With all the bitching and moaning that goes on here, about MSNZ, has anybody read the review that has been just published, and do they have any CONSTRUCTIVE comments to make. The CMRC has some concerns with parts of the document, but we are interested to hear what others may see in it. Roger H, we would like to hear from you, you can also PM me.
Roger
Roger - there was a meeting of Auckland Clubs last night on this and other matters. The general consensus was that the review lacked detail and there is a desire from the Auckland Clubs to discuss matters with the review panel.
From a personal perspective I was surprised at the brevity of the review - the guts of the review was hardly more extensive than the Terms of Reference. When compared to other governance reviews I have studied (eg Swimming New Zealand) the MSNZ one is lacking in substance and analysis of why certain conclusions were reached.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by ERC; 12-05-2012 at 01:45 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
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.
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.
Last edited by rf84; 12-05-2012 at 09:52 AM. Reason: spelling
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...)
Last edited by ERC; 12-05-2012 at 10:16 AM.
I went on the MSNZ site and there it was. Pretty short on detail at a quick read.Originally Posted by rf84
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Not too many would disagree with that.
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?
Last edited by ERC; 12-06-2012 at 03:38 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote