This post is the second in a Swimwatch series that addresses three changes required to eliminate failed Sport NZ policies.

1. Reject the policy of centralised training.
2. Restore each sport’s democratic institutions.
3. Increase and modify the financial support paid to athletes.

The post will discuss – Restoring each sport’s democratic institutions.

The most important change that must occur in sport is restoring each sport’s democratic institutions. Miskimmin made controlling the Board a condition for sports wanting to receive “his” money. And he had a good reason. If Sport NZ controlled the Board everything else would fall into place. Miskimmin could employ athletes as slave labour. He could impose centralised training. Anything else he wanted was simple. Just order his appointees and it would be done. And that is exactly what happened.

Miskimmin did away with tiresome democracy. In its place he put a personal autocracy with him – and now Castle – in charge. It is not without reason that this critical change is not mentioned in the recent cycling report. Castle knows that if she retains control of the Board nothing else matters – nothing changes. Reports can recommend the employment of psychologists and experts in women’s affairs and transformational directors, but once the current hoo-ha dies down, once Olivia Podmore’s death fades, once winter has passed, as long as Castle controls the Board, her power and her diseased influence will remain. That is why Castle sat smugly through the presentation of the cycling report. The feature that gave her power, had escaped untouched. And that is why changing the Boards of sport is fundamental to reform. This is what needs to be done.

1. A new constitution needs to be written in which the Board and a non-voting President are elected annually by the membership – NOT by the delegates at an AGM but by the full membership. For example, Swimming NZ usually divides its membership into the following categories – competitive swimmers, club swimmers, officials, life members and administrators. Everyone who pays a membership fee, gets a vote. In 2021 approximately 4500 Swimming NZ members would be eligible to vote.
2. Members 16 and over would vote on their own behalf. The parent of members under 16 would vote on behalf of those members. A family could have as many votes as it has members in the sport.     
3. Each year ballot papers would be emailed or posted to every member. Voting would be by mail or email or in person at the sport’s head office.
4. The Board would have six members who each year would elect a chairman.
5. The tenure of each Board member would be for two years when the member must stand again for election. There would be no limit on the number of times a Board member could stand for re-election.
6. The new Board would assume its position at the conclusion of each AGM.
7. If the Board decided outside expertise was required, up to two and only two additional Board members with full voting rights could be appointed. Only the Board could make an outside expert appointment.
8. Without exception Sport NZ could not recommend, nominate or appoint an outside member to the Board. No employee or member of Sport NZ could stand for election or be appointed to the Board of any sport.
9. Employees of the sport (the CEO, for example) could be elected to the Board or brought onto the Board as an outside expert.

So, there you have it – a democratic Board. The only anti-democratic feature is the exclusion of anyone involved in Sport NZ. There are two reasons for that. One, for twenty years Sport NZ has shown itself to be unfit to govern. Two, because the relationship between Sport NZ’s financial interest and good management is broken beyond repair – often referred to as money v welfare.   

So, why is democracy important?

• Protection

Sports need Boards that are acutely responsive to the membership. When, and only when, power comes from the people (the members) will that be the case. Significantly, in a democracy, rules come from the people not the state, in the form of Sport NZ. For example, who said Aimee Fisher could not go to the Olympic Games unless she was a member of canoeing’s centralised program? Sport NZ said it. In a democracy Aimee Fisher would have been on the aeroplane to Tokyo.

• Reduce Exploitation

A democratic constitution ensures that no single body such as Sport NZ can assume supreme power. It challenges the Board to represent all members so that everyone receives an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams. In my view, Olivia Podmore would be alive if cycling had been at all democratic.

• Performance

Democracy grants the freedom to look for different clubs, coaches, training methods and places to live. The choice remains with the athlete. That is why diversified democracies (for example USA swimming) usually perform better in sport.

• Avoids Centralised Power

Voters can control their destiny by changing the entire Board every year. There is no centralised power (Sport NZ) that can dictate what a sport can or cannot do.

• Less Conflict

Democracy allows each member to pursue their dreams, working to mould the sport in a vision that meets their expectations. There is more loyalty in a democracy. What Sport NZ tried to dictate, democratic sports achieve by choice.

• Consensus

The democratic process encourages the Board to combine the different needs of competing groups into a coherent policy that protects the needs of everyone. The interests of each segment of the sport can receive the protection they need while providing a higher level of accountability for the Board’s decisions.

This post is titled, “The Greatest of These”. And that is because of all the reforms needed in sport this change really is the most important. While we live in a Sport NZ autocracy every reform is merely a band aid on a broken leg. The surgery required to repair the break will only be found in a hospital called democracy.