MSNZ Organisational Review [Archive]

Bruce Sollitt

12-04-2012, 11:11 PM

I had wondered when someone would begin a thread on this. Roger, I absolutely agree.

I cannot claim to know much about how these reviews are usually conducted but there seems to have been a general lack of any form of consultation despite the remit allowing a budget "to consult as widely as necessary".
It seems the panel have considered briefings by the current President and two staff members to be all the consultation required. I am absolutely certain that the views of those people on the ideal governance model will differ significantly from those of us at the coal face.

The recommendations in respect of Commissions are worrying. Firstly the dropping of the Historic Commission appears to signal a belief that these competitors and organisers do not have specific issues relevant to their area of the sport. I'm not sure that's a widely held view.
The other worrying aspect is the apparent dumbing down of the commissions, and the recommendation that they come under the wing of the CEO.
Commission members are elected by their peers and must be autonomous. In fact a major driver for the review being brought about was the prospect of enhancing the authority of these bodies, in order to align the decision making with the membership's needs, rather than depleting it.
What is proposed here is the exact opposite, with all authority vested in the CEO whose accountability is only to a backroom committee appointed by the President.

We, the club which proposed the review, will certainly be making submissions, both written and verbally.

RogerH

12-05-2012, 01:11 AM

Yes Bruce, it is a bit of a worry. I had thought that the intent of the remit and the subsequent review was to try and move MSNZ to being more accountable and more relevant to the people it serves at the grass roots.
I agree with your sentiment that there seems to have only been "lip service" placed on consultation and that the report just seems to reflect the views of the President and a few around him.
The reduction in the makeup of the Commissions and their power by proposing they report to the CEO is a retrograde move. I was concerned when we recently received a letter from the MSNZ President that said "whether your clubs agrees or not is of no relevance. The Executive has the authority under the constitution to make such decisions and to implement them" but maybe this is all part of a plan to be less inclusive and move power away from the member clubs and the Commissions they elect to the Executive, management and related committees.

ERC

12-05-2012, 01:41 AM

I was at the Auckland Clubs meeting last night and around the table were representatives from Clubsport, Rallying, circuit racing - including super tourers - and a large contingent involved in the classic side of racing and promotion, plus the Motorsport Club (marshals and officials) and circuit owners (HD of course!).

As a series convenor and race licence holder, I hadn't seen the paperwork from MSNZ. (I have just this minute had an email arrive from from the President of NSCC passing it on, but as yet I haven't read it...) Therein lay the first issue. Most licence holders are totally reliant on their clubs passing on information so the suggestion was that MSNZ needs to address the communications far better. They have the ability to do so.

Although I must stress that this is a 100% personal opinion and I can't speak for our series members, as they haven't been consulted, the overall proposed structure appears to have been fairly well received, but with one or two reservations, includingthose mentioned above.

The omission of the Historic Commission in the proposal seems rather baffling, given that of all the circuit racing in NZ at the moment, the classic and historic side seems to have the numbers on the increase. It is well organised, hasn't needed much input from MSNZ as most is non-sanctioned series run anyway, but has had little promotion or support, particularly from MSNZ.

However, the feeling of the meeting, certainly those involved in the Classic side, feel that a Classic/Historic/Vintage group in some form is essential. There ARE issues and the historic commission has plenty on its plate. There were options discussed regardingthat area but they will remain with the attendees to explore with their members and committees.

The main topic of discussion however, was the ongoing issue of representation/voting. At the meeting last night, I think there were several hundred licence holders represented (without overlaps), and a general membership representation of something like 2000+ (including overlaps) and without marque clubs such as MG and Alfa Romeo who would have boosted the general membership representation by another 1,000.

All agreed that the current conference voting system (one vote per club, regardless of how many members) was never going to give us adequate and fair representation and that has to be addressed - urgently. Obviously, if the future Executive or board or commissions are in anyway, "voted in", then it has to be what the licenced members want (be that competition - race or rally etc - CoC or volunteer etc).

What was most important was that the various groups represented are happy working with each other and there is a lot of mutal respect rather than disagreement and long may that continue.

crunch

12-05-2012, 08:14 AM

Hello All;

Yes; I do agree that I felt let-down by the lack of substance in the review document. Already the H&C Commission has started to make a suggestion regarding the continuation of the H&C Commission or some other form of representation of this branch of the sport. Personally; I would think most sensible thinking people would just look back at why the Commission was instigated in the first place those decades ago, and ask have those reasons changed. Short answer is No. As Ray Green points out, we have plenty of things on-our-plate to do and these are increasing, which shows that a system where it is lumped under Race just would not do justice. The H&C Commission is the hardest working commission bar none in MSNZ. Their workload is double that of any other, because H&C racing is a strange and unusual beast.

I have already directed in an email to the H&C Commission over a week ago that thier clubs should be pushing for proportional representation voting as the only system that has been discounted by the review is Proxy voting. So it is good to see that the Auckland clubs are moving in that direction. There are a multitude of ways proxy voting could work besides just numbers of members. eg. if your club doesnt take a rally permit; then it might not get to vote on rallying stuff and visa-versa. But that is a discussion for next year.
Talking of discussions, I and/or the Commission as a whole is available for any face-to-face group discussions at any time with a small amount of notice. Maybe then the facts can be sorted from the fairytales.

Raymond Bennett

ERC

12-05-2012, 09:11 AM

Just to add to this, Crunch had already approached me to select a suitable date to meet our series guys, before the MSNZ paper was in the public domain and before the Auckland clubs meeting.

As has been mentioned before, the Historic commission has a lot of work to do now, as the breadth (and depth) of classics and historics and pseudo classics, with the various factions involved is complex. We have thrown curly ones at the commission and sometimes, the issues are not clear cut and tend often to be philosophically based.

I have no faith whatever in a structure that ignores Classic, Historic and Vintage, as the problems and requirements at that level are a million miles away from Suzuki Swifts, Falcodores and TRS. Modern one make one model series is purely technical, with off the shelf parts and expertise pretty straightforward.

Running an 80 year old Austin 7 Special, a formula junior, F5000, Historic FF, Muscle cars (all classes), classic Alfa, BMW, Porsche, MG or a Renault Gordini or a host of limited run, long expired small manufactured or mass produced 40's, 50's and 60's, 70's sports, saloons, GTs, is a big ask for the commission now, so what resources would the race commission allocate to the movement?

The simple answer is - not enough and potentially a limited expertise in all things classic/historic/vintage. So does this review really mean, push the Classic and Historic guys out on their own? Heck, the movement is possibly strong enough, big enough, is growing and has enough combined expertise and contributes enough to the current coffers, to make that possibility more than viable.

rf84

12-05-2012, 09:51 AM

Can anyone tell me where I can get to see a copy of this report? I have been to the MSNZ website but the "news" there is about some new lightweight race suit, who's coming to Rally Otago next year and who won some Porsche race in Oz.

ERC

12-05-2012, 10:04 AM

Send me a PM a with your email address and I'll pass it on. NSCC have requested MSNZ publish it on line, so it may yet happen.

I have just checked the MSNZ website: "Submissions will only be accepted from member clubs"... What does that tell you? You pay your licence fees to MSNZ, your race levies to MSNZ, but you are denied a say?

Incidentally, enjoyed the Chicane lightweight suit press release. Buy NZ made. (I admit to a bias here on several counts...)

beowulf

12-05-2012, 06:01 PM

rf84

12-05-2012, 08:00 PM

Thanks for your offer ERC and thanks for pointing out that it is now on MSNZ website Beowolf. I would have thought that something as important as this would have been sent to all members as one of MSNZ's E-newsletters.
I have read it but not analysed it yet. My initial concern is the time frame. This review arose from the MSNZ AGCM in May (8 months ago). Yet members are given 6 weeks to discuss it and make submissions! Our Club has it's last event and Clubnight for 2012 tonight. There is no Committee meeting now until January 15th and our next magazine will arrive with our members around January 26th.
Simply does not give us time to consult with our members.

briteyes

12-05-2012, 08:50 PM

Please be very careful with what you ask for in regards to voting. There are clubs affiliated to MSNZ with sufficient numbers who could if they wanted hijack, the whole shooting box if it came to 1 vote per member, or at least make things extremly difficult. Not a pleasent thought. I do not have the golden answer to how to sort out ths voting issue, I feel s

ERC

12-05-2012, 09:39 PM

Of course, but the existing system is no better, where the sum total of all members of a large group of small local clubs who decide they don't like Crunch for example, and can get a pile of votes to effectively dump him - yet none of their members have a classic or historic car and their membership total is only a couple of hundred? Can't you see the problem with that?

I'd far rather trust the Auckland Car Club or the Canterbury Car Club to make a decision on my behalf as I believe they probably understand the issues as well as anyone. If that is not possible, then the licence holders should have the vote. Race licence holders for racing, rally licence holders for rallying. What is so wrong with that?

Can you also please explain how it is that the region with the largest number of licence holders has minimal representation?

rf84 - exactly... No time to consult with members and present a case and even if they did, we are back to no weighting being given to the numbers represented. This is not really true democracy as I see it.

I'll wait and see if I, as a paid up member of a club, get any info from the club, bearing in mind there is no monthly newsletter or monthly club meeting over Christmas and the last news letter of the year will already have been printed.

rf84

12-05-2012, 10:31 PM

I have emailed Bill Bawn re my concerns about the very short time frame for consultation with our members and any submissions they may like to make and urging him/them to seriously consider extending it. I also asked him to send a E-newsletter to all members. I got an automated reply saying he was out of his office until December 10. It is annoying that, at such a crucial time, the man who is responsible for receiving submissions is away!

Bruce Sollitt

12-05-2012, 11:39 PM

Funny Crunch, I always thought the Rally Commission was the hardest working. I didn't know it was a contest.
Nevertheless, I'm certain the members of the other commissions would most willing support any presentation outlining the need for the Historic & Classic Commission's continuance. My club's will be including it in their presentations.

The voting issue is a red hearing. Whilst I don't buy into the paranoia of block voting, there is a range of possibilities and no guarantee that any form of proportional voting will deliver any more representative, or better outcomes that what we have today.
At the end of the day, the correct decisions remain the correct decisions and the wrong ones remain wrong regardless of who makes them or how many people support them or otherwise.
The important thing is to have the right people in key roles.

Why does Auckland lack representation? I guess your perception is relative to your view on 'representation', which I've never considered to be a regional matter ... although I know some clubs do. I would rather those representing me have qualified knowledge of my code and the acumen to present it strongly and proficiently in order to ensure the correct outcomes. Where they live is immaterial.
However, the answer to your question is simple – Aucklanders simply haven’t presented the candidates or supported them with lobbying and voting.

ERC

12-06-2012, 01:43 AM

Lobbying - or lack of it - and that is probably where Auckland has indeed failed! But doesn't lobbying lead to block voting anyway?

Sorry, forgive my naiivety, but politics never was my forte. The perception I gleaned from the meetimg the other night around Auckland is that people who should know better have no idea what is actually going on in the region.

Apparently, money has been spent by MSNZ on developing an on line event entry system (that isn't yet working). We have news for them. We have had one running successfully in the region for a few years now! Didn't they know that? If not, why not?

