| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

ReplyNewsletter1

Page history last edited by PBworks 15 years, 5 months ago

<< Go back to previous page

12/06/07

5 Replies to CEO June 07 Newsletter

 

Comment 1 I am disappointed with some of the things Bryan Wells (CEO) has said in his Newsletter - CEO's Corner.

 

One topical subject has been the saga of the 4th player to the World Championships. This subject has been exhaustively covered on the so-called 'NZ Petanque Club' blog site, so I will not go over it all again.

 

This is right. Our Blog has received a record number of comments over this 4th player issue. People who have never written to the Blog have put pen to paper. It is a shame that Bryan does not want to go over any of the comments.

 

There is no doubt that the subject has caused a lot of negativity amongst a small group in the petanque scene, even to the extent that a few people have attacked the successful team, in the belief that they had caused the problem with the selection of the 4th player in the team.

 

The team did ask to go outside the criteria set down. their request was initially granted by PNZ - who is to blame? None of this has ever been explained. Why for instance did the team suddenly require a specialist shooter the day (May 17) Georgio withdrew his name? This is especially ironic as the qualifying players were told that they may never play a game, they would only be there in case of illness - a reserve.

 

I can assure you that the Triples team had nothing to do with the way in which this subject unfolded. It is easy to believe that there is a great degree of disquiet throughout the PNZ over this issue, but a moment's reflection will show that the great majority of club members did not see the 4th player saga as being a major issue for them.

This is interesting and seems a contradiction. We've had a major upheaval within PNZ (one PNZ executive member resigned over the 4th player issue and the way this was handled by PNZ). I do not believe PNZ has had to deal with this amount of inner turmoil for quite some time. Our Blog also received a record amount of correspondents. How can Bryan say this is not a major issue to the members? Why have we not been told about how this "subject unfolded".?

 

It is a shame that Bryan is not familiar with PNZ history: "One of the most frequent and strongest comments from our recent survey on the Selection process was that the PNZ must stick to its stated policies and processes. PNZ cannot reverse this policy without due process...." (quoted PNZ text taken from this October 17, 2006 PAGE)

 

The rule was published soon after it was agreed in November 2006, and not one voice of disagreement was heard from anyone. Of course, after the team was chosen, and the 4th player saga began, some armchair Generals have voiced their concerns about the decision made in November 2006.

 

This is exactly my point. Not one person had a problem with the rules, and they had indeed been up for a long time. The reason no one had a problem with the rules is because everyone found them just and fair. It was on this understanding of the rules that players took part in the national triples. New Zealand petanque players did not expect PNZ to to break these rules immediately after the tournament. Who exactly are the "armchair Generals"?

 

My message to our members is this: It is easy to let the loud and strident negativity of a few people convince you that there is chaos and dissension in our sport. This is definitely not the case.

 

No one is suggesting that there is chaos - we all make mistakes. What is a shame is that intelligent people within our organisation cannot ask intelligent questions without being branded as "negative". The health of an organisation can be measured by how well it tolerates and welcomes other points of view. The dismissive attitude by PNZ towards players raising genuine concerns is not good for our game, and will further factionalise Petanque in New Zealand.

 

In conclusion, the CEO newsletter did not use the opportunity to explain to the membership what happened. We only have the information provided by Liz Rocks (28/5/07) to go by. Instead we have the people asking the hard questions dismissed as "the loud and strident negativity of a few people". This is a case of deflecting blame away from PNZ to the very people who are simply asking questions. I make mistakes on a daily basis, and I front up for these mistakes, endeavouring to get it right next time - my ego is not in the way of saying sorry. An opportunity lost.

 

I have also taken strong issue with factually incorrect material written by Bryan Wells on this PAGE (14/03/07). -Tom.


 

Comment 2 I do not think that I have ever written to a blog (to my knowledge that is but given my age I may well have done so and forgotten as one does) so obviously this is unusual.

Given some of the comments I have read in the CEO”S Corners (or should one say the “so-called CEO’s Corner” if one felt the need to make a disparaging remark or be negative).

 

I will start with the comments:

 

1 “so-called NZ Petanque Club” blog site, so I will not go over it again” which you then proceed to do (to some degree) for the next five paragraphs, putting your unacceptable spin on it.

 

2 “no doubt that the subject has caused a lot of negativity amongst a small group in the Petanque scene, even to the extent that a few people have attacked the successful team……..etc.” I do not believe that the successful team has been attacked or is this your way of getting out of the negativity (your word) that your article engenders.

 

3 “but a moment’s reflection will show that the great majority of club members did not see the 4th player saga as being a major issue for them” I think you will find that 4th player saga is not the major issue but PNZ’s decision to change the criteria (after the fact) for selection is more probably the major issue.

 

4 “while in hindsight the criteria for selecting the 4th player was not appropriate” Now you are laying the blame for the debacle on members of the PNZ board which you are supposedly heading. That to my mind is frankly unacceptable.

 

5 “The rule was published soon after it was agreed in November 2006 and not one voice of disagreement was heard from anyone” I entirely agree with this as everyone was happy that the criteria for selection had been set down and therefore everyone knew what they had to do to get selected.

