Intern Report

By David

Last week we reported on the Swimwatch request made to the Office of the Ombudsman. We asked The Ombudsman to order Swimming New Zealand to release the Sweetenham Report. We have now received a reply. Here is what The Office of the Ombudsman had to say:

Dear Mr Wright

I have spoken with Mr Fieldsend at SPARC.

He has contacted Swimming NZ again and they have confirmed that they will be releasing the Sweetenham Report along with a substantial amount of other information on their website by the end of next week.

Given that a decision has been made to release the report and that the release is imminent, section 18(d) would typically be used in such situations.

Yours sincerely

Investigator

Office of the Ombudsmen

At the time of writing this article we have been waiting 17 days and 12 hours for Swimming New Zealand to perform the two minute task of posting the Sweetenham Report on their website. For some Regions the wait has been a touch longer than that. SNZ were asked by the Regions to make the Report available when it was first published three years ago. Until Swimwatch got on to their case SNZ consistently refused every request. Then 17 days ago SNZ told Swimwatch they would publish the Report “soon”. Assuming the Report is posted on the SNZ website at the end of next week we will know that the Coulter, Byrne and Cameron idea of “soon” is 24 days.

It really is pathetic. Coulter works for the Bank of New Zealand. I hope his idea of “soon” has not crept into that organization’s business. “Your interest will be paid soon”, takes on a whole new frightening meaning. In case you end up at Coulter’s desk it might be an idea to transfer your funds to the ANZ. No wonder New Zealand’s swimmers have struggled to win a world class swimming race; if the Millennium swimmers have had to stand around for 24 days waiting for all the “soon” things to be delivered. I hate to think what state their suits must be in if the new ones are about to be delivered “soon”. As with everything at Swimming New Zealand their idea of good business is well short of an acceptable commercial standard.

Swimwatch were alerted to another Swimming New Zealand travesty this week. In 2008, when the Regions commissioned Project Vanguard, this is what they ordered.

That the Board appoint a sub-committee consisting of three board members and three nominated regional representatives to review the current regional structure and make recommendations to the board as to how this could be optimized.

What Coulter, Byrne and Hemsworth have come up with is a plan to abolish the Regions all together. That is not what they were asked to do. Why are they incapable of doing what they are told? They were told to “optimize” the Regional structure. That means, recommending ways of improving the Regional structure; making it better. The Regions were asking for ways to improve their operation. They were not turkeys voting for Christmas to come early. It’s the first time I’ve heard of anything being “optimized” in oblivion.
Coulter and Byrne and Hemsworth, the Coulter Gang, have acted way outside their brief. They have assumed powers they were never given. They have acted with reckless independence. Their behaviour merits censure and dismissal. They have not provided the Regions with a plan to improve performance. Instead they have pursued an agenda of power way outside their commission. What the Coulter gang has turned Project Vanguard into is an abomination that was never asked for. On this transgression alone Project Vanguard should be dismissed by the Regions and its authors relegated to some other occupation.

Here at Swimwatch we no longer see a need for a Regional go/no go vote. The fact that the Coulter gang has acted so far outside its brief should be the subject of a judicial injunction relegating this whole sorry Vanguard episode to a small and sad chapter of New Zealand swimming history. We will have a studied opinion on all this when the legal report we have commissioned is received shortly.

Among a number of specious claims made by the Coulter Gang during the Project Vanguard process is that “the restructuring will help maximise the resources available leading to a reduction of operating costs.” As has been pointed out in previous Swimwatch articles how can anything that pays for work that was previously done for free possibly reduce operating costs. Mind you, when it comes to money, I wouldn’t trust a thing the Coulter Gang say. There website tells me there are 16 professional staff. A cursory count of the organization chart tells us there is in fact something in excess of twenty paid staff. Mind you errors of fact are a speciality of the Coulter Gang’s website.

There is one job that is of interest. I see the Millennium Institute High Performance staff roster now includes an Intern, someone called Emma Dean. What on earth does an Intern do in the High Performance environment? What high performance service does she provide? Does she work closely with the either or both of the High Performance Coaches. Were her duties the subject of an application to the SNZ Board? Did the Board approve her appointment and confirm that her duties were important to New Zealand’s international sporting success. Here at Swimwatch we would be especially interested in hearing, just how does Emma Dean fill her days?

Next week Swimwatch will report on the contents of the Sweetenham Report. Without taking the step of making an Official Information application I am certain that the Coulter Gang would still be keeping its contents secret. Let’s hope the wait of three years and 24 days has been worthwhile. We think it will be. Why else would the Coulter Gang have hidden the thing this long?

  • Boxer

    Hi

    I have just checked the Swimming NZ organisation chart on their website – it shows 31 staff/employees (admitted that some may be part-time) – but my question is this: If there are “16 professional staff” what are the other 15 staff? Are they “unprofessional”? If that is the case, maybe we should know who the “unprofessional” ones are? LOL

    BTW, didn’t Clinton have problems with an intern?