Years ago I had a lot to do with pushing for the scrapping of paper entry forms as I had all details for most drivers on file anyway (licences, expiry dates, car details etc.). Along with HRC we pushed for emailed regs and the drivers simply signed the disclaimer at documentation/signing on having emailed their intention to compete and sent a cheque. Even easier now with internet banking.

Since then, HRC/TACCOC had a system developed and although it may not be 100% perfect, it isn't too far from it and is still being refined. Race entry and issued paperwork for organisers has never been easier (or cheaper) and the time savings are enormous.

No longer do we have to print out 3 or 4 pages, collate, envelope, address, stamp and post 300-400 sets, then wait for 25% to come trickling back with cheques that have to be banked etc. Nor do we have to worry about well meaning race secretaries putting cars into the wrong classes - that is now up to the drivers - who still get it wrong...

Sure there is often an anti Auckland attitude by those south of the Bombays, but that is not to say that there is a lack of expertise in the region, but if those people with expertise are not well known further south and don't get voted in, it is hardly their fault.

RogerH

12-06-2012, 02:07 AM

With the proportional voting issue there are pluses and minuses but on balance it must be more democratic if the voting reflects the number of people represented. I bet there would be an outcry if from a national electorate perspective the country was broken into blocks of same sized land area and each area elected a Member of Parliament irrespective of how many people actually lived in that area. Although the MSNZ club voting system is not exactly like this the principle is not that different.
The other thing is that MSNZ collects an annual capitation levy from each club based on how many members they have. It seems a bit inconsistent if MSNZ charges clubs on the basis of their member numbers but don't let them vote on the same basis.

Bruce Sollitt

12-06-2012, 03:02 AM

With the proportional voting issue there are pluses and minuses but on balance it must be more democratic if the voting reflects the number of people represented.
For proportional voting to live up to it's name it requires that all members of any club engage in the decision making process, which is unlikely, and further, that the delegate cast his vote accordingly, which is also unlikely.

I bet there would be an outcry if from a national electorate perspective the country was broken into blocks of same sized land area and each area elected a Member of Parliament irrespective of how many people actually lived in that area. Although the MSNZ club voting system is not exactly like this the principle is not that different. You're quite right, the principle is not that different in that we (clubs/electorates) select our delegates to attend conference to listen, speak, decide and vote on our behalf. Isn't that preferrable to sending along a delegate with predetermined intentions who remains totally belligerent to any other compelling argument that may be presented.
To my mind, those clubs that do this already, often supporting the status quo, are a major cause of existing problems.

The other thing is that MSNZ collects an annual capitation levy from each club based on how many members they have. It seems a bit inconsistent if MSNZ charges clubs on the basis of their member numbers but don't let them vote on the same basis.I think it's drawing a rather long bow to suggest that fees paid for services ought determine voting priviledges. How would you reconcile that against a small club which pays significant amounts to MSNZ due to the nature & size of events they run?

RacerT

12-06-2012, 03:05 AM

ERC

12-06-2012, 03:34 AM

To my mind, those clubs that do this already, often supporting the status quo, are a major cause of existing problems.
Not too many would disagree with that.

I think it's drawing a rather long bow to suggest that fees paid for services ought determine voting priviledges. How would you reconcile that against a small club which pays significant amounts to MSNZ due to the nature & size of events they run?
Surely, a small club only pays a large amount to MSNZ through competitor levies - many of whom must therefore be from invited clubs or if a national event, from outside clubs? Back to licence holders I think.

Equally, I find it difficult to accept that any lone club rep can adequately vote on behalf of all members, given that there may be up to a 49%/51% internal split anyway.

Any sampling system has a margin of error, but if only 30% of members respond and they are 2 - 1 for or against, then surely, that is fairly indicative of the general feeling? If a club rep is there on behalf of 300 hundred levied members, to be fair, he/she could cast votes accordingly, 200 for, 100 against. Idealistic? Maybe. But we all know that 70% will never respond to a poll or survey, regardless, unless they have strong feelings about the matter.

I have never yet been polled by any of the three NZ clubs I have been a member of at various times over the last 30 years, on any issue whatever and I strongly suspect, nor have most others on here. Please tell me I am wrong.

Why do we only get us few big mouths on here or similar message boards, and not 1,000s? How many are lurkers?

RogerH

12-06-2012, 05:16 AM

There is a general disappointment in the review report.
A lot of the report seems to be muddled thinking with not many changes to the present structure. This would stem from the fact that the panel was extensively briefed by MSNZ staff and the President, so the panels outlook will be consistent with the thoughts and ideas of the present MSNZ establishment. There are certainly no radical changes mooted and if the panel stays on this course it will be totally ineffective.
It is folly toretain the present club voting system, even if changed to proportional voting. It should be one vote per race licence holderer/licensed volunteer and special interest people. The whole board should be voted on, rather than have unelected board members. Unelected board members are like list MP's, of doubtful ethics and competence.

Historic and Classic racing is obviously not wanted by MSNZ, with the report advocating get rid of the commission. Why not just set up a separate motorsport classification for Historic and Classic along the lines of Speedway and Drag Racing? let them manage there own affairs broadly under the umbrella of MSNZ, but running their own show completely.

I think it is pretty clear from a number of things that the majority of the MSNZ Executive and management structure have little affinity or time for the Historic and Classic fraternity. This is despite H&C evidently holding around 40% of the competition licences and the largest motor sport meeting in NZ being an H&C meeting (the NZ Festival at Hampton Downs).

In addition, the current disquiet with MSNZ's commercial interests in promoting the "pinnacle" of the sport through Tier 1 and the now insolvent TMC/MPL does nothing for the H&C community except load them with extra costs. Clearly, with the proposed dropping of the H&C Commission, MSNZ is signalling that it thinks that H&C doesn't comfortably fit with their view of the makeup of motor sport. Maybe it is now time to consider alternatives for the H&C community as RacerT has suggested.

CUSTAXIE50

12-06-2012, 06:45 AM

Cant you all just work in together,i would like to take this time to say to all who went through the storm in auckland today, i hope they dont piss around with you all and get in there now and fix the houses up ,all the best to you all.

crunch

12-06-2012, 07:38 AM

[QUOTE=CUSTAXIE50;21492]Cant you all just work in together

Yes, we should be able to, but there are some who will never be happy unless they are running the ship. So by all means if a group think they can do it better outside the umbrella, maybe they could try. However if the FIA delegated ASN (MSNZ) refuses to recognise the body, then many aspects come into play. Kartsport and Drag Racing are delegated the authority to run thier own branch of the sport on behalf of MSNZ, and as long as MSNZ is happy with the way that is happening, all is good. However; that delegation can be withdrawn or not given. Speedway are under the FIM not FIA.

If a seperate group is started and MSNZ does not delegate the authority then it will become messy. I'm tired of various aspects of the sport ending up in court because people cant get thier own way, it would be best if it was a unified body.

MSNZ did NOT brief the Review group as stated elsewhere, that is not a factual statement. MSNZ does want the H&C side of the sport, and if the rumour mongers had bothered to ask, they would have been told that MSNZ is not signalling anything Roger, it is the Review groups suggestion.

And Roger, continuing the argument regarding the TMC/MPL scenario on this thread which is about a Constitutional Review, is just mudding the waters. The H&C competitor will not be shouldering any extra fee or levy as a result of this, yet you seem to continue to insinuate this. I have told you this and I'm sure its on the minutes at Conference that the President said this.

I would appreciate it if the discussion on this thread remains about the review. There is plenty of other internet space available to talk of the other stuff happening....

RacerT

12-06-2012, 07:56 AM

Hi Crunch

I would say that MSNZ is the one that's not happy unless it is running the ship. The report states that MSNZ should control everything to do with Motorsport and be the key organisation in all things Motorsport. Is there not a hint of meglamania in there?

In answer to your third paragraph. the report states;

"The panel was further provided with a comprehensive background from MSNZ President Shayne Harris while Brian Budd and Sporting Manager Bill Bawn also assisted in providing background information."

Does background information not constitute a briefing?

A unified body with integrity and transparency is all that is asked for.

RogerH

12-06-2012, 08:17 AM

Crunch, don't you think it is strange that for whatever reason the review panel (that included the President of MSNZ) got the message (possibly from the "comprehensive background" provided by MSNZ's Shayne, Brian and Bill) that the H&C Commission could be dispensed with? I doubt that any club would have put in a submission that the H&C Commission be dropped so there is perhaps some credibility in the suggestion that it came from within MSNZ?
This proposal doesn't seem consistent with just splitting things into rally and race as the Clubsport Commission is proposed to be retained. It does seem hard to interpret the proposal in any way other than the H&C fraternity is thought to be either unimportant or less important - and this must be of concern for H&C competitors.

Carlo

12-06-2012, 09:00 AM

For some time now I have thought that our historic competitors have been dissadvantaged because of having a historic commission in place and my reasons for that are quite simple, with racing it does not matter what class of make of car one uses, the rules and regulations are all the same and if there is something that dissadvantages the historic competitor than that should be resolved as an overall race issue rather than "It only effects old cars" so leave it to the historic guys. With Historic rallying currently, we are fortunate in that all of the rally commission have some very strong roots that is able to assist the historic side of this aspect of the sport develop however I do think that we have an issue that exists with clubsport similar to racing where historic input into the structure and types of events that could be catered for to the benefit of eveyone is sorely missed.

Maybe as we look to the future there should be a recognised historic type person elected or appointed to those three commissions and as a result they all become the the historic commission as we know it but with far more effect on the overall conduct of their sector of the sport that they currently enjoy by working through the more direct process that affects that particular sector of the sport.

For sure, Historic motorsport is not just about race cars to the exclusion of everything else and perhaps a view of the bigger picture is in order

CUSTAXIE50

12-06-2012, 12:20 PM

Now Crunch, i did not know that you, are running this ship.

rf84

12-06-2012, 07:48 PM

Why is it that MSNZ feel obligated to control all forms of sport involving motor cars? The controlling body of tennis for instance do not try to administer any sport that uses a racquet just as the administrators of swimming do not insist on controlling any sport played in or on water. By trying to administer all forms of the sport involving cars MSNZ appear to be stretching their own resources, sometimes to the detriment of some branches of the sport. I would have thought that some devolution of their authority would have been a logical move, not more concentration of power in a smaller group as this review is proposing.

RogerH

12-06-2012, 08:38 PM

Surely what is good for motor sport in general and for the components of the sport must be the prime motivation of MSNZ (I think there is something along these lines in the MSNZ Constitution). If the Historic and Classic component of the sport can flourish more effectively as a separate sub-group (along the lines of karts, speedway and drags as RacerT suggested) then MSNZ should encourage this as being good for the sport. Trying to control everything just for the sake of it does have the aroma of megalomania.

ERC

12-06-2012, 08:41 PM

I think that by us running effectively to FIA, MSNZ are the FIA conduit for NZ. That is not to say that independent groups could not still run via MSNZ.

It is a bit like my personal view of some aspects of the commissions. They only need to create the broad umbrella and not get too bogged down with minor details that can be far better addressed at race organisation, club or series level.

The most successful companies delegate authority and responsibility, but still retain a watching brief. The worst are where the owner continues to try and do everything as the company grows, instead of concentrating on strategy and growth.

