Swimwatch has previously posted stories about the chaotic state of swimming in Rotorua. I confess I am not familiar with all that goes on in that town. But there are a number of issues that certainly don’t look too flash. This post raises some of them as questions. This is not a witch-hunt but simply queries that Swimming New Zealand should be asking.

First: Is Swimming Bay of Plenty (Swimming BOP) acting in accordance with its constitution?

Their constitution is very clear. Swimming BOP’s “primary objective” “is to support the growth of the sport”. Their role is to “act in the best interests of Swimming BOP” and to “raise interest in competitive swimming” and “support the development of member clubs”.

In spite of these clear constitutional requirements it appears that Swimming BOP are bending over backwards to support one club in Rotorua (Swim Rotorua) and block any other club (Te Arawa) from being established. Right now there is the farcical situation where Rotorua swimmers, wanting to swim for the Te Arawa organisation, are forced to join Swimming New Zealand using the Taupo Swimming Club. For readers outside New Zealand Taupo is 82 kilometres from Rotorua.

Swimming BOP seems quite willing to enter the political fray in support of a Rotorua monopoly. On the 19 February the Board of Swimming BOP wrote to the Rotorua Lakes Council and said the following.

It is difficult to read this and not reach the conclusion that Swimming BOP is primarily interested in promoting a cosy little cartel of Council, Region and Club to monopolise swimming in Rotorua. If that is the case, in my opinion, it would be unconstitutional. It would be infringing the rights of Te Arawa members to form a club. And it would be using fear of lost business as an absolutely invalid reason to excuse their bid for monopoly power.

It is a side issue but the paragraph that refers to swim meets being lost to Tauranga and Taupo is terrible. The Board of Swimming BOP was elected to represent Tauranga and Taupo just as much as Rotorua. There is no way that a swim meet shifting to one of these towns should be described as being “lost”. But it does serve to show the bias towards Rotorua and Swim Rotorua that may be present on the Swimming BOP Board.

Second: Are there prohibited conflicts of interest in Swimming BOP’s handling of this issue?

The Swimming BOP Constitution is pretty specific about who can be on the Board. It says, “The following persons are not eligible to be a Board member: an employee of a Member Club.” It also says that “No Board member shall participate in or materially influence any decision made by Swimming BOP in respect of the payment to or on behalf of that Board member of any income, benefit or advantage whatsoever.”

Given these constitutional restraints the following questions do need to be addressed. How come the Chair of Swimming BOP, Bronwen Radford, has been employed by the Swim Rotorua Club as a team coach for over 10 years? That does seem to be blatantly unconstitutional. And how come Radford finds it acceptable to put her name on a letter that promotes her employer, the Swim Rotorua Club? That seems to be a clear case of promoting a “benefit or advantage”.

It is not just Bronwen Radford who appears to have conflicting loyalties. Jane Williamson the Vice Chair of Swimming BOP is also a Life Member of the Swim Rotorua Club and Darrin Walsh is the ex-CEO of the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce and an advocate of the status quo. The remaining three members come from Taupo or Tauranga.

Third: Has Swimming BOP used its influence to negotiate more favorable rates for its favored Swim Rotorua club than other pool users?

The classic behavior characteristic of a monopoly is to use money to eliminate competition. In a memo dated 4 March 2015 Noel Gulliver, the Pool Service Manager, explained the rates charged to Swim Rotorua. He said, “We currently have a fixed monthly amount of $1,000.00 plus GST of $150.00 per month, a total of $1,150.00.” As I understand it the Te Arawa organization uses a little more than half the lane space used by Swim Rotorua and are charged $1,500 per month. On a like for like basis the Te Arawa charge should be $700 a month.

It seems relevant to ask how a 40% financial bias in favor of Swim Rotorua was negotiated and is justified by a public facility.

Conclusion: I am not an expert on this subject but these are questions that do need to be addressed. As we said a month ago, someone in Swimming New Zealand needs to investigate and bring order to what looks like chaos. If it was me I’d encourage Te Arawa to form a club and hire more space in the Rotorua pool. Competition is what sport is about and should be encouraged. Competition in this case would improve the service delivered by Swim Rotorua and Te Arawa to the city of Rotorua. What is the Board of Swimming BOP frightened of? Whose interests are they protecting? Robust competition is clearly not a concept shared by the six members who make up the Board of Swimming BOP. If that is true, the region will struggle while it is dominated by socialist, one-club monopoly thinking.