Some events occur in sport that starkly illustrate the difference between being a well-managed enterprise and an administration circus. I read about one of these this morning. In a welcome response to Australian lobbying, an “extensive” review of the governance structure of the International Paralympic Committee’s (IPC) will be launched by the body in an attempt to strengthen its position as a “world leading sports organization”.

Here is a news item reported in the British publication “Inside the Games”.

Why can’t Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) act with that degree of maturity and responsibility? Consider some of the points highlighted in the Australian report.

It is the first review of its kind since 2004.

The last time a review of SNZ was undertaken was in 2011. The difference is the Moller Review of SNZ hasn’t worked. Previous Swimwatch posts have pointed to a dozen measures of performance that highlight the failure of Moller’s plan. It has been trialed for seven years. That’s long enough. And it has not worked. Either the plan is wrong or the people responsible for managing the plan are incompetent. In my view SNZ have both problems; a perfect storm.

The panel will be led by New Zealand-based sports lawyer Maria Clarke and IPC President, New Zealander, Andrew Parsons  

Two New Zealanders, one of whom, Maria Clarke, works ten minutes down the road from Antares Place. Clarke also has extensive knowledge of swimming matters. She helped Swimming Auckland sink the whole SNZ Project Vanguard initiative. She could well be an ideal person to take a look at what’s gone wrong in New Zealand swimming. I’m pretty sure Peter Miskimmin would hate the idea of Maria Clarke being involved. And, if true, that fact helps make her the ideal person.

The review would include principles such as openness and accountability.

Swimwatch has highlighted two issues at the core of SNZ’s problems. First is the catastrophic decision to persist with the SNZ centralized training program. And second is the lack of transparency and anti-democratic features of the 2011 constitution. SNZ has a secretive management style that has sidelined the importance of the regions and disenfranchised the members. Minutes are no longer published, too many Board members are unelected, newsletters have been discontinued, Board members lie about future communication and the website management is inept. Quite simply the organization’s structure and management are on the wrong side of history. It appears that the IPC have recognized the potential for the same issues in their organization and have decided to address the problem.

The governance structure was “not broken” but the review was necessary owing to the growth of the Paralympic Movement

Well, in this feature, the Paralympic Movement and SNZ are different. The disastrous performance numbers plus the rumor that SNZ employees were going around the Age Group Championships asking anyone and everyone for ideas on how to improve their performance suggests the organization is well and truly broken. Paralympics require a review to accommodate their growth. SNZ require the same thing to reverse their decay.

And so, well done International Paralympics. Hopefully your review will further strengthen your strong sport. Hopefully it will address the issues of classification fairness that have recently caused concern. Take comfort in the fact that men and women like Andrew Parsons, Duane Kale and Maria Clarke are involved. They appear to be providing the leadership necessary to bring about reform. And sleep well that at least you are not tossing and turning through the nightmare that is swimming in this part of the world.