Racer Rog

12-06-2012, 09:36 PM

I always thought that MSNZ was there to just what several people have suggested, looking after the admin, safety, general rules, and that the commissions were there to govern (guide) their sector of the sport, race, rally, clubsport, and H & C, who were there to put to the exce, their findings etc to be signed off. Carl, you are right in some aspects of what you are saying, in that the Race Commission has a lot to do with H & C, but only in terms of the rules of the road so to speak, competitor rules, if H & C was not there, it would be a all comers, or hotrod racing, H & C has become very popular, as everybody harks back to their youth and what seems better times in racing, but has also become a very complex beast. I agree that the majority of the Excutive have little understanding, and no time for H & C, and Crunch has come under a lot of pressure in this area, to justify what we do as a Commission, and for calling it as it is, and I can only urge all clubs to use this in voteing, in fact urge all clubs that have an interest in H & C to get vocal on this.
The argument about the commercial interests of motorsport, has been put to bed, and in the event of this comeing back to bite us in the arse, there will be a public hanging at the next AGCM, so we should not get to bogged down in this, or we won't get anywhere, but already in this thread there are good responses to the questions, but also agree that there is very little time to respond, to what is a very poor report.
Roger

CUSTAXIE50

12-06-2012, 10:54 PM

No one is going to win in the end,You have a large number of people like Michael Laws in there.

RacerT

12-06-2012, 11:06 PM

One other concerning area in the report (Page 3) is that the board believes that MSNZ must control the commercial aspects of the sport and that the MSNZ Championships remain as the pinnacle of the sport. This obviously raises the issue of MSNZ being involved in promotion again and how does this attitude work with a series like V8SuperTourers being already established?

Oldfart

12-07-2012, 01:02 AM

I just came across this paragraph written quite a few years back.
"It could be argued that governors of motorsport are purists, enamoured with the concept that fine racing machinery is reward enough for fans to get along to a track. On the other hand there's an alternative view that officials are so beholden to circuiot owners that they'd better stay out of promotion altogether".
The only real change in my opinion, is that the "governors" have stopped that role and become, in their own eyes, the promoters and that no-one else deserves to have a view.

Bruce Sollitt

12-07-2012, 03:52 AM

However if the FIA delegated ASN (MSNZ) refuses to recognise the body, then many aspects come into play. Kartsport and Drag Racing are delegated the authority to run thier own branch of the sport on behalf of MSNZ, and as long as MSNZ is happy with the way that is happening, all is good. However; that delegation can be withdrawn or not given. Speedway are under the FIM not FIA.
If a seperate group is started and MSNZ does not delegate the authority then it will become messy. I'm tired of various aspects of the sport ending up in court because people cant get thier own way, it would be best if it was a unified body.
MSNZ have jurisdiction only over events run under their permits. If the Karting or Drag racing people wished to break away and do their own thing, there is nothing MSNZ could do about it, as would be the case with any other code within motorsport. Neither the FIA nor MSNZ are the definitive authority on motorsport matters, and neither do they hold any rights in respect of IP, and it's past due time that they realised that. The report recommends MSNZ focus on cementing themselves in that dominant role. They would do far better to focus on listening to, and providing, their member clubs and licence holders with an accessible and affordable sport matching their wants and needs. In doing this they would build a strong, stable and vibrant organisation that other factions would want to join.

MSNZ did NOT brief the Review group No they didn't. Neither did anyone else outside of a couple of staff. Three & a half pages constitutes a review and recommendations of the governence model of one of the country's largest and most complex sporting organisations? This is barely an afternoon's work and, if this was all that was anticipated, it could have been completed months earlier allowing more time for submissions and composing of final recommendations. It reeks of having been set up to fail from the outset.

And Roger, continuing the argument regarding the TMC/MPL scenario on this thread which is about a Constitutional Review, is just mudding the waters. The H&C competitor will not be shouldering any extra fee or levy as a result of this, yet you seem to continue to insinuate this. I have told you this and I'm sure its on the minutes at Conference that the President said this.You are correct, this is not the thread to discuss this matter however your comment warrants a reply. Whilst there may be no liability for MSNZ in making good TMC's losses, it is undeniable that this debacle has altered the financial position of MSNZ. An acknowledgement to that effect would likely go a long way to quelling the masses.

CUSTAXIE50

12-07-2012, 04:01 AM

MSNZ what control do they have over the tracks in nz ,do they have a say in what you can run.

RogerH

12-07-2012, 04:25 AM

MSNZ have jurisdiction only over events run under their permits. If the Karting or Drag racing people wished to break away and do their own thing, there is nothing MSNZ could do about it, as would be the case with any other code within motorsport. Neither the FIA nor MSNZ are the definitive authority on motorsport matters, and neither do they hold any rights in respect of IP, and it's past due time that they realised that. The report recommends MSNZ focus on cementing themselves in that dominant role. They would do far better to focus on listening to, and providing, their member clubs and licence holders with an accessible and affordable sport matching their wants and needs. In doing this they would build a strong, stable and vibrant organisation that other factions would want to join.

No they didn't. Neither did anyone else outside of a couple of staff. Three & a half pages constitutes a review and recommendations of the governence model of one of the country's largest and most complex sporting organisations? This is barely an afternoon's work and, if this was all that was anticipated, it could have been completed months earlier allowing more time for submissions and composing of final recommendations. It reeks of having been set up to fail from the outset.

You are correct, this is not the thread to discuss this matter however your comment warrants a reply. Whilst there may be no liability for MSNZ in making good TMC's losses, it is undeniable that this debacle has altered the financial position of MSNZ. An acknowledgement to that effect would likely go a long way to quelling the masses.

Well said Bruce.

ERC

12-07-2012, 04:49 AM

MSNZ what control do they have over the tracks in nz ,do they have a say in what you can run.
None - but, should any track elect to host an outlaw event or events, do you really think they would then get a Tier 1 date or any MSNZ Permitted events? I am not sure of the legal requirements but risk insurance I presume would be required.

The original plans for the Cromwell track were that it would run independently and would not require anything from MSNZ and would not host MSNZ events. I am not sure that with the change of ownership, that things have changed or not. Someone based down that way would be more up to date on that.

Seems that the South Island has a fair few good tracks already and maybe running privately wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Agree with above. Good post Bruce.

Russ Cunningham

12-07-2012, 04:54 AM

No one is going to win in the end,You have a large number of people like Michael Laws in there.

Once again you've lost me......???? Michael Laws???????? what the hell?????????

There's a good deal of commonsense being voiced on this thread......Join the club! Norm.

RogerH

12-07-2012, 05:36 AM

Russ Cunningham

12-07-2012, 06:16 AM

I have always struggled with the concept that MSNZ "control" motor sport in NZ. They would perhaps like to control it but from a legal perspective they can't control it.
There was a similar situation in Australia a few years back where a track owner and competitors had enough of CAMS and gave them "two fingers". CAMS threatened them with all sorts of reprisals which came to nothing and they broke away and set up their own structure AASA (http://australianautosportalliance.com/). They have arranged their own insurance cover and the costs of licences, permits and log books are a fraction of what CAMS charges.

Totally agree. MSNZ should simply be there to administer the sport, not to control it. Force control on competititors and sooner or later you'll alienate them. Think about it boys? your cushy jobs at MSNZ might not seem so cushy if you continue to treat the competitors who pay your wages as you've done in the past. WAKE UP CHAPS!

CUSTAXIE50

12-07-2012, 07:42 AM

Russ, laws is like msnz we know best.

rf84

12-07-2012, 07:44 AM

I have emailed Bill Bawn expressing my concerns about the short time frame for submissions (especially given the time of year). His reply was not encouraging. Maybe if enough people who have similar concerns contact him there will be an extension of time? I have also suggested to him that MSNZ send all members one of their e-Flags alerting them to the fact that the report is available on the MSNZ website. If it was not for "The Roaring Season" I would not know the report had been published and I wonder how many others are unaware of it's existence?

Nick

12-07-2012, 08:16 AM

Sadly, there is a reason for the end of January timenframe for the final report. If there are any constitutional matters to put to vote at the 2013 AGCM, then there needs to be three months notice to member clubs to this effect. Working back from the date of the 2013 AGCM, the report needs to be finalised end of January to allow a few weeks for the appropriate paperwork to be lodged for the AGCM.

I think.

Cheers,
Nick

rf84

12-07-2012, 08:50 AM

That's possible Nick. But that would mean that MSNZ would have to consider any submissions and make recommendations/notify constitutional changes before the end of February. This is one month after the closing of submissions (Jan 25). When it takes them six months to produce a very sketchy report I would have to question the depth of their consideration of any submissions that may be made before Jan 25.
How can the report be 'finalised end of January' as you put it when submissions close on Jan 25? Either they are going to have to move very fast (much faster than they did on the preliminary report just published!) or else they have no intention of taking any submissions into account.

Nick

12-07-2012, 09:09 AM

Please don't get me wrong, I don't appreciate the tight time frame. However AGCM must be held before 31 May 2013. Three months back from that is the end of February. The review panel will need time to produce the final version of the report, which hopefully will be more detailed than what we've seen so far. That will take a few weeks after final submissions. To fit within that time frame, the end of January submission date is, sadly, probably about right.

So, everyone that wants to have their say on this review needs to contact their own club committee and ask what submissions are being made by their club to the MSNZ review panel before the end of January.

There are several clubs that will be making submissions. To make sure YOUR voice is heard, you need to make sure that YOUR club is making a submission to the review panel.

Cheers,
Nick

rf84

12-07-2012, 10:12 AM

Nick. What you don't seem to have grasped is the fact that since most clubs have, in effect, closed down for the Christmas/New Year holidays it is very difficult to inform them that (a) this report exists and (b) get their input. To say they need to contact their club committee is plain stupid when THEY DON'T KNOW THE REPORT EXISTS and WE CANNOT CONTACT THEM TO TELL THEM. What part of that can't you understand?
I'm afraid I am beginning to join that group that believe MSNZ couldn't give a s--t about what those it PURPORTS to represent. They need to be mindful of those who are paying their salaries.

