By David

Yesterday an email was sent to all the New Zealand Regions by Suzanne Speer. Since Project Vanguard was first suggested Suzanne Speer has been deeply involved. Until recently she was a Regional Representative on the Project Vanguard Steering Committee.

Many readers will be aware that Swimwatch is a loud and demanding voice when it comes to the subject of Project Vanguard; so loud and so demanding that I fear we may damage the cause we seek to promote. However I have been to several meetings where Suzanne Speer has spoken on the subject of Project Vanguard. She is not loud or demanding. She is measured and cautious. Suzanne Speer is certainly no Swimwatch.

Therefore I cannot imagine the provocation she must have felt before writing this email. Its contents speak louder and with more sincerity than the tens of thousands of words written about Project Vanguard in this swimming blog. Swimwatch copy her email below for your consideration.

Subject: PROJECT VANGUARD

Dear Regional Associations,

Project Vanguard

On 14 May 2011, the President of Swimming New Zealand wrote to all of you as Regional Associations. At this time, Murray Coulter updated you on where this Project had advanced to and where it was likely to go in the near future. His letter also referred to the dissolution of the PV Committee, explaining that this action arose through a unanimous decision taken by the PV Committee itself.

I am writing to you as a person who has served on the Project Vanguard Committee since its inception. I was a Regional Association representative on this Committee until it was recently dissolved by the Board of SNZ.

Firstly, you should know that the PV Committee decision to dissolve itself was not unanimous. As one of the few remaining regional representatives on the Committee, I did not actively support that decision. I have had direct communications with the President pointing out that he was incorrectly advised about this detail. For many of you who know me, you will readily recognise that I have actively promoted open and balanced regional representation in this process, not close it down. So Murray’s incorrect words have conveyed a false position to the Regions about their regional representatives. Be that as it may, my non-support does not change the fact that a majority decision was taken and has been acted on.

More important is the change that has now occurred in the ongoing assessment process for Project Vanguard. As Murray’s letter of 14th May clearly stated, “the Board is now actively engaged in fully evaluating concepts/options for a different operating model” — this is minus any direct regional representation. Murray’s letter refers to various consultation work, but as you know consultation does not equal direct representation in the assessment process.

Recent publications by SNZ on this Project include the Operating Model Options Report dated March 2011 which sets out the 4 preferred options now being assessed by the SNZ Board. The status quo, being the Regional Associations and possible improvements, is not one of these options. Instead it appears that the status quo is being used only as a benchmark to plot such things as workflows and processes against which all other future models will be assessed – hence the recent workshops which some of you may have attended.

As they currently stand, all 4 options largely represent variations to centralised models. If one of these models is chosen without further amendment, then there will most likely be the removal or substantial downgrading of autonomous Regional Associations.

Amongst the various options are ideas to create district hubs with regional / district advisory boards with power to make recommendations only to a national swimming body which could still choose to ignore these recommendations. Other options to centralise finances to a national body will also reduce the independence of Regions even if some form of regional governance is maintained.

From now on, when you read new information about any PV assessment work, don’t interpret that this has involved any direct input to assessment from regional representatives; it only involves assessment by largely SNZ board members. From the original founding intentions for the PV Committee to have 3 regional representatives and 3 SNZ board members, active regional representation has progressively dwindled in favour of more and more board members until it has now arrived at zero regional representatives.

Whatever your individual thoughts are about Project Vanguard, please keep asking lots of questions to make sure you get good, useful and accurate information on any proposal for reorganisation. Amongst the many questions you will be considering, do consider the following question: will proposed changes foster good ethical governance for our swimming organisation?

Yours sincerely,

Suzanne Speer,

Past regional representative, PV Committee