The Roaring Season

by **Trevor Sheffield** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:59 am

crunch wrote:Good one Trevor.
Fortunately within H&C motorsport, the people that have genuine and correct issues with MSNZ usually adopt a mature attitude to find the solution, or the facts.
we all know there will always be people who for whatever reason will continue to be negative. I read somewhere that humans find it easier to be negative than positive.

Anyway; I'm glad a negative attitude is not prevalent amongst all those that partake in our sport, as after all; we do it for enjoyment.

Crunch, (Raymond)

A sarcastic attitude is not a good one.

There is but one genuine and correct issue, no matter the continual side steps. Motor Sport NZ must become answerable to individual members partaking of the sport, as is universal within other mature sporting organizations.

Trevor Sheffield

by **crunch** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:43 am

Trevor Sheffield wrote:rf84
Trevor
i have just received an email from MSNZ seeking nominations for their 2014 Elite Motorsport Academy. Which just confirms what a lot of us suspect-MSNZ are just a little "behind the times".

They are not only "behind the times", they continue to confirm that for over fifty years they have been "up themselves".

Good one Trevor.
Fortunately within H&C motorsport, the people that have genuine and correct issues with MSNZ usually adopt a mature attitude to find the solution, or the facts.
we all know there will always be people who for whatever reason will continue to be negative. I read somewhere that humans find it easier to be negative than positive.

Anyway; I'm glad a negative attitude is not prevalent amongst all those that partake in our sport, as after all; we do it for enjoyment.

by **Trevor Sheffield** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:01 am

rf84
Trevor
i have just received an email from MSNZ seeking nominations for their 2014 Elite Motorsport Academy. Which just confirms what a lot of us suspect-MSNZ are just a little "behind the times".

They are not only "behind the times", they continue to confirm that for over fifty years they have been "up themselves".

by **rf84** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:09 pm

Trevor
i have just received an email from MSNZ seeking nominations for their 2014 Elite Motorsport Academy. Which just confirms what a lot of us suspect-MSNZ are just a little "behind the times".

by **Trevor Sheffield** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:38 am

crunch wrote: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

by **crunch** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:26 am

Trevor Sheffield wrote: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

by **Trevor Sheffield** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:32 pm

crunch wrote:
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

by **RogerH** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:53 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

by **Bruce Sollitt** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:08 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.

by **crunch** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:45 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

by **crunch** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:19 am

Bruce Sollitt wrote: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.

by **Bruce Sollitt** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:48 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.

by **crunch** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:13 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.

by **RogerH** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:00 am

Bruce Sollitt wrote: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/

by **RacerT** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:46 am

Bruce Sollitt wrote: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?

by **Racer Rog** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:29 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

by **Bruce Sollitt** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:05 am

crunch wrote: ... 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.

by **Racer Rog** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:49 pm

[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]

by **RacerT** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:07 pm

Racer Rog wrote: 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!

by **HD TR** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:58 pm

Carlo wrote: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.

The Roaring Season

MSNZ Organisational Review

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Proposed Revised Constitution

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review

Re: MSNZ Organisational Review