What’s going on in Rotorua? I’ve just read this Facebook post from an organisation called “Rotorua Aquatics SOS”.

Rotorua Aquatics SOS – Save our Swimming Pools

January 15 at 7:55pm · Rotorua ·

In the last year RLC Group Manager for Sport and Recreation – also the President of Swim Rotorua – oversaw a Memorandum of Understanding on a 5 year partnership between the two entities. So did this person sign on behalf of both parties? Coincidentally he steps down from the position of President just prior to the outsourcing of Aquatic Centre was agreed to, after the Union starts asking questions about conflict of interest….!! #coffeeconsult

I wish organizations that post stuff like this would print the names of the people they are talking about. Simply using titles gives the impression that they are so unsure of their facts that they avoid names for fear of being sued. In a story like this, if you are that unsure, if you are that concerned about legal consequences then you shouldn’t have published the story in the first place.

I have no idea of the background or even the truth of what is being said here. But the inferences are disturbing. The statement seems to be saying that the Rotorua Lakes Council Sport, Recreation & Environment Manager, Rob Pitkethley, was also President of Swim Rotorua when a five year partnership Memorandum of Understanding was negotiated between the Council and Swim Rotorua. The Council is, of course, a public body. Swim Rotorua is a non-profit swim club, registered with Swimming New Zealand. Deals done between public and private bodies are subject to a variety of important rules. Every society, even in Rotorua, needs to ensure public funds are managed properly.

The statement goes on to claim that Rob Pitkethley was the Rotorua Lakes Council Sport, Recreation & Environment Manager and President of Swim Rotorua until shortly before a second agreement was signed outsourcing the management of the Aquatic Centre. The inference is that Rob Pitkethley was involved in the negotiations and resigned from the swim club just before the management agreement was signed to avoid the accusation of a conflict of interest.

Whatever the detail, the impression of all this, is not good. I don’t think anyone is saying something illegal happened. But has Rob Pitkethley had his fingers in too many pies at the same time? Has he acted unwisely? It certainly seems like it. I did ask someone with good contacts in Rotorua whether these events were as bad as they looked. He said yes. If that is the case, I am disappointed. A prominent member of Swim Rotorua is Bronwen Radford. She is a long time administrator and should know better than to allow the same public official to do deals in his private and public capacity. Council employees simply cannot do deals with themselves. These contracts do not appear to go that far. But they do appear to be too close, a lot too close. And resigning just before a contract is signed does not improve the situation. If anything, it makes it worse. The impression of trying to hide something bad is magnified by the resignation. The timing suggests Rob Pitkethley knew he should not be there. The impression, or perhaps the reality, of a conflict of interest clearly concerned him sufficiently that it forced him to resign. If that is the case, why did he wait so long? He should have been gone when the idea was first proposed, not when a done deal was about to be signed and Union bosses were asking questions.   

Public officials need to be seen to be cleaner than clean in these sorts of transactions. That principle underlines good government in countries like the USA, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. The Americans thought it so important that, in a clause called the Emoluments Clause, they incorporated the rules for deals like this in their national constitution.

The purpose of the Emoluments Clause was to ensure that the country’s leaders would not be improperly influenced, even unconsciously, through any factor that compromised a clean, “arms-length” transaction. The Emoluments Clause also broadly encompassed any kind of profit, benefit, advantage, or service, not merely gifts of money or valuable objects. It was recognised that many arrangements, not just money, could threaten exactly the kind of improper influence that the clause was intended to prevent.

On the surface of it, events in Rotorua appear to have sailed close to a breach of the Emoluments Clause. If Rob Pitkethley acted for the Council and was the club President when a deal for access to the pool was being negotiated that would not be proper. And in the United States would probably be unconstitutional. If, as is alleged here, Rob Pitkethley, acted for the Council and a pool user such as Swim Rotorua while a lucrative management agreement was being negotiated, that also would not be proper. Apart from his last minute resignation he appears to have shown a Trump like disregard for emolument rules.

These events in Rotorua also raise questions about the fitness of Swimming New Zealand to govern. Swim Rotorua is a Swimming New Zealand registered club. Therefore Swimming New Zealand has a responsibility to ensure good behaviour. In this case the President of a Swimming New Zealand club may have been acting improperly. That needs to be investigated. I have had, “up close and personal” experience of what can happen when a club President behaves badly and is not called to account. When Swimming New Zealand abdicates their duty to monitor the leaders of their member clubs, chaos can result. Rotorua may have acted like the wild, wild west on this occasion. But that is no excuse. Even Rotorua is subject to rules and procedures that control those who govern. And it is the responsibility of Swimming New Zealand to ensure its members act properly. Swimming New Zealand should investigate, but they won’t.