beowulf

12-07-2012, 11:13 AM

As an active Historic competitor, a past organiser of many events and very involved with club duties many years ago I have watched with some dismay the rise and fall of our sport over the last few years. Spectator numbers are a fraction of what they were as a look at some of the threads on the Roaring Season show.
I welcomed the review of the Motorsport as possibly an independent look at some of the problems facing motorsport and ways to fix those problems. I agree with the comment that, 'the governance function of MSNZ has become muddled with management matters'. The board should be a governance body setting strategies for the future. Not running around fixing minor day to day problems.
I like the proposal for an elected and appointed board, with some proviso's. Would the appointed board members be paid professional directors? And they should include a female member. Woman are active competitors, work as marshalls, organisers etc, and attend as
spectators. Appointed members need not be motorsport enthusiasts. In fact it may be better if they now very little about motorsport so that they have a detached and unbiased view and make decisions based on fact not emotion.
I disagree with the proposal to do away with the Historic commission. As has been stated by many we are the most active group of competitors and more than pay our own way. I would think that the very low key meeting run be the HSRRC at Taupo last weekend had as many competitors as many tier one meetings will get. Certainly the classic FFs are very well supported compared with the ten or so modern FFs that tier one meetings attract.
I would like to see each elected board member being chairperson of a Commission as happens now, reporting back to the full board but with the ability to make decisions as required. Commissions would cover race, rally, clubsport and historic. Drifting would need to be fitted in somewhere. Maybe it would need a separate commission, I am not sure just how popular it is and how it is set up.
The three sub-committees could be chaired by either elected or appointed board members.
The board of MSNZ must be a governance board NOT financially involved as a promoter. The CEO must be involved with the employment and resource issues, and with carrying out the needs of MSNZ and the board. Regular (annual) reviews of the CEO's performance to be carried out. Long term planning to be carried out and reviewed annually. There must be some flexibility as conditions in our sport can change very rapidly.
Voting must be one of the most contentious issues. I can see issues which ever way it is carried out. Why should a club with 20 members and no interest in racing be able to vote on a remit put up by a club with 300 members and very involved with racing?
Proxy voting is open to abuse as large clubs bully small clubs not attending the AGM to vote for their remit or nomination. I would suggest that we have postal voting from all clubs for the elected board members. Remits and matters covered by the AGM by a vote from clubs attending based on size. One vote for under 100 members, two votes for 100-150 members, 3 votes 150-200 members and so on. I do not know the numbers of members that some clubs have so to avoid the possibility of one or two clubs dominating an AGM these figures could be changed to be more fair.
The elected board members should set up regional meetings if required to listen to clubs problems and to bring clubs up to date with proposals that the board may be considering.
I must commend Crunch for his approach to this and other threads that have appeared from time to time on the Roaring Season. So far as I know he is the only executive member to post on this forum. I appreciate that he listens, explains, and tries to fix problems.
Motorsport is a popular, enjoyable pastime for most of us. We need to avoid some of the ructions that have happened over the last
year with the V8s. It scares away potential sponsors and makes the sport look dis-organised. We have to work together to sort out the problems. Talk of a breakaway group is unrealistic. I doubt if we would get circuits, insurance etc. We have a structure already in place. It may be flawed, lets fix it and move on. As most of you would know it is much cheaper to buy a car already built and fix the problems than to start from scratch.
Well, that is my tuppance worth. While the review may not have been as far reaching as some of us may have wished, with some work and effort I believe it could be a large step forward. If time becomes an issue as suggested by Nick there could be a Special General Meeting just to cover this. And that may not be a bad thing as it would mean that delegates would just have one issue to concentrate on rather that the raft of issues that an AGM throws up.

CUSTAXIE50

12-07-2012, 07:33 PM

Look at it this way after all the bitching and moaning has stopped,the view of msnz will be you do not have a say in it,we tell you how its going to be.

beowulf

12-07-2012, 08:24 PM

Look at it this way after all the bitching and moaning has stopped,the view of msnz will be you do not have a say in it,we tell you how its going to be.
Surely that is up to us as members to make sure that doesn't happen. Attend the AGM, have your say, and accept that you are not always going to win.

RogerH

12-07-2012, 08:54 PM

Surely that is up to us as members to make sure that doesn't happen. Attend the AGM, have your say, and accept that you are not always going to win.

I think some of the gripes with the current situation is that members (competitors) don't seem to get a say under the MSNZ structure. If you are a group such as the BMW Series, the Formula Juniors, The F5000, a series organiser such as Ray etc you don't get any say in MSNZ governance and have no rights to attend the AGM.

CUSTAXIE50

12-07-2012, 09:40 PM

Back up the truck RogerH,tell me why you dont get any say and have no rights to attend the agm.If that is the case we can talk about it till we are blue in the face and end up where we started.

RogerH

12-07-2012, 09:58 PM

Back up the truck RogerH,tell me why you dont get any say and have no rights to attend the agm.If that is the case we can talk about it till we are blue in the face and end up where we started.

To become a member of MSNZ (and thus be entitled to attend the AGM and vote) you must be a formal Incorporated Society who applies to MSNZ for membership and is subsequently approved by the majority of the MSNZ Executive.
Many motor sport interest groups (like the ones I mentioned in my earlier post) have chosen for a variety of reasons not to be Incorporated Societies formed under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 and therefore are prohibited from being a member of MSNZ.
It seems a pity that MSNZ regulations specifically exclude these groups from being able to have a say in the sport they are involved in.

ERC

12-07-2012, 10:27 PM

We have no say Roger, but with a growing list (4 new to us joined up this week - all Porsches who have had their season cut back through the Pukekohe temporary closure) we now stand at 111 paid up, active racing members. However, all are already paid up members of other clubs and already have an affiliation fee paid to MSNZ.

If we were to set up as an Incorporated Society, the only winners would be MSNZ as they would then get another $555 and we'd only get 1 vote and still be outvoted by a load of small clubs anyway...

I join with Beowulf in applauding Crunch for fronting up, even though there is a touch of Daniel and the Lion's den at times! The commissions are approachable and will listen to individuals and groups, yet MSNZ as a body will only talk to clubs. In that, it is the right way round. The H & C commission have never sat back and told us to approach them via the clubs, which I suppose they could do if they wanted to be awkward.

In terms of the Historic Commission, they are obviously split on various complex issues (which is no bad thing) but any separate Classic/Historic group/Organisation could just as easily be further split, as the issues are far too broad for one small group to deal with.

The more this is discussed on here, the more I am of the opinion that a totally self sufficient H & C group affiliated to MSNZ is a better way to go.

I believe that from the meeting the other night, the proposed MSNZ structure is largely driven by SPARC's requirements.

I have written to our (large) club and made my views known and early indications (from one Committee member only) are that maybe a separate group would serve their needs far better than a compulsory levy on so many people who do not compete at all. Whether they have the time (or inclination) to meet, discuss and formulate a submission, is out of my hands.

With so many people already dispersing for Christmas and some sectors not back until well into the New Year, there is no way that adequate consultation is going to happen between Club members and Club committees at a time of the year when most clubs don't even have a meeting, let alone a committee meeting.

beowulf

12-07-2012, 10:29 PM

To become a member of MSNZ (and thus be entitled to attend the AGM and vote) you must be a formal Incorporated Society who applies to MSNZ for membership and is subsequently approved by the majority of the MSNZ Executive.
Many motor sport interest groups (like the ones I mentioned in my earlier post) have chosen for a variety of reasons not to be Incorporated Societies formed under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 and therefore are prohibited from being a member of MSNZ.
It seems a pity that MSNZ regulations specifically exclude these groups from being able to have a say in the sport they are involved in.
But surely if you just belong to a group, such as the BMWs you do not pay a capitation levy. Therefore why should you get a vote?
I belong to five affiliated clubs, does that mean I get 5 votes? Also members of those groups must be members of a club to obtain a competition licence. Sorry RogerH I do not buy into that argument.

CUSTAXIE50

12-08-2012, 12:53 AM

Was there a time that we all worked as one group,just got in there and did the job and every one was happy ,or has all this pissing around and bullshit always been in nzms.

Shano

12-08-2012, 01:05 AM

You just answered your own question Custaxie.

RogerH

12-08-2012, 01:38 AM

But surely if you just belong to a group, such as the BMWs you do not pay a capitation levy. Therefore why should you get a vote?
I belong to five affiliated clubs, does that mean I get 5 votes? Also members of those groups must be members of a club to obtain a competition licence. Sorry RogerH I do not buy into that argument.

Sorry but I don't follow your logic - everyone who has a MSNZ Competition Licence effectively has paid a capitation levy to MSNZ as a prerequisite to getting a licence is having to belong to an affiliated member club.

Look at this hypothetical scenario - Someone belongs to the BMW Car Club as they have a BMW road car. This club is an affiliated member club of MSNZ so that person is able to "use" the BMW Car Club membership to get a MSNZ Competition Licence. The BMW Car Club pays MSNZ a capitation levy in respect of that person's membership (in fact the person actually pays it as it is a component of the membership fee they pay to the BMW Car Club).
As far as motor sport competition is concerned the BMW Car Club does not represent that person as they do not race a BMW - they race a Formula Junior. They are part of the NZ Formula Junior Register which is not an Incorporated Society so it can't belong to MSNZ, attend the AGM or vote. As far as motor sport is concerned that person is unrepresented at a MSNZ level despite them paying to MSNZ a capitation levy (effectively), a competition licence fee, a log book fee, a COD fee and effective fees through entry at events.

CUSTAXIE50

12-08-2012, 02:00 AM

If that is the case Shano, what are you bright pins going to do about it.

Trevor Sheffield

12-08-2012, 02:43 AM

Was there a time that we all worked as one group,just got in there and did the job and every one was happy ,or has all this pissing around and bullshit always been in nzms.

The short answer is NO and YES. I can verify that the current discontent has existed for over fifty years.

All the talk and hot air exhibited here is useless. It remains as always, that the constitution of the governing body provides the executive with the tools to very easily out maneuver any and all proposals not to their liking. e.g. the time frame set up to cover the current organisational review, which in itself is a farce.

Discussing anything other than achieving a means of altering the constitution, so as to end an undemocratic system, amounts to endless pissing into a very strong wind. It is an undeniable fact that only if and when this is achieved, will it be worthwhile to discuss wants and wishes.

Sincerely, Trevor.

Racer Rog

12-08-2012, 04:15 AM

Roger H, while I agree with many things you say, on this one its a bridge to far, and won't work, plus you could sell the Beemer and join a real club! but the rules that clubs gain affiliation to MSNZ, are well founded, and are in common with most organisations for very good reasons, it keeps every body honest, and when you look at the history of some clubs, it isn't good what happens sometimes, and as far as some one standing from Auckland for a position, why should the region stop the best getting the job, clubs in the northern district can put up who they like, and its up to them to make sure all the beans are in the tin, when it comes to the count.
I don't personally have a problem in the way MSNZ has been set up, I have a problem in what we have allowed to happen, I want to see more openess, and don't want to hear the cry "send Lawyers, guns, and money" ( Warren Zevon)

Sorry but I don't follow your logic - everyone who has a MSNZ Competition Licence effectively has paid a capitation levy to MSNZ as a prerequisite to getting a licence is having to belong to an affiliated member club.

Look at this hypothetical scenario - Someone belongs to the BMW Car Club as they have a BMW road car. This club is an affiliated member club of MSNZ so that person is able to "use" the BMW Car Club membership to get a MSNZ Competition Licence. The BMW Car Club pays MSNZ a capitation levy in respect of that person's membership (in fact the person actually pays it as it is a component of the membership fee they pay to the BMW Car Club).
As far as motor sport competition is concerned the BMW Car Club does not represent that person as they do not race a BMW - they race a Formula Junior. They are part of the NZ Formula Junior Register which is not an Incorporated Society so it can't belong to MSNZ, attend the AGM or vote. As far as motor sport is concerned that person is unrepresented at a MSNZ level despite them paying to MSNZ a capitation levy (effectively), a competition licence fee, a log book fee, a COD fee and effective fees through entry at events.

