By David

So President Coulter has come up with an appeal letter to the SNZ Regions. In a desperate effort to avoid the compelling accusation that his Board has acted illegally Coulter alleges that Project Vanguard is still in Stage Three and the Project Vanguard Committee unanimously disbanded itself. His arguments in this communiqué are as specious and erroneous as the author’s other recent missives.

But, before I consider the specifics of his letter, I must make mention of the horrendous use of the English language practiced by this individual. I have been fortunate enough to receive an education in some of the world’s finest institutions, including Victoria University, Oxford University and the London School of Economics. I have been forced to study the works of Mills, Smith, Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas and Marx. I once wrote a mini-thesis on the Chinese philosopher Xun Zi’s work on “Dispelling Obsession” – “I pluck and pluck the burr-weed But it does not fill my slanting basket. I sigh for my loved one; I would be in the ranks of Zhou.”
I have to say though that nothing in my past education prepared me for Coulter’s endeavours. Take a look at this example from his May 14, 2011 email to the Regions.

… to develop detailed business requirements, confirmation and validation of benefits, the on-going sustainability and organisation impacts assessments for the preferred option(s).

What on earth does that mean? It’s just rubbish. Coulter is one of those sad individuals who use words to impress rather than inform.

Coulter’s first paragraph is intended as a defence against the accusation that the SNZ Board acted ultra vires when it dissolved the Committee without the approval of the Delegates. The Vanguard Committee was established in 2008 to review the current regional structure and make recommendations to the Board as to how this could be optimised. Coulter now claims:

• The Committee was not designed to be a body that saw the project through from beginning to end, as it was recognised that as the project moved from phase to phase differing groups of people would need to be called upon to contribute.

I have read the minutes of the 2008 Annual General Meeting and all the Board Meetings since. I can find no record of the Regions or even the SNZ Board deciding that the Committee was not committed to the long haul. Coulter’s claim is an invention. He has made it up. His claim that as the project moved from phase to phase different people would be involved is also a fiction. He is simply making these claims now to dodge the reality that his Board has acted illegally. It is another fabric of deception.

• In April, the Project Vanguard Committee unanimously decided amongst itself that the purpose for which it had been established (to provide high level options for change) had been achieved, and as such resolved to dissolve.

I think we should begin to use the term “a Coulterism” to describe any claim relating to Project Vanguard that is an exaggeration or a lie. This paragraph is a Coulterism. Three times I’ve heard Coulter claim that the “the Committee unanimously decided” to end its work. I would like to ask President Coulter whether he understands the meaning of unanimous. That committee had some pretty independent thinkers. I’d be surprised if all of them voted for their own execution. Is Coulter prepared to maintain this fiction in the face of his severest critic?

The second Coulterism in this paragraph is his claim that the purpose of the Committee was “to provide high level options for change” That’s another invention of the Coulter brain. The Committee was actually formed to “review the current regional structure and make recommendations to the Board as to how this could be optimised.” There was never any mention of “high level options for change.” Coulter would like to think that’s what he had been charged to do. This paragraph is his shot at saying it’s true so it must be. That’s the way he runs the organization.

• As this decision had been made by the Committee the SNZ Board accepted the responsibility for bringing Phase 3 to its end point and producing a business case.

I am not an expert on SNZ politics but it does seem to me that the only personnel change made as a consequence of the abolition of the Committee was to banish a couple of dissenting voices. Only the party faithful remained in the process. Dissent is not a quality tolerated in the Coulter Reich.
Coulter’s next paragraph concentrates on avoiding the charge of moving between Project Vanguard phases without the approval of the Regions. This seems to be a lot of work for a guy who told us the approval of the Regions was never included in the 2010 AGM resolution.

The dissolution of the Committee did not signify the end of Phase 3.

If that’s true why did Coulter say in his letter 23 April 2011, “We will settle on a new engagement model for the following step/s over the next month or so which will see us designing a fairly detailed model for the delivery of all services.” “Designing a fairly detailed model” sounds like a “Phase 4 (Detailed Design) to me. If Coulter isn’t making this stuff up as he goes along he gives a really good impression of that being the case.

“The Board will seek approval from the regions (by way of a vote) to move into Phase 4 (Detailed Design). Again, once Phase 4 has been completed, the Board will again look for approval to move into implementation of the model.”

We should say amen to that paragraph. As Swimwatch reported in January; “everyone should pin a copy of this paragraph to their bedroom wall. It is the sport’s lifeboat on a sinking Titanic. The Board, its Chairman, Byrne and Cameron are required to obtain the permission of the regions before they can move Project Vanguard to the next stage.” We need to hold Coulter to this undertaking. The Regions need to tie him down to dates and methods of voting. Just give those buggers an inch and they will take a country mile.