By David

Several days ago we promised to report on the Auckland meeting called by Swimming New Zealand to discuss Project Vanguard. Here is our report.

From a Swimwatch point of view the meeting began badly. In her opening remarks Cathy Hemsworth took a swipe at “swimming websites that spread misinformation”. Being as the Swimming New Zealand’s website and Swimwatch are the only two websites that I know of that even mention Project Vanguard and given that it was unlikely Hemsworth was having a crack at her source of income, I assume her misinformation remark was aimed at Swimwatch. I nervously waited for her explanation. What had we got so wrong? How had Swimwatch misled the nation? But there was nothing; just the accusation of misinformation.

Actually that was pretty representative of the evening. It was “a tale full of sound and fury; signifying nothing”. We were told it was time for change. Six reports had been produced that said Swimming New Zealand should reinvent itself. The Board and management of Swimming New Zealand were having difficulty doing their jobs; hidebound and restricted by an old, passed its use-by date constitution. And finally the threat; funding from SPARC and others was at risk unless the organization did things differently. Having waited in vain for an explanation of Swimwatch’s misdemeanors I thought I’d ask for examples of what the current Constitution had prevented the Board and management of Swimming New Zealand from doing. What were specific examples of events and initiatives Swimming New Zealand had missed out on because of its Constitution? How had the Constitution specifically prevented the CEO from doing his job? Out of date and old hat and everyone saying we’ve got the wrong Constitution were not sufficient. How specifically had the organization been affected? Just one example would do.

In addition to Project Vanguard’s front person, Cathy Hemsworth, I think the meeting was attended by three Swimming New Zealand Board members including the President. Unbelievably they were unable to tell the meeting of one single event that had been stopped by the current Constitution; nothing. Hemsworth made a gallant attempt to say State Insurance might have given the organization a larger sponsorship check if all Swimming New Zealand’s Regions had been forced to put State’s logo on their websites. Embarrassingly she then had to confess Swimming New Zealand had never asked the Regions for that sort of help. I didn’t think it was appropriate for her to use a sponsor’s support to justify what turned out to be a totally hypothetical argument. Sponsors usually don’t like their name being used in organizational politics.

I found the lack of any specific example of how Swimming New Zealand had been hurt by its current constitution to be quite stunning. Project Vanguard cost Swimming New Zealand $100,000 last year and is budgeted to cost a further $120,000 this year. The best part of a quarter of a million dollars is being spent to fix a problem that has no specific examples. Wow, that is unbelievable. It’s hard not to be led to the obvious conclusion; perhaps Swimming New Zealand’s problem is not its Constitution but its increasingly suspect management.

There were a few other contradictions. Most notable was the claim by Hemsworth that there was no preferred solution to Swimming New Zealand’s shortcomings. This did appear to strangely conflict with information given to the last Auckland Project Vanguard meeting and copied on the Swimming New Zealand website. The clear impression there was that the “club-centric” model was Swimming New Zealand’s preferred option. Perhaps Swimming New Zealand’s website was the source of all that misleading information after all. We were told that sometime before August 2011 Cathy Hemsworth would be back to present a preferred alternative that could be compared with the current Constitution. We could all then decide whether to take the option of darkness, the current Constitution, or enlightenment, whatever Swimming New Zealand decides is best.

Although Hemsworth went to great pains to point out that there were no preferred options Swimming New Zealand’s President did confess that his Board “would be disappointed” if we decided the status quo, the current Constitution, was just fine. Why would the Board be disappointed? We have no idea, especially as no one knew of any examples of the existing constitution preventing Swimming New Zealand’s progress.

In the past week we have read and re-read the current Constitution. We think it is a good document and should stay. It offers important protections against Wellington assuming unreasonable powers. Paid staff and others may be pushing for more power by claiming they can’t do their job within the current set of rules. Just about every bad ruler in human history has made the same claim. There is something that makes us uncomfortable about Swimming New Zealand’s rush to escape examination by the sport’s regions. I guess it boils down to a thing called trust. Would we buy a used car from Swimming New Zealand? Not bloody likely; at least not without first getting the Region’s approval.

I did learn one really interesting fact last night. Five or six of New Zealand’s regions have paid professional staff handling their affairs. Swimming New Zealand has made much of the fact that their new structure would involve paid regional staff. But, it seems, we already have a good number of paid regional staff. The only difference is Swimming New Zealand’s plan is for the staff to report to Wellington. The whole thing is not about responsibility at all. It’s just about power.

Swimming New Zealand continue their Project Vanguard meetings in other New Zealand towns this week. I hope the examination of their motives is as thorough as it was in Auckland. If it is possible, could someone push real hard to find out what specifically it is about the current constitution that prevents Swimming New Zealand moving forward? What specific imitative has been derailed by our current structure? If any of you get just one example that will be a 100% improvement on what we managed to find out in Auckland.