By David

A comparison between the dishonesty that infected President Nixon’s White House and the goings on in Swimming New Zealand may appear to be a little farfetched. Certainly the international implications are very different. However the behaviour is extraordinarily similar. You may struggle to believe that, but consider this.

In the Nixon case the House Judiciary Committee voted on the 27 July 1974 to impeach the President on the grounds of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of the people. In the past four weeks correspondence originating from Swimming New Zealand demonstrates that this organization is equally able to obstruct justice, abuse power and treat its membership with contempt. Here is what happened.

On the 14 April 2011 the Bay of Plenty Region wrote to Cathy Hemsworth. It was a long email so we will only quote the relevant sections. Bay of Plenty’s email said:

At no stage in the process, have we been told that the record being kept was not for the purpose of keeping a true and accurate set of minutes, but rather to simply keep notes of relevant points. We do not accept that the practice meets the high standards of transparency and accountability required.

You will understand that we suspected that PV has deliberately set out to deceive the readers of PV material by leading those who did not attend PV meetings to a view that a free and open invitation had been extended to all who wish to participate in your next working group phase. We no longer have any confidence in the integrity of the process.

The motion passed at the SNZ AGM. The motion as recorded in the draft minutes is not recorded accurately Here is the correct motion:

Project Vanguard seeks the ratification from this Annual General meeting to continue this process recognizing the independent regional funding streams and the need for continued consultation and communication with all stakeholders. Approval from the membership will continue to be sought at the end of each phase of the project seeking continuation to the next. Any resulting outcomes or recommendations requiring constitutional change will need to be considered and approved by a Special General meeting of SNZ

We suggest that the draft minutes be removed as they are not accurate and their placement is likely to be construed as deliberate deception.

We ask for your confirmation:

1. That it will be the regional delegates who will be voting at the end of Phase 3 with respect to the “Go/No Go” Vote.
2. When that “Go/No Go” Vote will take place.”

The email was sent to Cathy Hemsworth. She was smart enough to realise answering an email like this was a minefield. She had travelled the length of New Zealand telling everyone that go/no go votes were an integral part of the Vanguard process and now her bosses denying their existence. That was too hot even for Hemsworth. Instead she passed it on to Coulter and Berge. I suspect their arrogance is such that their only thought was to put Bay of Plenty in its place. Here is their reply.

4 May 2011

Karen Nixon

Administration Officer

Swimming Bay of Plenty

Dear Karen,

Thank you for your email regarding the Project Vanguard process and how you think this can be improved.

Cathy Hemsworth, Project Manager, Project Vanguard, has referred your email correspondence to us. We apologise for the delay in replying but the changes in governance of the project, introduced recently, and the organisation of the next steps necessary to bring the project to the next delivery point have consumed a lot of our time.

We feel we have moved on, so have noted your comments on last year’s workshop notes and process, Cathy has explained her process well and we see most value in spending our efforts on moving forward. To that end we are now focussed on gathering data through our people participating in the new workshops.

Your requests as to what is published on the site regarding your meeting have been met and your people have been invited to engage in the new workshops. We are sorry if our attempts to do the best job possible and run a transparent process have been subject to some misunderstandings and we will endeavour to provide clearer expectations in future.

We believe we have little option but to notify draft minutes, clearly labelled as draft, of both the AGM and SGM, as that was what the SGM of October 2010 and Communication Strategy has clearly sought from the National Office. As to their accuracy, that remains a matter for the next General Meeting to determine, but they are as recorded by the minute secretary and the resolution is exactly what was presented on the PowerPoint slide at the AGM, that motion was moved by the Chair of Project Vanguard Committee seconded by Taranaki and passed with one vote against and one abstention being Bay of Plenty whose delegate we recall stated to being confused by the proceedings.

The Project continues to work under the guidance of the two remits 2008 and 2010.

Regards

Murray Coulter

SNZ President
Mark Berge

Chair of Project Vanguard Sub Committee

Here at Swimwatch we simply cannot comprehend the deception of this letter. Are Coulter and Berge crooks? In particular we refer to the following lines.

but they are as recorded by the minute secretary and the resolution is exactly what was presented on the PowerPoint slide at the AGM, that motion was moved by the Chair of Project Vanguard Committee seconded by Taranaki and passed with one vote against and one abstention

That is a lie. It is not true. The original draft minutes contained the remit as it is recorded in the Bay of Plenty letter. That is what was put to the Annual Meeting. That is what was passed by the Annual Meeting. That is what was included on the SNZ website. That is what was taken down and replaced by an altered version. The altered version did not include the requirement for a go/no go vote. SNZ altered a properly passed minute in order to replace it with a minute they found more convenient.

So let’s return to the President Nixon analogy. In that case the crime was breaking into the Democrat Party Headquarters. The serious mistake though was the President’s attempts to cover up the crime. It was for that he was about to be charged with obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of the people.

In President Coulter’s case he has sanctioned the alteration of a properly passed remit. The serious mistake though is the President’s attempted cover up; for that is what this letter to Bay of Plenty is – it’s a cover up. We will wait for our lawyer’s report but our first impression is that President Coulter is about to be found as guilty as hell of a New Zealand commercial version of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of the stakeholders.

If that does prove to be the case, President Coulter should be under no misunderstanding, we will pass on the information we have to the Minister of Sport, to SPARC and to the Commercial Section of Auckland Central Police.

We recommend that any Board Member, any employee or any member of Swimming New Zealand being asked to participate in the deception that has become Project Vanguard seriously consider their position. Prudent Board members should resign. Employees and members would be wise to excuse themselves from Vanguard duties. The last thing any of them deserve is to become accessories to the folly of some very silly and misguided people.