RogerH

12-08-2012, 04:41 AM

Roger H, while I agree with many things you say, on this one its a bridge to far, and won't work, plus you could sell the Beemer and join a real club! but the rules that clubs gain affiliation to MSNZ, are well founded, and are in common with most organisations for very good reasons, it keeps every body honest, and when you look at the history of some clubs, it isn't good what happens sometimes, and as far as some one standing from Auckland for a position, why should the region stop the best getting the job, clubs in the northern district can put up who they like, and its up to them to make sure all the beans are in the tin, when it comes to the count.
I don't personally have a problem in the way MSNZ has been set up, I have a problem in what we have allowed to happen, I want to see more openess, and don't want to hear the cry "send Lawyers, guns, and money" ( Warren Zevon)

Roger, I wasn't advocating regional representation in my post and I don't know how you read it as that? All I was doing was pointing out in a hypothetical situation that while a competitor has to belong to an affiliated club, that club may for whatever reason, not represent their competition situation and thus as a competitor they are effectively unrepresented.
If you take Ray's ERC group as an example. All of "his people" will need to belong to a club in order to get their licences but they will belong to a wide disparity of different clubs - marque clubs, general car clubs and race clubs. They do not have a common voice to represent their common interests of what is a long established and successful race group. I think it would be more healthy for the sport if groups like this could have representation irrespective of where they are based.
Some other anomalies to consider - if you have a car club or race group that is an established Trust, they are prohibited from participating in MSNZ.
If a circuit is owned by a Club it can be represented in MSNZ but if a circuit is owned by a company (ie: Hampton Downs) or a Trust then it can't be represented.
You could have the situation where a large group of active racers (BMW, F5000, FJ, etc) can't be represented irrespective of where they are based but you could get the likes of the Reliant Robin Owners Club (if such a club exists) that once met the criteria of an Incorporated Society (15 members) but with attrition are down to 3 members. Even though they have no activity in competition, they can go to the AGM and vote to elect the commission members for race, rally etc. Doesn't seem right to me.

Carlo

12-08-2012, 05:41 AM

Something that we occasional forget to remember is that the origonal name of MotorSport NZ was The Association Of New Zealand Car Clubs (ANZCC) and not the association of NZ competition licence holders and other interested parties.

It was the various car clubs from around NZ that formed the association and went through all the processes required to affiliate to the FIA which in turn has its responsibility for world motorsport delegated to them from the United Nations.

In many countries the FIA has delegated the authority to our equivalent of the NZ Automobile Association (NZAA) and they in turn have set up a seperate arm to control the sport in their country.

Think I will run off to the pub now, anyone care to join me?

RogerH

12-08-2012, 06:35 AM

I understand that the genesis of MSNZ was through car clubs and that is how it is now. My commentary (made to hopefully create constructive debate) was that maybe times have changed and motor sport activity is now not just totally club based. For example, our club is putting on a meeting tomorrow with around 160 entrants - it is at a circuit (Hampton Downs) that is not represented on MSNZ as it owned by a company. All the classes racing are established series (BMW E30, BMW Open, AES and Arrows Wheels) and none of them are represented on MSNZ. I just think it could be beneficial for the sport if some of these groups that are very active in the sport could find representation at MSNZ.

ERC

12-08-2012, 07:06 AM

Tier 1 Taupo, 2 day meeting a year or two ago - totally backed/promoted by MSNZ - 67 cars, spectators have to pay - probably a loss making meeting no matter how you look at it.

Classic 1 day clubby at Hampton Downs (as above) - 160 cars - not really supported by MSNZ, free entry for spectators, profitable meeting for the club - and MSNZ at $25 a pop.

Rather ironic isn't it.

crunch

12-08-2012, 07:49 AM

[ All the classes racing are established series (BMW E30, BMW Open, AES and Arrows Wheels) and none of them are represented on MSNZ. QUOTE

Depends what you mean by representation. All 160 competitors are using mSNZ Licences and are running vehicles to a safety schedule developed(ing) by MSNZ on a circuit permited by MSNZ. The officials of the meeting are trained by MSNZ and I know most of the marshalls now are part of a group that represents them at a Commission level.
If drama happens in these series and a competitor is not happy he can use the appeal process developed bySNZ. Does happen in even the "friendly" series every year.

I know people will poo-poo this, but this is actually why you pay the small levy at each meeting.

I guess the main question is if you wish to start a seperate H&C organisation attached to MSNZ, what will actually be changed? If there are positive changes that can be identified, then it is a good idea, and also gives the H&C Commission the indication that it has indeed failed at representing the complex area of H&C racing, and arguably that does indeed bode that it should be dropped from MSNZ.

MSNZ did not suggest that the H&C Commission be dropped, they are equally concerned regarding this suggestion. That came from an independent person on the review. I would be interested to know the reasoning behind that, but sadly the lack of detail in this less than satisfactory report (my opinion) doesnt tell us.

Whilst on details; the two staff of MSNZ that were asked for input were questioned on the systems used in the office, not on any sporting matters.

crunch

12-08-2012, 07:51 AM

[QUOTE=ERC;21656]Tier 1 Taupo, 2 day meeting a year or two ago - totally backed/promoted by MSNZ - 67 cars, spectators have to pay - probably a loss making meeting no matter how you look at it.

MSNZ does not promote the Tier One. This year MSNZ is helping the circuits promote the Tier One, but it is primarily the circuits that are wearing the costs/risks.

crunch

12-08-2012, 07:54 AM

Now logging off and ducking down in the trench...

ERC

12-08-2012, 08:15 AM

If drama happens in these series and a competitor is not happy he can use the appeal process developed bySNZ. Does happen in even the "friendly" series every year.
Not quite Crunch. The very reason I got involved in the first place was precisely because of that, when a disgruntled competitor appealed a decision made by the series drivers and committee and "took it all the way". The previous convenor of 10 years standing walked out of it (quite rightly) and I was then asked to take it over.

So to avoid a repeat, we wrote up the current articles and also took legal advice as to our position.

By being a non-sanctioned series, (in fact, we are an invitation series) MSNZ have nothing whatever to do with the administration and application of our rules. MSNZ's involvement is limited to the normal safety and driving rules, issuing of licences etc, but they have absolutely no jurisdiction whatever in the running of the series. By being an invitation series, we also have the sole right to accept or refuse entries regardless of whether or not a car conforms to the rules.

That "small levy" at each meeting amounts to thousands and is the second largest expense after track hire. Tomorrow's meeting will net MSNZ $4,000 in levies and is of course in addition to the $21,600 worth of race licences and $800 worth of affiliation fees. I accept that there is an insurance cover of sorts somewhere in that levy, but I am not too sure how much. Maybe someone can enlighten me?

crunch

12-08-2012, 08:32 AM

Not quite Crunch. The very reason I got involved in the first place was precisely because of that, when a disgruntled competitor appealed a decision made by the series drivers and committee and "took it all the way". The previous convenor of 10 years standing walked out of it (quite rightly) and I was then asked to it take over.

So to avoid a repeat, we wrote up the current articles and also took legal advice as to our position.

By being a non-sanctioned series, (in fact, we are an invitation series) MSNZ have nothing whatever to do with the administration and application of our rules. MSNZ's involvement is limited to the normal safety and driving rules, issuing of licences etc, but they have absolutely no jurisdiction whatever in the running of the series. By being an invitation series, we also have the sole right to accept or refuse entries regardless of whether or not a car conforms to the rules.

That "small levy" at each meeting amounts to thousands and is the second largest expense after track hire. Tomorrow's meeting will net MSNZ $4,000.

Hi Ray
Every Licence holder has the right to use any or all of the appeal processes available in the MSNZ Manual. It doesn't matter if you are sanctioned or not.
My comment regarding the "small levy" wasnt meant to be demeaning, just my perception of the costs of motorsport. And I do know those first-hand.

RogerH

12-08-2012, 11:13 AM

With reference to Racer Rog and Carlo, I don't think MSNZ membership is just restricted to Clubs. On having another read of the Constitution it appears that in addition to a Club another form of "Organisation" can join (I note in this regard there are several Registers who are MSNZ members). The wording is : "A club or organisation which is interested in automobile sport and which is an incorporated society may apply to MotorSport to be a member."
The problem as I see it is the mandatory requirement that the club or other type of organisation has to be an Incorporated Society. I don't understand why there is this restriction as many of the likes of the F5000, FJ, BMW, ERC etc meet what appears to be the most important part of the criteria being an "organisation which is interested in automobile sport". If the Incorporated Society criteria was relaxed then these types of organisation could join which must only be positive for the sport.

RogerH

12-08-2012, 11:23 AM

MSNZ did not suggest that the H&C Commission be dropped, they are equally concerned regarding this suggestion. That came from an independent person on the review. I would be interested to know the reasoning behind that, but sadly the lack of detail in this less than satisfactory report (my opinion) doesnt tell us.

This seems very strange Crunch. I would assume that a proposal such as this would not go into the report unless it had at least majority support from the panel. A such, it doesn't seem to have come from just one person but at least a couple. I also wonder from where these independent panel members picked up such an idea as dropping H&C but retaining Clubsport? I hope its not true that it did emanate from within MSNZ and they are now backtracking in the face of the relatively widespread criticism of this particular proposal.

Racer Rog

12-08-2012, 11:35 AM

I think that most organisations like MSNZ have the fact that the member clubs are incorporated societies, the reason is accountability as I am given to understand and the groups you are talking of, do have imput into what goes on in terms of H & C anyway, even Eric's views are debated with vigor at commission meetings, as he is well aware, Crunch has a policy of working with these groups, and individuals, involved in T & C and schedual K, and many have made submissions to the Commission, so to say they don't have a voice, does not fly. Personally I don't want to leave MSNZ, it has a good foundation, its just that there are a few leaks in the roof, which is what this is all about, it will be easier to fix, than try and set something else up.
Roger

With reference to Racer Rog and Carlo, I don't think MSNZ membership is just restricted to Clubs. On having another read of the Constitution it appears that in addition to a Club another form of "Organisation" can join (I note in this regard there are several Registers who are MSNZ members). The wording is : "A club or organisation which is interested in automobile sport and which is an incorporated society may apply to MotorSport to be a member."
The problem as I see it is the mandatory requirement that the club or other type of organisation has to be an Incorporated Society. I don't understand why there is this restriction as many of the likes of the F5000, FJ, BMW, ERC etc meet what appears to be the most important part of the criteria being an "organisation which is interested in automobile sport". If the Incorporated Society criteria was relaxed then these types of organisation could join which must only be positive for the sport.

RogerH

12-08-2012, 11:54 AM

.... even Eric's views are debated with vigor at commission meetings, as he is well aware ...

Who is Eric?

crunch

12-09-2012, 12:58 AM

[QUOTE= I hope its not true that it did emanate from within MSNZ and they are now backtracking in the face of the relatively widespread criticism of this particular proposal.[/QUOTE]

It is not true Roger. This did not come from any suggestion of anyone in anyway connected with MSNZ.

Carlo

12-09-2012, 08:39 PM

You could have the situation where a large group of active racers (BMW, F5000, FJ, etc) can't be represented irrespective of where they are based .

Following on from Roger H's comments, when we look back on the MSNZ website and look at the listing of the member clubs one does see a number of specialist race categories listed as clubs. Mini 7, Pre 65, RX7, SS2000, Drift, Trucks, Formula Ford, S.I. Formula etc just to name a few. Competitors in these clubs are spread all around the countryside and I guess that they all wanted to have a common voice and not have it diluted by a general club membership.

Then there are the groups who have their regulations confirmed as a sanction series and who are not member clubs, The South Island Enducance Series being a prime example.

With our classic motorsport we in NZ need to realise that the one of the major growth area for Historics world wide in now in the sector of rallying and we need to ensure that this sector is catered for and that we clearly identify those cars which belong to the historic group and those older cars that have been modified way outside of the historic regs but which people identify as classics such as Escorts with Nissan or Honda engines, 6 speed sequential gearboxes etc. In truth such cars are hot rods but very well built ones that are great to watch but they do not represent any vehicle of the period.

