The Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) constitution is my favorite bedtime reading. It is the perfect soporific. However, I was jolted awake when I came across a new clause. Now remember this is in the constitution. This is what the Board must do. To ignore the constitution would be very serious indeed. The Board could be out on its ear if it acted outside the constitution.

The clause to which I refer tells the Board its “role and responsibility”. It defines what the constitution means by “good governance”. I thought it would be interesting to see how well SNZ measured up compared to its constitutionally mandated duties. The constitution orders that certain tasks must be achieved. Had Layton and Cotterill met those expectations? Or, in the ten years since the constitution was written, had they ignored their “role and responsibility”? Was their governance not only bad but unconstitutional? See what you think.        

Clause One demands “aspirational targets for the growth of the Sport”. The table below shows what has happened since Layton and Cotterill were charged with this responsibility.

Year	All Members	% Change	Comp. Members	% Change
2012	22061		6200
2021	16322	Down by 26%	4553	Down by 26%

That looks unconstitutional to me. Down by 26% hardly seems like an aspirational target for growth.

Clause Two calls for “a multiyear facilities strategy for the Sport”. In this task the SNZ Board looks to have performed well. After the completion of the Millennium Institute of Sports and Health, The National Aquatic Centre was completed in mid-2015. It may have taken an earthquake, but first-class swimming facilities are also currently being built in Christchurch. And so, the Board gets a pass on Clause Two.

Clause Three requires “a coach development strategy to support coach numbers”. The table below shows what has happened since Layton and Cotterill were charged with this responsibility.

Year	Number of Coaches	% Change
2012	560
2021	200	Down by 64%

Not much escaping those numbers. We may be dealing with New Zealand’s best spin doctors but even they must find it difficult to explain away a number like minus 64%. That is clearly unconstitutional.   

Clause Four requires a “HP strategy which is supportive of performance”. New Zealand normally measures high performance success by what happens at the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games. SNZ Board members have attempted to drag in the 10-year-old who won the Australian one width doggy-paddle as meeting this constitutional requirement. But it is the two big Games that count. The table below shows what has happened since Layton and Cotterill were charged with this responsibility.

Year	Olympic	Medals	Commonwealth	Medals
2012	London	Nil
2014			Glasgow	1 Gold, 1 Silver
2016	Rio	Nil
2018			Gold Coast	1 Bronze
2020	Tokyo	Nil

 Not much escaping those numbers. Especially when the two swimmers who won the three medals had little or nothing to do with SNZ’s centralised training. That performance is clearly unconstitutional.  

Clause Five requires a “relationship strategy with organisations involved with swimming.” Few could argue that the SNZ Board has been working overtime to get this constitutional task right. Getting into bed with Water Safety New Zealand (WSNZ) has been a top priority. And it is working. Last year WSNZ wrote a cheque for $500,000 in thanks for their cosy night together. That was clearly constitutional.    

Clause Six requires “a multiyear funding strategy.” Being SNZ you would think if anything was going to be done well it would be money. The bio of every appointed Board member tells us everyone is a “Wolf of Wall Street”. The table below shows what has happened since Layton and Cotterill were charged with responsibility for collecting the cash. The sources of income shown are for money received from members, from High Performance Sport New Zealand and total income.

Year	Members	Change	HPSNZ	Change	Total	Change
2012	265,400		2,233,877		4,343,696
2021	262,555	Down 1%	1,318,248	Down 41%	3,313,769	Down 24%

What a disaster. I would not put this lot in charge of my daughter’s piggy bank. HPSNZ funding down by 41%. Total funding down by 24%. Even membership fees that the Board has increased far more than inflation are down 1%. What a great way to run a business. Sting your loyal members to pay for massive failures elsewhere. That performance is clearly unconstitutional.   

Clause Seven requires “transparency with the Sport on all matters”. Remember the days when SNZ openly published the minutes of its Board meetings? Not anymore. Today SNZ has replaced transparency with secrecy and confidentiality. Check the legal provision in the balance sheet to see what that policy has cost. That performance is clearly unconstitutional.

Clause Eight requires “a commitment to critical practices including discipline procedures.” Once again, check the legal provision in the balance sheet to see whether that constitutional policy has been followed. The Board’s performance is clearly unconstitutional.

Clause Nine requires “a commitment to a culture of playing the ball, not the person.” I doubt anyone in New Zealand has been more of a football for SNZ than me. Perhaps that counts in the Board’s mind as playing the ball. But when you have been banned from attending the National Championships. When your swimmers have struggled to get funding because of their coach. When every refugee in the world can include coaching fees in their funding grant except your swimmer – then yes, you sure feel like a football. The Board’s performance is clearly unconstitutional.

The Conclusion is shown in the table below. Does SNZ pass or fail their constitutional test?

Item	Pass or Fail
Clause One – Growth	Fail
Clause Two – Facilities	Pass
Clause Three – Coaching	Fail
Clause Four – Performance	Fail
Clause Five – Relationships	Pass
Clause Six – Funding	Fail
Clause Seven – Transparency	Fail
Clause Eight – Critical Practices	Fail
Clause Nine – Play the Ball	Fail
Pass or Fail	2xPass, 7xFail

And so, what can be done about a Board who fails seven out of its nine constitutional duties?

The SNZ constitution gives us some ideas. Here is what it says.

“A Member failing to give effect to any decision or having done anything else which creates exposure to risk is liable to expulsion;”

So, there you go. The current Board has seen SNZ’s membership plummet, has seen the number of coaches halved, has lost more races in a decade than in any other ten-year period, has seen its funding collapse, has operated largely in secret, has not followed its rules and has personalised disputes. All those are unconstitutional.

For ten years swimming tried the Miskimmin and Castle way. Layton and Cotterill were also given a fair crack of the whip. And they all failed. Look at the numbers. By almost every measure swimming is in a worse position now than it was in 2012. It is time for Sport New Zealand to give the sport 100% back to elected swimming people (like Tongue, McKee, Johns and Francis) who will do a better job. Mind you, that is not going to be difficult.