By David

You may recall a recent Swimwatch post in which we mentioned an official who, at the Auckland Relay Championships, reported that a person on our team was coaching swimmers to lie about their names in order to avoid disqualification. When something as dishonest as this official’s allegation occurs it is difficult to know what procedure to follow. Is it best to move on and forget the whole thing? Perhaps a protest should be made to the Meet Director? Just about always I am at a loss to decide what action is best.

In the case of the Relay’s event I decided to mention the official’s bad behaviour on Swimwatch in the hope that the publicity may make her think twice before initiating unfounded gossip in the future. Many have said that was not the best solution. Few have suggested a better alternative.

I place no weight in the argument that officials are unpaid and are therefore shielded from criticism. We have a right to expect good behaviour from officials irrespective of whether money is involved. Doing something for free does not put officials above the law. Nor does it offer protection from criticism when the law is violated. The Auckland CEO and a few coaches are the only people paid to be at most Auckland swim meets. They are not however the only ones expected to behave properly.

There is a Region on New Zealand’s East Coast called Hawke’s Bay/Poverty Bay. It is a real paradox. Poverty Bay is an area that has two clubs and two coaches, Enterprise, coached by Gary Martin and Comet, coached by Greg Meade. In this area, officials are welcoming, honest and fun to be around. Two hundred kilometres south and the behaviour of officials is toxic. Jane has mentioned in earlier Swimwatch articles, a senior official, Gwenda Cowlrick, ripping Jane’s photograph off a pool notice board, accusing her of sleeping with a newspaper photographer twice her age and the Region’s chairman filing a police report that our car had been abandoned in the pool parking lot.

Swimwatch reported recently that the current Chairman felt it was acceptable to question the decision of a Hawke’s Bay swimmer who recently left her Hawke’s Bay club to join our club in Auckland. Well Mr. Bone, that is not good behaviour. I also heard an official from Hawke’s Bay suggest that our club was so unreliable we would not turn up to meet swimmers arriving on a bus.

When bad behaviour occurs it is difficult to know whether, or how, to respond. Almost always I decide to bring it out into the open. It is a sure fire way of becoming hugely unpopular but fresh air is also very cleansing. Dishonesty and gossip thrive in dark places. Silence gives bad people a license to continue being bad.

It’s simple really – if being outed is a problem, don’t misbehave in the first place. Don’t lie, bully or intimidate swimmers. That’s not what you’re here to do.

In a similar vein, why is Ross Butler a member of the most recent Swimming New Zealand Steering Committee? He is an official who is behaving badly. Rule 10.1 of the Swimming New Zealand Constitution says:

10.1 The board shall comprise of: (a) Six elected Directors. (b) The elected Directors may appoint up to two appointed Directors on the basis of specific knowledge or skills, for a term no longer than two years. Upon expiry of that term the Board if it thinks fit may reappoint such Directors for a further term.

What does this mean? Well as far as Ross Butler is concerned here is what Swimwatch reported in an earlier post.

The current Interim President, Ross Butler, is an appointed Director on the Swimming New Zealand Board. In that capacity Rule 10 says that he is only allowed to be on the Board for “a term no longer than two years” plus a further term of (it does not say but implies) two years. That’s four years in total. Ross Butler began his term on the 3rd November 2005. On the 3rd November 2009 his time was up. Two years later and he is still here. The Constitution says he should be long gone. The guy responsible for preserving the organization’s rules is in breach of the Constitution.

So what should be done in a situation like this – when a rogue Director defies the Constitution and refuses to leave the Board or stand for election? Imagine Prime Minister John Key deciding that a national election was unnecessary. In principle that is exactly what Ross Butler has done. But, who is responsible for the outrage? Well, it’s not Ross Butler.

Responsibility lies with those who let Butler’s membership of the Board continue when it was time for him to leave, but it also lies with Butler himself.

Responsibility lies with the people who told outrageous lies about my daughter and my wife, and tore up my daughter’s photograph, as well as with the people who knew about it and did nothing.

Responsibility lies with the officials who told swimmers that their coaches were unreliable or undesirable in an effort to hurt the swimmers.

Butler got away with his bad behaviour because the Regions of Swimming New Zealand were negligent, even though he should have never behaved so badly in the first place. Swimwatch may be censured for highlighting bad behaviour. The alternative is for the conduct of people like Butler to go unchecked. While Butler put himself on Steering Committees and appointed Olympic Game’s managers, the Regions did nothing. It is disgraceful. There is no merit in Regional people telling me how badly Butler behaves if you continue to let it happen. Jim Swanson is about to sit on a Committee with a person he should be removing from office.

Swimwatch offer no apology for applying the disinfectant of daylight to problem officials. Not when the alternative is to accommodate the deception of officials like Ross Butler.