We are the PNZ (the harder they come,...)

 

I am writing this letter to express my concern about the way the PNZ is being run and to support the comments made by Graeme Burnard in his letter to PNZ. -Sebastien Merval.

 

04/10/06 Firstly, I would like to draw your attention to two separate incidents that occurred within the men’s team representing New Zealand in Singapore earlier this year. In the first incident, one member of the team was so frustrated with his play that he wanted to pull out of the tournament halfway through. The second incident involved a player deliberately dropping his ball in front of him when he was standing in the circle, the only reason that I can see for this is that the opposing team were shooting every ball that the NZ men put up. Both of the above incidents were witnessed by members of the team(s) as well as supporters. Thanks to these players, New Zealand has the beginnings of a reputation for bad sportsmanship. It is a shame that players who have this kind of attitude were selected to represent the rest of us.

 

For the last twelve months, I have noticed tensions building and feelings and emotions are at boiling point. That is why I am speaking out now and I encourage others to do the same as it will take more than a few voices to get our message across. The talk around the terrain at recent competitions suggests that there is a strong body who are against the way that the PNZ is being run and I strongly urge those players to put their money where their mouth is and speak out. If enough of us make ourselves heard, the PNZ will be unable to ignore it for much longer.

 

For those of you who are unsure about where the PNZ is heading you need only look at the Khandallah Club. Once upon a Time, Khandallah had a strong base of skilled and talented players. Following a disagreement, a number of these players left and formed their own club (Windy Hills) and by July 2006, seven more Khandallah players had decided not to renew their memberships. At least four of these players including Nikki and myself, made that decision based on the politics that were taking over and causing us to feel uncomfortable playing at our own club. Khandallah is left with only five competitive players.

 

The only difference between the situation in Khandallah and that of the PNZ is that we were able to leave and go to another club when we weren’t satisfied with the way that Khandallah was being run. We do not have that option with the PNZ which is why the only available option left for us as a body of players is to ensure that the current situation is changed as soon as possible. Imagine for example, if the PNZ had been almost completely taken over by a shady dwarf club from the South Island with only five competitive players. Is no one saying anything simply because the club in question is from Wellington, our region? How does it benefit us, the players from all around New Zealand, to have nearly all the positions of power in the PNZ being held by Khandallah members. Having both of the national selectors in Wellington is an outrage when no one can deny that our strongest players are in Auckland and to have them both from the same club has seemed to make the criteria for selection more about who your friends are than how well you play.

 

As well as the two selectors, one of whom is also tournament organiser and treasurer, the Khandallah club is home to the acting CEO of the PNZ. There is far too much power in the hands of too few people and the current situation reflects just how badly these few people have handled being in these powerful positions.

 

Another thing is that there seems to have been ‘a change of circumstances’ in ethics since the current selectors were named. Nikki and I were told by one of the selectors (before the Trans-Tasman) that because her husband had taken on the role of acting CEO he would have to take his name out of the selection process immediately after the tournament for the obvious reasons of integrity and the conflict of interest. You can imagine how shocked we were then to see his name in the line up for the Mens World Team. A change of circumstance indeed.

 

The other selector publicly stated that teams would not be selected based on who could afford it. What has happened over the last year? We have not sent our best teams to represent NZ, we have just sent the best teams we could make up of players who could afford the trip. The result of selecting in this way is that you have teams going away to tournaments, who do not mix well, and subsequently do not do well. It is unfair to expect a team who hardly know each other and who have never played together to go to an international tournament with only one weekends training together. The selectors have a responsibility to the players that should continue throughout the tournament and they have shown a lack of respect for the team’s commitment and financial investments by sending them to the slaughterhouse.

 

Our responsibility, as the 'stakeholders' of the PNZ is to make a change before we realise that it is too late. I strongly believe that the only way for our organisation to make any progress is for the 'tight 3' to accept the mistakes they have made and resign immediately. We need to select a CEO who is committed and selectors who genuinely have the interests of our sport at heart. I am calling for anyone who has an opinion on how the PNZ is being run to speak up, either in support of Graeme and myself or to bring their own ideas to the discussion.

 

We are faced with the challenge of finding the right people to make the change but I believe that there are people out there who could make a real difference and I am fully prepared to support them in any way that I can.