 

6 Same paragraph – “Of course, after the team was chosen, and the 4th player saga began, some armchair Generals have voiced their concerns about the decision made in November 2006” Unfortunately you have totally cocked up with this statement, as to my mind no-one has “voiced their concerns about the decision made in November 2006” your words. The concern was voiced that the PNZ changed the criteria for selection after the fact. If the above is not what you mean then please make it clearer what you mean by your armchair General remark.

 

7 Finally “My message to our members is this: It is easy to let the loud and strident negativity (there is that word again) of a few people convince you that there is chaos and dissension in our sport” As above I do not believe this was the case but people were giving their view on a decision made by PNZ which was discarded and changed after the National results were known. My belief is that the “chaos and dissension” was only created by changing the criteria and in those people who made that decisions mind.

 

I am so angry that I have had to pen this letter that I want an investigation as to who decided to change said criteria and on what premise this change was made. I also want the truth not a smokescreen as seems to be pushed on us at the present.

 

This is the first time I have put pen to paper on a Blog but given the above I hope that you forgive me for making or wanting things to come out into the open and not just accepting unwarranted and unacceptable remarks made by our CEO.

 

Finally this will obviously been seen by our CEO as loud and strident dissension from someone that may have missed out on the team, this is not the case. I am writing because the CEO used ill advised (obviously by himself) wording in his letter on the PNZ site and if he expects to get away with it without comment then he has a problem.

 

Paul O’Connor (a long time, passionate and hopefully continuing member of Petanque in New Zealand).


 

Comment 3 To be honest I can not understand what Bryan’s Newsletter is actually trying to say (in regards to the 4th player)?

 

It makes no sense at all. It is not only insulting to members who dare to ask questions but factually wrong and twisted out of all proportion.

 

"but a moment’s reflection will show that the great majority of club members did not see the 4th player saga as being a major issue for them”

 

Members do care about 4th player rule - this is reflected in the fact that the council instructed the executive to uphold the 4th player rule, this was decided on by the council by a vote. The council is made up of representatives from each region, and if all regions operate the same as the APA structure, the representative is instructed how to vote based on the individual clubs votes, which form the democratic decision. Since the council instructed the executive to uphold the rules , you could conclude that members do care about the 4th player rule. So I am not sure how he equates this with members not caring, when the vote clearly indicates they do ?

 

Members care about all of the rules, clarity, transparency etc..... why do PNZ not get this?

 

I do believe this situation could have been avoided if handled correctly to begin with. As one of the teams that received the e-mail from PNZ, advising us that the 4th player would be taken from the top 8, rather than the top 4, I can tell you it was written in such a way that it was like a "Red flag to a bull”. It was then quite clear that the orginal e-mail that had invited us to put our names forward for selection as the 4th player, was just an attempt to look like they were following procedure. The careful wording of the Terms and conditions of entering your name , were worded to discourage one from entering. I can only assume this was in the hope that no one would put their name forward, opening selection up to the top 8. When players did put their name forward PNZ steam rolled over the rules and showed little respect for those players .

 

Of course "hindsight" is of no use now, but I do believe that if it had been handled in a different way and PNZ had consulted with the concerned teams in regards to the World Team’s wishes, rather than attempt to deceive us , we may have been able to reach a suitable outcome for all. I would like to think that if PNZ had been clear in the beginning about the Team’s wishes, that in the spirit of petanque and good sportmanship the players involved would have taken the team’s wishes into account when considering putting their name forward. PNZ did not give us that chance to act in good faith towards the team. Maybe some players may have still put their name down, which was still within their rights, as they had paid to enter a competition and had won the right to be the only people eligible for consideration for selection under the rules of entry. PNZ chose to put the 3 teams in this position and now think they can clear themselves of all blame?

 

I admit that at first I felt the team was in the wrong, but on reflection, the team asked a question which tested the rules but they did not break them. PNZ turned this into a “saga” by the way they handled it and PNZ are the only ones who can now put it right. A simple apology and clear communication on how we are to proceed is what is needed.

 

This situation has been caused by PNZ's inability to handle the situation. It is not the fault of the world team members, the other 3 finalists or anyone who has questioned the process. -Sarah-Jane


 

Comment 4 All that has been written here is very valid and exactly what I have been saying since Mrs Rocks first put her ramblings on line. The fact that PNZ let this whole matter trundle on for over a month past the deadline that they had set themselves shows how incompetently it has been handled. However, to get a respsonse from PNZ, please remember that Mr Wells did state right from the start that he would NOT respond to anything that was written on the blog. I hope the writers of the above excelllent letters have sent copies to PNZ so they can be answered officially.

 

Last year I called for a vote of no confidence against the PNZ executive and got no response from the members. Maybe it is time to make the call again. -Graeme Burnard.


 

Comment 5 The saga of the 4th player will continue until the PNZ executive puts their hand up and admits they got it wrong. They should have said no to the team as soon as they were asked. Not yes, and then change their minds when the players started to make noises of dissent.

 

You can change the captain of a ship, but if the crew stays the same, you will tend to get the same results and decisions that you have had in the past. And we all know they do not have a good|track record.

-Myles.


Update 27/07/2007: Bryan Wells has published this on the PNZ website.

Update 13/10/2008: PNZ has to this date steadfastly refused to explain why they changed the 4th player rules after the fact.


 

This page has been viewed times

Top

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.