This is just another reason why I would like to see some cross over between the various commissions as it is not fair on a group primarily elected from a historic race perpective to be well informed on historic rallying matters, especially in the fields of vehicle elegibility as it relates to how we first ran cars in NZ followed by NZ Group Pacific regulations, FIA Group 1.2.3.& 4 Regulations, FIA Group A & B regulations and of course Homologation papers

ERC

12-09-2012, 09:15 PM

Good post Carlo and a good point particularly about repowered cars. The H & C commission quite rightly put their priority on the preservation of genuine historic cars. As this thread is about the Organisational Review, I'll start another thread about repowered classics as it is a bone of considerable contention and probably worthy of discussion.

crunch

12-09-2012, 10:29 PM

Following on from Roger H's comments, when we look back on the MSNZ website and look at the listing of the member clubs one does see a number of specialist race categories listed as clubs. Mini 7, Pre 65, RX7, SS2000, Drift, Trucks, Formula Ford, S.I. Formula etc just to name a few. Competitors in these clubs are spread all around the countryside and I guess that they all wanted to have a common voice and not have it diluted by a general club membership.

Then there are the groups who have their regulations confirmed as a sanction series and who are not member clubs, The South Island Enducance Series being a prime example.

With our classic motorsport we in NZ need to realise that the one of the major growth area for Historics world wide in now in the sector of rallying and we need to ensure that this sector is catered for and that we clearly identify those cars which belong to the historic group and those older cars that have been modified way outside of the historic regs but which people identify as classics such as Escorts with Nissan or Honda engines, 6 speed sequential gearboxes etc. In truth such cars are hot rods but very well built ones that are great to watch but they do not represent any vehicle of the period.

This is just another reason why I would like to see some cross over between the various commissions as it is not fair on a group primarily elected from a historic race perpective to be well informed on historic rallying matters, especially in the fields of vehicle elegibility as it relates to how we first ran cars in NZ followed by NZ Group Pacific regulations, FIA Group 1.2.3.& 4 Regulations, FIA Group A & B regulations and of course Homologation papers

As you well know Carl; the Rally Commission is consulted regarding Schedule RH.

Carlo

12-09-2012, 10:58 PM

As you well know Carl; the Rally Commission is consulted regarding Schedule RH. Yes but not on a regular basis with regards to the issue of a COD.

As an aside had it not been for a competitor contacting me and then my becoming involved we would have been missing a two car team from the Silver Fern Rally. To be fair I do wonder if the Historic commission had seen the COD application prior to then.

Bruce Sollitt

12-09-2012, 11:54 PM

Representation is as much a state of mind as anything else. No one, nor any group or organisation, is either granted or denied representation to MSNZ.

The clubs I have represented at conference have taken their needs and responsibilities in this area very seriously.

In the case of Rally Wairarapa Inc. (possibly one of the smallest clubs affiliated to MSNZ), the financial commitments and exposure, and the risks to the safety and well being of, not only our competitors and volunteers but also ourselves as organisers, are such that a level of influence disproportionate to our size is imperative.

The consequences of poor governance could be catastrophic for all similar organisations, so not only do we accept our role in self preservation but also the reponsibility as major players to share our knowledge for the benefit of others, and the sport as a whole.

You will also find that each of the members on this organising team are more in touch with our competitors, and have a greater knowledge and understanding of their wants and needs, than the clubs to which they belong. And therefore more able to be representative.

Many race classes do affiliate and play their part in influencing policy. Many do not. It's fair to assume that those which do not simply do not perceive a need.
Motorsport is run by people and groups who get off their arse and do stuff. The decisions should be made by those people.

RacerT

12-10-2012, 01:18 AM

The editorial in the HRC Newsletter makes good sense on the voting structure;

"HRC would like to present some big changes to ideas in the report and one of the fundamentals is the voting structure for the elected board members. The report advocates the retention of the club voting system. We believe that this system is basically flawed and a major part of the problem with Motorsport NZ. The inequality of the club voting system is obvious, with large clubs having only one vote and large marque clubs having little involvement with competition, but being forced to pay a large capitation fee.

We would like to see all volunteers and officials being made members of MSNZ and issued with a licence. Coupled with racing and rally licence holders, all voting would be carried out by these license holders. The licence holders would then have direct control over who was administrating the sport. At present we have administrators voting for administrators! Candidates would have state their ideas and policies and licence holders would then make their decision on who to vote for. This is a democratic process involving all and could be carried out online."

crunch

12-10-2012, 02:50 AM

Carlo

12-10-2012, 03:16 AM

The one thing that has been a bone of contention for as long as I can remember is the capitation levy on clubs which is seen as those with larger memberships are paying more than those with smaller memberships and because of their Social Credit leanings want this recognised with voting rights so lets look at the fees involved. For a member club the annual subscription is $5 per member, for associate members the fee is $1.50. When all is said and done how much does this actually raise and how much administration does it take.

Perhap we should move into the recent decades and work more on the principle of user pays. As an example if we were to set an Annual membership fee of say $50 per club across the board irrespective of the size of membership just to cover the costs involved with administrating club activities etc we would raise as near as damn to $5000 per year. Then if we were to increase the Participation levy by say $2 per competitor per event we would raise more funding that what we currently get by way of the total capitation levy process and the ones using the motorsport services would be paying for them rather than the club wearing the cost of what could be called social and/or working members.

Looking at my own participation as a competitor, currently I am paying via my clubs $10 in capitation or membership levies. If we did away with this in total and just added $2 to my participation levies I would contribute about $30 per year. If we explore this idea further and just added the costs to permit fees and participation levies then we could do away with capitation levies all together and the users of the sport would pay the true costs involved while those clubs with large memberships would not as a club be penalised or disavantaged as so many perceive to be happening now.

Bruce Sollitt

12-10-2012, 03:53 AM

It would be chaotic.

Most administrators & organisers are, or have recently been, competitors. The reverse is not the case and, in general, most competitors have little appreciation of organisational matters and commonly demonstrate a fickleness around policy issues. Yet they would outnumber administrators and organisers severalfold.

The system we have presently is akin to most electoral systems and works on the principle that those with the authority to vote have been chosen by their peers because of their experience, knowledge and ability to adequately represent them with some propriety and common sense.

I would agree that there are certainly issues for which a 'general referendum' would be useful. The AVGAS issue would have been one. Issues of FIA homologated apparell being another.
But there are other matters where a 'populist' competitor position could be problematic.

I don't believe what we have presently, in respect of voting, is broke enough to need to fix it. What we do need to fix is the reporting and the accountability of those we do elect to make decisions. They meet behind closed doors, have a pact of secrecy around the goings on, and there is no method by which to assess their performance year-in year-out.

crunch

12-10-2012, 04:05 AM

[QUOTE=Bruce Sollitt;21726] They meet behind closed doors, have a pact of secrecy around the goings on, QUOTE]

...you could be right Bruce, a pact of secrecy so secret I didnt know the pact existed!

The H&C Commission meetings are open to anyone who wishes to attend, hardly closed doors. Quite a few have taken that opportunity so far. Everything that is discussed and minuted then goes to an Exec meeting which is audio-minuted and those minutes are available to any member (like any incorperated society) .

RacerT

12-10-2012, 04:36 AM

Yes; it sounds good, but what effect would it have on clubs? For instance will many of them survive if people dont have to belong to them? I think we need the clubs (possibly more of a reference to the geographical clubs) to run the actual events such as hillclimbs, sprints etc.

I don't believe that the clubs exist solely for motorsport. Clubs are often formed to share an interest in cars and to be a social gathering of like minds. The many marque clubs don't run race meetings, but a small proportion of their members compete at someone elses race meeting. Why should a club, such as Alfa Romeo pay a capitation fee for 500 members when only 10% of the members compete? It would be much the same with many clubs, so why not have the competing people paying and therefore having the right to vote?

The club voting structure is patently unfair and with clubs rapidly declining in numbers is not they way forward. Note that clubs are declining in numbers now before any changes to the voting structure, so why not head this off at the pass and instigate a new system for the future that gives the voting right to the participants in the sport?

RogerH

12-10-2012, 04:49 AM

I think the capitation levy issue is a bit of a red herring in respect of representation.
The problems as I see it, is that there is one vote irrespective of the size of the club and whether they are active in the sport or not. It's a bit like for the general elections carving the country up into 20 square kilometre blocks and giving each block one vote irrespective of how many people live there.
The other issue is that delegates from clubs that have nothing to do with active competition can vote to elect the commission members for race, rally etc. Additionally, delegates can vote for commission members or specific remits that only relate to one segment of the sport irrespective of whether their club has any involvement or interest in that segment. It is possible that the election of a specific commission could have the majority of voters having no direct interest in the segment related to that commission.
The ultimate "clients" of MSNZ are not the clubs but the competitors - they are the ones that pay the club subscriptions, entry fees, log book fees, licence fees, COD fees etc that flow through to MSNZ's income. On that basis they are the people who deserve representation. MSNZ rules state that representation has to be through clubs and if you follow the logic the club representation should be tied into the competitors the club represents if things are to be more democratic.
There is also the matter of volunteers, officials etc that RacerT addressed and these should be bought into the representation model in some way.

ERC

12-10-2012, 04:54 AM

The H&C Commission meetings are open to anyone who wishes to attend, hardly closed doors. Quite a few have taken that opportunity so far.
I wish I'd known that Crunch! I would have been only too happy to have fronted up to the commission, rather than swamping them with emails!!! I know Dale was invited to address the commission, but as the Historic Muscle Cars are sticking to the existing T & C format anyway, I am not sure why that invitation was extended?

I can certainly confirm that the Historic commission will openly respond to issues brought up by ordinary members.

Carlo

12-10-2012, 04:59 AM

Hi Roger H. I never suggested that we take the voting rights away from the clubs and give them to the individual competitor. I am still of the stance of one club one vote full stop.

RogerH

12-10-2012, 06:01 AM

Hi Roger H. I never suggested that we take the voting rights away from the clubs and give them to the individual competitor. I am still of the stance of one club one vote full stop.

I think crossed wires somewhere - I'm wasn't suggesting that you said we should take votes away from the clubs and give them to competitors - and I'm not advocating that approach. However, what I am suggesting is that the say each club gets is representative of how many competitors they represent. I just can't see the equality in giving one vote to a club that doesn't organise any events and may have only three members who are not active in competition and the same one vote goes to a club that has 200 members who are active competitors and the club puts on a number of rally or race events each season. That is why I drew the analogy of the 20 square kilometre blocks - the principle is the same and if you take the analogy to the extreme you could have one MP representing one person and another one MP representing 300,000 people - hardly equality in representation.

crunch

12-10-2012, 06:53 AM

I wish I'd known that Crunch! I would have been only too happy to have fronted up to the commission, rather than swamping them with emails!!! I know Dale was invited to address the commission, but as the Historic Muscle Cars are sticking to the existing T & C format anyway, I am not sure why that invitation was extended?

I can certainly confirm that the Historic commission will openly respond to issues brought up by ordinary members.

Hi Ray
If anyone wants to attend, all they need to do is let us know (crunch1@xtra.co.nz) what they want to discuss. The next H&C Commission meeting is down south at a Southern Festival of Speed meeting in February, and then we will be having one in March/April somewhere in Auckland. Seen as two of the H&C Commission members live in Auckland.