 

Seb Merval

 

Other contributions by Seb Merval HERE

Comment 1 Seb has made some good points and observations. I support the sentiment of his opinion piece (open-letter). -Tom van B.

Comment 2 There is no doubt that PNZ and our game is in crisis (again). I have no doubt that the Wellington/Khandallah members of the PNZ that Seb refers to have acted in good faith and done what they think is good for the game. But they don't see how they are stifling growth and initiatives from other people, which is what the sport needs.

 

We are a small sport and can be a bit apathetic, so we need to use all the offers we get for reasonable and enthusistic help. It's sad if you look back at the many good people in our sport who have left or are decreasing their involvement in the game. Its quite possible the Wellington/Khandallah members referred to are too scared to delegate or allow others to freely contribute to PNZ, but they see it as 'well we've got to do it else the sport will fall over'.

 

So I see Seb and Graeme's comments arising out of a natural frustration at the inability to have any real influence, just as I was frustrated when coaching and selecting. So good on you both for saying what you have. - Michael E

Comment 3 Ah - but the road to hell is paved with good intentions... I agree with Michael in that I don't think the Wellington/Khandallah members did not intend to not act in good faith with regards to the game. However I suspect that "acting in good faith" somehow got lost in ego boost that came with being in a position of power over such a small group of people. And no matter how you dress that one up - it did happen. Making like a god and flying too close to the sun, results in the inevitable wax melting and your wings falling off. Icarus drowned in the sea as a result (see Wikipedia for Icarus). Is the PNZ going to end up in the same situation? Or can we listen and move forward? - Margret

Comment 4 The analogy by Seb Merval, of the Khandallah Club and PNZ is an interesting one. A once thriving club with 150 members has catastrophically spiralled down to 5 competitive players. The club has outstanding facilities and an idyllic setting overlooking Wellington. I have been told by one of its members that they no longer have club days or club evenings. Why have so many Khandallah members opted for Windy Hills, a club without any of the superb facilities - not even a clubhouse or terrain.

 

Apart from the drastic solution on this page - item A06/10, PNZ could opt for a more measured approach. Have proper elections and begin with the CEO. Change the constitution so as to bring it in line with a more democratic and inclusive philosophy. It (PNZ) needs to shake off its dictatorial image and become much more inclusive. Show some common respect to those that offer their services (see also item 02/03.) Too often we hear of projects not started or abandoned without any explanation. Request for information are often not answered or not taken serious. Michael E is right, many people have withdrawn their support, and PNZ is now unable to fill positions - no one is keen to be part of the current undemocratic and exclusive group - the "tight 3".

 

I propose that unless PNZ shows it is willing to make drastic changes, directed and aproved by the membersihip - clubs should withhold affiliation fees. I know, this sounds like a "affiliation fee revolt" - well, it would be. This could be the vote of no confidence Graeme Burnard writes about: "I have already suggested a vote of no confidence in the executive and I will pursue this if we cannot get satisfactory answers to these points. It is time for you to listen!!"

 

We need to see value for money and members should not be treated as subjects or servants of PNZ. Members should be seen and treated as valued assets, as people. -Tom van B.

Comment 5 Seb Merval is to be congratulated for his open forthright concern for PNZ.

 

I was disturbed when competing in the New Zealand Open at the pressure being put on our past CEO, (President as the French call it) Graeme Morris to resign his post.

 

There were also some rumors and gossip that was both unfounded and just plain lies, I did at the time attempt to put a stop to them. In retrospect, I now believe that was the start of a coup, to take over the complete administration of our game. I too believe the intentions were good, however, a quick look at what has since transpired.

 

Michael Emmerson, The NZ Coach and selector resigned, why? The only qualified coach who has made a reasonable fist of attempting to lift the standard of NZ play with unpaid coaching clinics, A person of good integrity and generous with his time, why did he resign?

 

After he left we lacked leadership and the necessary skills to evolve this process, the comments on this Wiki are testament to this.

 

New selectors both from the Khandallah club, with no experience, one who played in the National Tournaments, and ran them and is Secretary of PNZ. Where does he find the time to check out the top players? How come they broke up a successful team to pick her husband and his playing partners and then one was selected to be manager, good intentions. A question, what were their qualifications to this? Perhaps a hunch that they know better. Are there integrity issues here? Was it a good vacation?

