her 10-week build-up, averaging 160 km or more each week. Her anaerobic sessions included 8-lappers, 10 x 400 metres and 20 x 200 metres. “Brilliant,” I said. “You’re now training as well as Walker, Rod Dixon and Dick Quax.”
And I was wrong. Discussing my enlightened views with Alan Laidler, lecturer in recreation and leisure studies at Victoria University, in Wellington, I was asked, “Why did you make the comparison? Why was it necessary to compare her performance with some man?” He was right. In setting up champion men as role models, I was as guilty of a serious put-down as those who say, “You can’t train as hard as men. Do something less.”
I was well-intentioned — but misguided. I never make these kinds of comparisons today. Athletes are capable of what they are capable of, irrespective of their sex, which is a non-relevant variable.
And that’s the problem with Miskimmin. He says, “Most old constitutions have used an electoral system, whereby to get on a board candidates have to get voted on. This system tends to favour men, who look within their own networks to fill roles. Typically, women have not fared so well in that process – going to AGMs, putting themselves up there, doing the lobbying to get themselves voted on, is something that women don’t necessarily gravitate towards”.
What a load of insufferable arrogance. Ask Margret Thatcher, Helen Clarke, Hillary Clinton, Jenny Shipley, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, Mabel Howard or any of the 39 female MPs in the current New Zealand parliament if they need Miskimmin’s male assistance to avoid the rigors of democracy. It’s male egotism at its worst. It is certainly unworthy of an individual whose job involves spending millions to promote the participation and success of women and men in New Zealand sport. But then Miskimmin would most probably defend himself by saying, “I’m not sexist but…”