Raymond Bennett

Trevor Sheffield

12-10-2012, 07:13 AM

I think crossed wires somewhere - I'm wasn't suggesting that you said we should take votes away from the clubs and give them to competitors - and I'm not advocating that approach. However, what I am suggesting is that the say each club gets is representative of how many competitors they represent. I just can't see the equality in giving one vote to a club that doesn't organise any events and may have only three members who are not active in competition and the same one vote goes to a club that has 200 members who are active competitors and the club puts on a number of rally or race events each season. That is why I drew the analogy of the 20 square kilometre blocks - the principle is the same and if you take the analogy to the extreme you could have one MP representing one person and another one MP representing 300,000 people - hardly equality in representation.

Exactly Roger. I can verify that the same discontent has existed for over fifty years!

I say again --- All the talk and hot air exhibited here is useless. It remains as always, that the constitution of the governing body provides the executive with the tools to very easily out maneuver any and all proposals not to their liking. e.g. the time frame set up to cover the current organisational review, which in itself is a farce.

Discussing anything other than achieving a means of altering the constitution, so as to end an undemocratic system, amounts to endless pissing into a very strong wind. It is an undeniable fact that only if and when this is achieved, will it be worthwhile to discuss wants and wishes.

Sincerely, Trevor.

Carlo

12-10-2012, 07:22 AM

crunch

12-10-2012, 07:47 AM

Exactly Roger. I can verify that the same discontent has existed for over fifty years!

I say again --- All the talk and hot air exhibited here is useless. It remains as always, that the constitution of the governing body provides the executive with the tools to very easily out maneuver any and all proposals not to their liking. e.g. the time frame set up to cover the current organisational review, which in itself is a farce.

Discussing anything other than achieving a means of altering the constitution, so as to end an undemocratic system, amounts to endless pissing into a very strong wind. It is an undeniable fact that only if and when this is achieved, will it be worthwhile to discuss wants and wishes.

Sincerely, Trevor.

Hello Trevor

The timeframe for the Review was dictated by the remit from conference 2012.
I dont agree with the rest of that paragraph, however you may have some valid reason for stating this. This Exec and particularly myself does not try to avoid or out maneuver anything we dont like. I would hope that the review is not a farce, if I thought that I would even bother to be making our submissions.

Whether it is undemocratic or not is a moot point. What it seems to be is a system that doesn't suit all, and in the latter years has been tested from commercial aspects. It is not perfect, but what is? Hopefully that will be a positive result from the review

RogerH

12-10-2012, 08:02 AM

Hi Roger, lets untangle the wires for debate is healthy. Take my parent club as an example, it has a reasonable number of members but no where near the size of say TACOC or a few of the other Auckland based clubs however through all it's activities it is probably amongst the greatest contributors to MSNZ funding annualy and it probably has the most to loose should the sport go pear shaped.

Naturally I refer to the South Canterbury Car Club who actually owns it's circuit including all the buildings and the land on which it is all constructed.

It is a club that is active in all facets of NZ motorsport and has drivers both past and present who regularly compete at all levels of the sport including Historic & Classic events as well as performing with distinction at the upper levels of the sport be it Clubsport, Race or Rally. Then there are all the other clubs who make use of the SCCC facilities, again a great contributor to MSNZ funding. These range from Historic race meetings to clubsport solo sprints and drift meetings

My other club the Marathon Rally Car Club is one with a smaller membership than most and yet it has done more to foster and support historic rallying (as oposed to classic rallying) than any other and has placed this sector of the sport in NZ onto the International stage.

Again like the Waiararapa Rally example this is another club that punches well above its weight and like Bruce I would be very concerned if the future of these clubs could be put at risk by a few clubs who used the power of larger memberships to influence outcomes or decisions.

I understand what you are saying and perhaps the representation model needs to be a little more elaborate than just based on pure club members or affiliated competitors.

Possibly you could be agreeing with me in principle that there are varying degrees of representation dependant on the make up and activity of the club. In your case your small but active club possibly has more "status" than a small inactive club?

Maybe the "flip side" of your concern that a small club could be swamped by the voting power of big clubs, is that the concerns of clubs that represent a significant number of members/competitors that they can be similarly swamped by a couple of small clubs that in total represent a fraction of their members/competitors. At each end of the spectrum there appears to be a concern about fair and equitable representation and the effect it will have on the particular "status" of each of the clubs.

I suppose the question is - is it fair and equitable that a club with a medium sized but relatively active membership and who put on a number of events each year has the same vote as the hypothetical Reliant Robin Owners Club who has three members who aren't active and they don't put on any events?

Maybe there is a solution in the middle somewhere that will satisfy the concerns of a small active club thinking they will be overwhelmed and the concerns of a large active club that they are not being equitably or proportionally represented?

Trevor Sheffield

12-10-2012, 08:51 AM

Hello Trevor

The timeframe for the Review was dictated by the remit from conference 2012.

The facts as per post #11.---

initial concern is the time frame. This review arose from the MSNZ AGCM in May (8 months ago). Yet members are given 6 weeks to discuss it and make submissions! Our Club has it's last event and Clubnight for 2012 tonight. There is no Committee meeting now until January 15th and our next magazine will arrive with our members around January 26th. Simply does not give us time to consult with our members.

I dont agree with the rest of that paragraph, however you may have some valid reason for stating this. This Exec and particularly myself does not try to avoid or out maneuver anything we dont like. I would hope that the review is not a farce, if I thought that I would even bother to be making our submissions.

The fact that you are hopeful is noted. I am inclined to make judgement based on the the contents of the surprisingly brief document.

Whether it is undemocratic or not is a moot point. What it seems to be is a system that doesn't suit all, and in the latter years has been tested from commercial aspects. It is not perfect, but what is? Hopefully that will be a positive result from the review

It is a fact that the situation is undemocratic. There is no moot point. The fact that you are hopeful is again noted.

Surely it does not take a great deal of intellect to understand that currently there is no way of persuading, much less forcing the executive of MSNZ to act in accordance with the desires of the majority of those who finance the organisation. The power of the executive remains absolute.

Sincerely, Trevor.

crunch

12-10-2012, 10:02 AM

[QUOTE=Trevor Sheffield;21749]

The fact that you are hopeful is noted. I am inclined to make judgement based on the the contents of the surprisingly brief document.

Yes agree, I too am surprised and disappointed by the brief, lacking in detail document.
I dont want to get into a discussion regarding what is democratic, but from my political science 101 days, any system that allows some form of personal input is considered democractic. May I suggest what we are looking for here is a system that is more representative of the many aspects of the sport today?

The fact that you are hopeful is again noted.

I always live in hope...my dad said that was a flash way of saying I'm a dreamer!

Trevor Sheffield

12-10-2012, 11:48 AM

[QUOTE=Trevor Sheffield;21749]
I am inclined to make judgement based on the the contents of the surprisingly brief document.

Yes agree, I too am surprised and disappointed by the brief, lacking in detail document.

I dont want to get into a discussion regarding what is democratic, but from my political science 101 days, any system that allows some form of personal input is considered democractic. May I suggest what we are looking for here is a system that is more representative of the many aspects of the sport today?

Discussion is not called for. Only facts apply. It is suggested that --- "any system that allows some form of personal input is considered democractic."

The Oxford dictionary includes these words --- "control of an organization or group by the majority of its members."

Refer here. --- http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/democracy

Carlo

12-10-2012, 07:00 PM

Maybe there is a solution in the middle somewhere that will satisfy the concerns of a small active club thinking they will be overwhelmed and the concerns of a large active club that they are not being equitably or proportionally represented?

This is the crux of the matter, finding the solution for the future will be the test of us all

ERC

12-10-2012, 08:54 PM

Correct, but the real crux is how can we change the voting system if the current system votes against change! Catch 22 I think.

Carlo

12-10-2012, 09:04 PM

Correct, but the real crux is how can we change the voting system if the current system votes against change! Catch 22 I think.

Yes, if we can solve this then settling the issues in the Middle East should be easy.

Racer Rog

12-10-2012, 09:19 PM

And may your God go with you, and I agree totally, it boils down to this, we can't be all things to all men, and thats the truth of it, we can some things for the better, but in terms of voteing, I have not seen anything that has been written here that is any better than what we have, as flawed as it maybe, in terms of the review, there has been some good ideas thrown up here, Bruce you are making a lot of sense to my way of thinking, for those that think that leaving the umbrella of MSNZ, I think are misguided, there is a structure of rules and procedures, apart from the governance issues, which is very robust in the most part, how do you replace all of that with out graet cost and other legal issues that would certainally come about by leaving, and thanks Crunch for you effort on this thread.
Roger

Yes, if we can solve this then settling the issues in the Middle East should be easy.

Carlo

12-10-2012, 09:40 PM

HD TR

12-10-2012, 10:58 PM

While the subject is about the organisational review of Motorsport NZ we do have to factor in the various user groups, club membership and activities conducted as until we identify the base platform to work from all models will fail.

If we look at club activity as opposed to club size, this year 43 permits have been issued to the 3 car clubs in "my area" which is between the Rakaia and Waitaki Rivers and which has a population of around 60,000 people. These events range from International to clubsport and are conducted by the Ashburton, South Canterbury and Waimate 50 Motorsport car clubs. Then add to this the 3 permits for CMRC for their historic & classic meetings on Timaru International Motor Raceway and this brings it up to 46 permited activities.

There has been a decline in activity this year, normally the total is around 50+ events with many of these being on the circuit

One thing that can be established is that population figures do not directly relate to participation in or the following of the sport

So following along the logic (and agreeing with the points made) that those that get off their chuffs and run stuff, are closest to the membership, competitors and the needs of the sport, then perhaps voting can have a simple calculator created around licence holders and permits issued per club.

As an example, purely because they are very visible and active in the North Island - The BMW Car Club is the club of record for anyone racing in the BMW Race Drivers Series. They also have a large non-racing membership. I have no idea of the real numbers, but lets say they have 400 members, 180 or which are licence holders (4 grids of E30 & Open, plus a few extra's). They would get a certain number of votes based on their licence holders, and could properly represent the BRDS, as they have a person on the Car Club committee specifically to do that.

BMWCC don't organise race meetings, but another club, such as TACCOC which applies for 3-4 permits each year and has say, 60 licence holders gets recognition both for the licence holders, and the permits in the calculator.

Currently, the people who stand in the sun and rain all year, enabling us all to race, and witnessing the chaos that happens out on the track, get no input at all, although I gather there are discussions commencing to finally change that. They (marshalls, COC's,Safety Car drivers, Grid marshalls) see - close up - the effect of the rules and regulations for Motorsport. Some of them will be licence holders, but not all. They might have something useful to add.

There may/would be differences in how each of those groups would use their votes, but at least it is properly representative of participation in the sport that we all enjoy, and which is fuelled by those who give up enormous amounts of time to make it all happen. That would smooth out geographic differences, it would be a simple and visible calculator that every club can figure out in two seconds flat, and while there will be wrangling between special interest groups with different agenda's, it's all out in the open.

I've been a Rally and Race licence holder for around 15 years, and have about 20 years left in me as a competitor and a volunteer organiser. I'm pretty disillusioned by how the sport is being run, and that is represented by my car sitting under an inch of dust and my licence being expired for 3 months.

Many sports in Enzed go through catharsis every 10-20 years, and many emerge stronger for it. Let's be part of making sure ours does.

And let's constructively discuss it. I actually don't mind if I don't get own my way, so long as I can see that decisions are arrived at openly and properly.

RacerT

12-10-2012, 11:07 PM

for those that think that leaving the umbrella of MSNZ, I think are misguided, there is a structure of rules and procedures, apart from the governance issues, which is very robust in the most part, how do you replace all of that with out graet cost and other legal issues that would certainally come about by leaving.
Roger

Hi Roger. I don't think many people are contemplating leaving MSNZ, but there are those that are offering considered views to try to advance the orgainsation of motorsport in NZ. Unfortunately, many of these people ar just labelled stirrers, when there views should be considered.

We have a report that has come out from an assessment board with little input from the existing executive. The report makes a few superficial comments and MSNZ is expected to go on as it has been with a club based hierachy, an aim to dominate all motorsport in New Zealand and to dissolve three of the six advisory commissions. There has been comment about dissolving H&C commission, but it also applies to Safety & Training and Technical, and I presume the Youth Commission? This is hardly the modernization of the sport that we were expecting!

Racer Rog

12-11-2012, 12:49 AM

[I think there is one point that all are in agreement with, and that is that it is a very poor and badly written report, and reflects badly on the writers, I don't know the cost, but it shouldn't be more than a few jugs and a couple of packs of crisp's at a bar in P/North. I am not a articulate person as those that know me testify, but while it touches a a couple of areas, its crap, lacks detail and reason, but one would hope that all that are making comments on this thread, are in touch with their respective clubs to make sure that submissions are into MSNZ by the due date, but keep it coming.
Roger

We have a report that has come out from an assessment board with little input from the existing executive. The report makes a few superficial comments and MSNZ is expected to go on as it has been with a club based hierachy, an aim to dominate all motorsport in New Zealand and to dissolve three of the six advisory commissions. There has been comment about dissolving H&C commission, but it also applies to Safety & Training and Technical, and I presume the Youth Commission? This is hardly the modernization of the sport that we were expecting![/QUOTE]

Bruce Sollitt

12-11-2012, 01:05 AM

... a pact of secrecy so secret I didnt know the pact existed! Really Crunch?
How many times over the years, during private conversations around rally matters determined at Executive meetings, have you told me that you are not at liberty to divulge who said what or who voted for or against? That is a pact of secrecy.

During my time on the Commission, I have served under 4 chairmen. Despite many recommendations not finding favour at Executive level, none have been willing to divulge where, or more specifically who, was the stumbling block. That is a pact of secrecy.

In respect of a particularly contentious issue recently I canvassed each Executive member personally, who all gave assurance that they'd vote in accordance with the Commission's position. When the vote went 4 to 2 against, no one would own up to their treachery or dob their colleagues in. A pact of secrecy.

There is a wall of silence around the Executive committee meetings and no method to measure the performance of individual members who are able to act with impunity.
This wall of silence places them beyond reproach, and they both know it and use it accordingly.

In Aussie I believe, both the Commissions and the Boards minutes are published on the CAMS website. Doing this would go some way to enabling us to assess a candidate's suitability when they come up for re-election.

Racer Rog

12-11-2012, 01:29 AM

Bruce, a very good point, I know that Crunch has been rapped across the knuckles for giving out information that the current President does not want to go to the great unwashed
Roger

RacerT

12-11-2012, 01:46 AM

Really Crunch?
In Aussie I believe, both the Commissions and the Boards minutes are published on the CAMS website. Doing this would go some way to enabling us to assess a candidate's suitability when they come up for re-election.

Jeez Bruce. We couldn't do that! people would know what was going on! What about commercial sensitivities, the privacy act, the rights of homosexuals, the Greens, animal rights, Global Warming. Good heavens man - fancy telling peoiple what was happening - where would it end?

RogerH

12-11-2012, 02:00 AM

Really Crunch?
How many times over the years, during private conversations around rally matters determined at Executive meetings, have you told me that you are not at liberty to divulge who said what or who voted for or against? That is a pact of secrecy.

During my time on the Commission, I have served under 4 chairmen. Despite many recommendations not finding favour at Executive level, none have been willing to divulge where, or more specifically who, was the stumbling block. That is a pact of secrecy.

In respect of a particularly contentious issue recently I canvassed each Executive member personally, who all gave assurance that they'd vote in accordance with the Commission's position. When the vote went 4 to 2 against, no one would own up to their treachery or dob their colleagues in. A pact of secrecy.

There is a wall of silence around the Executive committee meetings and no method to measure the performance of individual members who are able to act with impunity.
This wall of silence places them beyond reproach, and they both know it and use it accordingly.

In Aussie I believe, both the Commissions and the Boards minutes are published on the CAMS website. Doing this would go some way to enabling us to assess a candidate's suitability when they come up for re-election.

I think you are right Bruce and it appears to me that an attitudinal position has crept into the Executive (well most of them) over the years that they are all powerful and the clubs only deserve to be told what the Executive think they should know. When you look at the Constitution it is heavily worded in favour of acting for the benefit of the clubs (who are in fact what constitutes MSNZ). Some of the Constitution references are : " ...act in good faith and loyalty ... for the collective and mutual benefit of the member clubs ... at all times operate with, and promote, mutual trust and confidence between MotorSport New Zealand and its member clubs in pursuit of these objects ... at all times to act on behalf of, and in the interests of, the member clubs ...".
It appears that the Executive have failed to read these objectives enough and there needs to be more transparency and co-operation in dealing with clubs and a change in attitude which seems to be "how dare you query what I do". With the debacle with TMC/MPL have you ever heard even a hint of acknowledgement from the Executive that they may not have done enough to take action before it all turned to custard? The Executive are obligated under the Constitution to "... plan, manage and control the affairs of MotorSport ..." and "... to plan, manage and control the finances of MotorSport ...". MSNZ held a majority interest in TMC/MPL and the investment was a significant asset of MSNZ. As such, there was a responsibility to ensure that asset performed and that the investment was protected. Despite being on notice there were problems, it appears the Executive did too little too late and have now publicly blamed the TMC directors and management - the attitude of it being someone else's fault.

Racer Rog - agree that the MSNZ Review Report is a bit of a joke. It seems a "once over lightly" job that has been done purely for the sake of being able to tick the box and say that a review has been done. If you look at some of the other recent sporting organisation reviews you will see how lacking the MSNZ one is. Here is the link to the recent Swimming NZ review : http://www.swimmingnz.org.nz/membership/legal-and-governance/swimming-new-zealand-review/

crunch

12-11-2012, 04:13 AM

In respect of a particularly contentious issue recently I canvassed each Executive member personally, who all gave assurance that they'd vote in accordance with the Commission's position. When the vote went 4 to 2 against, no one would own up to their treachery or dob their colleagues in. A pact of secrecy.

I have no idea what you are talking about Bruce. However; I haven't been at the last two Exec meetings due to other motorsport commitments.
If your current chairman is not reporting back to you everything that is minuted at the Exec meeting regarding Rallying, then take it up with him. Perhaps he would have told you why the vote went the way it did?

I send an informal email to all my Commission (and advisors) after each Exec meeting informing them of the business discussed regarding H&C, and other stuff at times.

Minutes from all meetings Commission and Exec have always been available, just ask. Once the new website is completed they will be up on that as well.
There are rare times when the Exec will go "into committee" . This is no different to any other club sporting or otherwise in NZ.

Bruce Sollitt

12-11-2012, 04:48 AM

Crunch, whatever 'spin' you like to put on it, these words
... not at liberty to divulge who said what or who voted for or against are yours. They reflect a culture that has been bred by successive Executive panels, probably at it's worst under Kennedy but certainly not limited to him. You know it, I know it, and everyone reading here knows it.
Until such time as it is corrected, we will not learn the lessons of the past.

crunch

12-11-2012, 06:19 AM

Crunch, whatever 'spin' you like to put on it, these words are yours. They reflect a culture that has been bred by successive Executive panels, probably at it's worst under Kennedy but certainly not limited to him. You know it, I know it, and everyone reading here knows it.
Until such time as it is corrected, we will not learn the lessons of the past.

So I'm assuming that came from a personal email from me to you?
In any case, I would have thought it the responsibility of the Rally Commission Chairman to report to you whatever it is you were asking for.
As a matter of my own policy; if I vote against any recommendation, I always ask my name be recorded with that vote in the minutes.

crunch

12-11-2012, 08:45 AM

Just to get this back on topic, can I suggest that as many clubs/people as possible who are making a submission to the Review, follow it up with an oral one as well?
Thanks

Bruce Sollitt

12-11-2012, 08:08 PM

It is actually "on topic" Crunch. One of the things we'll be recommending in our submissions is a full & frank disclosure of all transcripts of all Executive/Board meetings.

RogerH

12-12-2012, 10:53 PM

With regards to the representation issue, it is interesting to note which clubs had the most National race permits last year :

Historic Racing Club 13
Taupo CC 10
Canterbury Car Club 9

Maybe the review panel when they determined to dismiss the H&C Commission were ignorant that an historic and classic club had the most race permits

Trevor Sheffield

01-06-2015, 11:32 PM

I send an informal email to all my Commission (and advisors) after each Exec meeting informing them of the business discussed regarding H&C, and other stuff at times.

Minutes from all meetings Commission and Exec have always been available, just ask. Once the new website is completed they will be up on that as well.

As could be expected, the above prediction concerning publication within the MSNZ website has never come to pass.

A revised constitution was presented at the last MSNZ AGM and this failed to be accepted. This document must surely have been published somewhere .

Please -- could someone post this proposed revised constitution here, so that the objectives of the executive become disclosed to individual members involved in the sport.

Trevor Sheffield

crunch

01-07-2015, 12:26 PM

As could be expected, the above prediction concerning publication within the MSNZ website has never come to pass.

A revised constitution was presented at the last MSNZ AGM and this failed to be accepted. This document must surely have been published somewhere .

Please -- could someone post this proposed revised constitution here, so that the objectives of the executive become disclosed to individual members involved in the sport.

Trevor Sheffield

Hello Trevor
Actually I do keep my Commission members informed.
Are you after a copy of the draft constitution that was presented at the 2014 AGCM in Dunedin? This was not accepted by the meeting.
What is your email address?

Raymond Bennett

Trevor Sheffield

01-08-2015, 09:38 AM

Hello Trevor
Actually I do keep my Commission members informed.
Are you after a copy of the draft constitution that was presented at the 2014 AGCM in Dunedin? This was not accepted by the meeting.
What is your email address?

Raymond Bennett

Greetings Raymond,

Please note that I previously posted --- “A revised constitution was presented at the last MSNZ AGM and this failed to be accepted. This document must surely have been published somewhere. Please -- could someone post this proposed revised constitution here, so that the objectives of the executive become disclosed to individual members involved in the sport.”

Yes, as I advised, I am after a copy of the draft constitution that was presented at the 2014 AGCM in Dunedin and was not accepted by the meeting.

Is there a reason why this can this not be published here?

It is a pity that you have to personally inform Commission members due to MSNZ management not properly using their website to keep all members informed. I say again, "As could be expected, the above prediction concerning publication within the MSNZ website has never come to pass."

I have sent you a PM advising my email address.

Trevor Sheffield