 

No to Oceania, no to Pan Pacific games, it's becoming far too difficult. Maybe a more inclusive conversation could bring about solutions.

 

Another Khandallah member who is acting CEO, a new member of the NZP world team, who played his part in persuading Graeme Morris to not stand for the CEO.

 

Question: Who controls the Governance of PNZ now? Is there selfserving intertest? What are these people doing to our game?

 

I find it disconcerting we do not even have an official open AGM, it’s regionally represented only, which seems strange given the small number of participants in the game in New Zealand.

 

It’s time for more openness, putting the Petanque Wiki link back on the Official PNZ site, getting back to open AGM’s held on the same weekend and venue as the National Triples.

 

When I first came to the game, there was always a warm welcome and an invite to join in. It’s just not the same. No wonder people are drifting away……………….

 

See you on the piste, I hope.

 

-Ricardo

Comment 6 The reason people have left khandallah and joined another club, be it Windy Hills or whoever, comes down to 2 simple things. People and their attitude.

 

People are intelligent enough to decide who they want to surround themselves with - whether it be for work or socially. You do not surround yourself with people who cause friction.

 

Susan

Comment 7 Hi Tom. Have been reading a few things on the Wiki recently and have been interested in the views and ideas from others. Thanks for making this forum available to us. While I can see that there are many valid issues that have been raised I am also concerned that some of the contributions are veiled personal attacks on individuals.

 

I wonder if we would be more successful in promoting the game of Petanque if we addressed the issues rather than attacking individuals.

 

I am one of the many people that gains a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction from my involvement in Petanque. I have been fortunate to have played top level petanque and made some great friends both here and overseas.

 

There are issues that need to be resolved on a regional and national level but there needs to be a willingness from all parties to listen and respect the views of others in a meaningful and constructive manner. I believe this is missing at the present time.

 

Is it time that we all look at the contribution we are making to enhance Petanque in New Zealand. Presumably we are a group of relatively mature individuals who can work together for the good of our game.

 

On a personal note I would like to thank all those who contacted me prior to heading off to the World Champs this year for giving me their support. The experience was absolutely amazing and I learnt a whole heap. The team performed very well as a team both on and off the piste and represented New Zealand to the best of our ability.

 

I am very willing to assist any clubs and use the experience I have had overseas to improve the level of petanque in our region

 

Dirk Winnie

Comment 8 "....I wonder if we would be more successful in promoting the game of Petanque if we addressed the issues rather than attacking individuals.....".

 

I am wondering how well Dirk has been "reading a few things". Anyone who has been reading the various contributions would know that it is precisely what people are concerned about: promoting our game, addressing issues and respecting people. Apart from others, I have documented many of these on this page alone - how can this be missed? (see comment 4 and click on the hyperlinks).

 

What stands out in all of this is that no one has been able, to refute any of the points made by Seb, or points made by other contributers on this page, or the many pages (180+) on this Wiki. Just as an example, I challenge anyone to put up an argument for not having a democratically elected CEO. People are completely stuck. They can't say "I am / we are sorry". They don't know where to turn. It's a mess. You can read about the absurd PNZ self-imposed ban on contributions to the MPC Blog and NZPW on this page item 02/10.

 

As you know, things have been brewing for some time and PNZ do not like people voicing their concerns on this Wiki or the MPC Blog (see item 02/03). Remember, PNZ and WPA both removed our link. The thing is, people feel this (Wiki and Blog) is their only platform left.

 

"....So I see Seb and Graeme's comments arising out of a natural frustration at the inability to have any real influence.....".

 

Seb's open letter is really a culmination of many issues over a considerable time span. You can see a small section of those HERE. In my view it is not right to brush all of that aside as lightly as Dirk has just done. I think what people want most of all is for PNZ to answer the many questions that have been raised (these are documented on this Wiki). This could be a first step in normalising the terrible atmosphere and strained relationship between a large section of the membership and PNZ.

 

As for attacking individuals, as editor of this Wiki I am constantly mindful of this, and only recently altered text of one of our contributors. It is however unavoidable to put names to things and people. -Tom van B.

PS. Great so many people offered their messages of support, and that your trip went so well Dirk - thank you for sharing this with us.

Comment 9 Good to see Dirk responding to the articles in the Wiki and in reply, Yes Dirk, I would love to be able to listen ...but ...noone is saying anything. There has been one response from Barbara Whittington to one of the recent articles. Nothing is coming from PNZ. Their silence (which I take as arrogance) is quite deafening.

 

In repsonse to your concern about attacks on individuals, it seems to be that individuals, are making some decisions without the knowledge of other members of the executive. And yes, we would all like to work towards the betterment of the game but fairness and sportsmanship and integrity within our organisation is getting worserer not betterer under the current regime. Why do we have a closed AGM for instance? The one place where members can get together to discuss their organisation.

 

I am also in the process of sending a letter to PNZ asking why so many people were allowed to register after the cut off date for the national singles - especially when the entry form clearly states, No late entries. Just another example of - We will do what we like and stuff the lot of you.

-Graeme Burnard

Comment 10 Regarding the selection process, I will be very honest and straight forward and say that all of the panel of selectors "needs to be scrapped" as they are on "cloud nine". I have seen selectors marching on a petanque terrain looking like they were the owner of the all the players that were there, then everybody is whispering and people gossiping. Its like dude its only a person, its not like thats GOD walking on the petanque ground. To me personally go back to the way we were.

 

If you look at back in those years, we only worry about one thing - airline tickets. Most of the people that I have read on petanque wiki THE WHOLE LOT ARE RIGHT , but the thing is what are we going to do now? Let's not just stop here we go all the for this to be change .

 

With the selection process I totally agreed with the all things getting selectors for the selections, but use it well. Be a selector not a friend, you are there to do a job - a job to select the best-of-the-best players. You can have chats with every body but keep your mind focused.

 

I was in Rotorua for the camp for Oceania. We were going to take scores for the players that were playing "making them boule for points" right? Those people never done this kind of scoring before and here they were, there is us (players) trying our hardest out to do our best they did not even know what they were doing. I had to go tell the person responsible to talk to them.

 

Anyway back to the issue of selections. It would be a very good procedure for Petanque New Zealand, are you going to select players that have the money and not the skills then or who you know? Then its crap, a lot of bollocks. Why don't they open the selection camp for everybody or send a letter to each club around New Zealand saying the selection panel is this for the Worlds, Oceania, Singapore and Vietnam, then PNZ saying do a tournament in your club saying to their players - "this is what's happening, the winner of club champions or region will be the one representing us at this camp coming up" let just say auckland. Just imagine if all the clubs do that. It will be great for everybody region-wisen and club-wise. Why? Because the club or region give the opportunity to all players to be part of it.

-A concerned player from Auckland.

Comment 11 I have been catching up with the news and views as I am coming back to the game after I walked away in disgust last year.

 

I find it hard to believe that all the comments being expressed today are exactly the same comments about pretty much the same issues that were concerning payers two years ago. The only difference now is that the players seem to feel less inhibited about going to print than they were two years ago. I was one of the more vocal and outspoken commentators in the past ( remember the E-newsletter?) and suffered the consequences on a personal level. Maybe nowadays the consequences of not sucking up to some egos are less dramatic than they used to be.

 

If everyone else is having their say, what the heck. I’ll throw my fifty cents worth in, as well.

 

I’m fairly well balanced as I have a chip on both shoulders so I can look at both sides of the issue.

 

To the player who advocates a fee revolt until we see value for money from PNZ. You’re only paying $6. What kind of value were you after? The individuals on the committee are not taking huge holidays on your subs so let’s at least give them some consideration for their efforts even if we don’t appreciate their results

 

Dirk’s comment re issues not individuals. The issues are often the individuals. Sorry, but I’ve been involved in too many organisations where the executives are doing the job because they wanted the job, irrespective of their ability. There are individuals’, executives and selectors etc, who are not up to the job OR are not getting enough support to do the job. Whatever the cause, the result is the same. A poor result leads to poor satisfaction levels by the customers. Lest we forget, the executive’s customers are the membership. From an outside perspective I believe Barbara is doing an excellent job as secretary but I can’t help feeling that some of the other committee members are not brimming with fresh ideas. Reusing the old ideas is only repeating the old problems, so we are not moving forward.

 

The whole issue of accountability by the executive is dissipated because we never get the opportunity to address the executive as a whole. Bring back the AGM where it was held in front of the members and speaking rights were available to the members.

