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!Originally Posted by RogerH
Russ, laws is like msnz we know best.
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?
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
Last edited by Nick; 12-07-2012 at 08:23 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.
Last edited by rf84; 12-07-2012 at 08:57 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
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.
Last edited by rf84; 12-07-2012 at 10:14 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by ERC; 12-07-2012 at 10:34 PM.
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.
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.
You just answered your own question Custaxie.
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.
If that is the case Shano, what are you bright pins going to do about it.
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.
Last edited by Trevor Sheffield; 12-08-2012 at 02:46 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote