MSNZ Organisational Review

[RacerT]

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]

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."

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.

[Carlo]

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]

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]

[quote="Bruce Sollitt"] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ([email protected]) 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]

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]

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.

[crunch]

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]

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]

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]

[quote="Trevor Sheffield"]



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]

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]

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]

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