 

Let’s change the selector and coach system. Politeness forbids me from making any comments on individuals. But let’s face it, If we look over the comments being expressed by the members, the members think the old system sucked and results of recent world champs are being interpreted in very a rose tinted manner to suggest that our selection and coaching systems have made huge leaps to the world champs standings of the New Zealand team.

 

Let’s have a voting system for the role of CEO. I’d put my name forward if only to ensure other people stood for the role. I’m insufficiently PC to be the CEO but it would be fun to go through the motions of an election. Suggested names… Graeme Burnard, Trevor, Dave Lippard, Joanne? Heck, there are a few names to frighten the folks. However, all would bring some fresh ideas to the position.

 

Is it an option to have an open meeting at the next major tourney? How about the Auckland open? Advertise it well and encourage members to attend.

 

That’s enough from me. Have a good game. -Andy Gilbert.

Comment 12 This is a letter to PNZ copy to WPA by Sebastien Merval.

I sent this letter on the 15th of October.

3 easy simples propositions to make the PNZ more transparent and democratic.

If you think that these issues deserve to be addressed at the next PNZ

meeting (end of November), go to this PAGE and print it, copy it, and send it. -Seb.

 

15th of October, 2006.

To whom it may concern,

 

As you will be aware, I have recently posted my thoughts on the state of petanque on the New Zealand Petanque Wiki. This page has been up for a week and has been viewed 673 times at last count. An overwhelming majority of the feedback I have received has been positive with only one comment on the wiki being an exception to this. To me, this obviously suggests that there are issues that need to be addressed and questions that need to be answered urgently. This letter is not a re writing of my post on the wiki, rather it offers three suggestions for change within the PNZ that I believe will improve our current situation.

1. Tournament Organisation

 

As it stands, our national tournaments are organised and run by one person who also plays in the tournament and is supposed to be watching other players to fulfil his role as selector. It is great that he volunteers to do all of this but it seems to be too much for one person. What I propose is to make the tournament organisation more transparent so there is no room for players questioning the draws or results.

 

The draw should be done on the morning of the first day of play. The format can be drawn up with numbers instead of players’ names prior to the tournament and then in the morning, names are drawn out of a hat at random. This process must be done by at least two people and in the open so that anybody can clearly see what is going on at each stage. The results of the day should be calculated at the venue, again in plain sight of anyone who may want to witness it and following this, the scoresheets from day one of the tournament should be openly displayed on day two.

 

If these measures were implemented, there would be no room for questions or uncertainty from the players as everything would be done out in the open and with witnesses. This procedure should be put in place for regional as well as national tournaments.

2. Conflicts of Interest

 

As a body of players, we need to be able to have faith in our leaders and trust that they are making decisions based solely on what is good for the game. The selection of the teams this year has been the subject of many conversations between players and there seems to be a definite conflict of interest surrounding the Mens World Champ team.

 

National selectors should not be allowed to select their partners or members of their family, no exceptions. If a conflict of interest looks likely, one party needs to stand down from being a part of the process, either as player or selector.

 

It seems appalling that this issue needs to be raised within our governing body. To me, it is obvious that this is unacceptable from the most basic moral and ethical viewpoints.

3. Multiple Positions of responsibility

 

Any one person should not be allowed to hold more than one position of responsibility within PNZ. This issue could just as easily come under the second heading as it is completely understandable that one person holding many positions could be seen as having a conflict of interest. The likely response to this is ‘we only did it because no one else would.’ I strongly believe that if these issues, among others, were addressed and the current administration stood down, there would be many players willing to come forward and take their place.

 

I would appreciate a written reply and I look forward to reading the minutes of the next PNZ meeting and seeing that this letter has been brought up as a topic of serious discussion.

 

Sebastien Merval

I sent this letter on the 15th of October.

3 easy simples propositions to make the PNZ more transparent and democratic.

If you think that these issues deserve to be addressed at the next PNZ

meeting (end of November), go to this PAGE and print it, copy it, and send it. -Seb.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

If you do not know our password but would still like to make a contribution - email it to tom@bindu-design.co.nz

 

This page has been viewed times

 

Top


Page Information

  • Changed 6 months ago [show history]
  • View page source
  • You're not logged in
  • Tags: selection PNZ executive

Wiki Information

Recent PBwiki Blog Posts