MSNZ Organisational Review

[RogerH]

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.

[Russ Cunningham]

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!

[rf84]

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]

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]

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]

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

[beowulf]

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]

Russ, laws is like msnz we know best.