PNZ News

The Petanque New Zealand National Council is proposing to put a remit to the 2008 Annual General Meeting to change the way in which the organisation is governed.

The remit is that the ruling body be a single Board consisting of a President, Vice-president and 3 other Directors. This will replace the current National Council and Executive.

It is proposed that this take effect from 2009.

PNZ issues this paper as a basis for discussion amongst its constituent members and Clubs, to inform the voting at the AGM.

Background

PNZ’s current governance structure – an elected National Council and an appointed Executive Board - was put in place as from March 2004.  We have been operating under this structure for nearly 4 years.

We changed to this form of governance because the previous system just wasn’t working - a committee of 8 people running the body on a day-to day basis, focussing on the small stuff, difficult to reach decisions. We were trying to run a national organisation within a structure designed for small club-level organisations – having a President, Secretary and Treasurer and a number of Committee members elected at an AGM at which all members can be physically present.

We changed to the governance structure recommended by SPARC and most sporting organisational “gurus” - a split governance/management structure, with a Board to set strategy and an Executive to carry out that strategy and do the day to day management.

However, shortcomings in this structure for PNZ have been apparent for some time, especially with the “regional representation” model:

• Having the governing body made up of people elected primarily on the basis of where they live does not provide for the election of people with the skills, knowledge and expertise required to govern and run the organisation and take it successfully into the future.

   

• Regional representation is effectively meaningless when there is no strong, formal regional association in some areas, such as “Central North Island” and “Canterbury/Tasman”.  Many of the clubs do not consider themselves part of the designated “region”, and their interests do not necessarily converge.

   

• The current structure is a very unwieldy and cumbersome communication channel between the governing body and members (Council / Executive / Regions / Clubs / Members).

   

• It is recognised in the literature that the formal split governance/management structure may be less appropriate for small voluntary organisations, such as PNZ, where there are a limited number of people willing to take office. In this situation, everyone has to have a job, “do” as well as “think”.

Proposal

It is therefore proposed that we should simplify the structure by removing the “regional” layer of administration, and move to a single Board consisting of a President, Vice-president and 3 other Directors. These people are to be elected for their skills, knowledge and expertise, by the membership, through their clubs.

• Board members will be elected for a three-year term; 2 members will retire in rotation each term, but be eligible for re-appointment. Members may serve a maximum of 3 consecutive terms.

   

• The Secretary and Treasurer will be appointed by the Board. These positions will be non-voting in terms of Board decisions. The appointments will be for 3 years, with incumbents eligible for reappointment at the end of each term.

   

  This arrangement is proposed because a greater degree of long-term continuity is desirable for these administrative positions, which largely deal with day-to day management issues and activities. It does not preclude the people in these positions being part of any sub-committees established by the Board, e.g. the Treasurer on a Financial Strategy Subcommittee.

   

• Regional representatives

  These will be the spokespeople for their area. They will be elected by Clubs in the region, as per the current process.  Regions themselves will determine their boundaries, i.e. what Clubs they include. Regional reps will have the right to attend and speak at Board meetings, but not to vote. They must have a written mandate to show what clubs they have the authority to speak on behalf of, when attending Board meetings or otherwise communicating with the Board.

   

• Other Management Positions

  The Board may establish Management positions such as Coaching Director, Magazine Editor, National Tournament Director. People will be appointed to these positions by the Board, and be responsible to the Board.

   

  All such positions will be advertised, and open for application, to PNZ members. Appointments will be on terms and conditions as agreed between the Board and the appointee, but with a maximum term of 3 years; incumbents will be eligible to reapply when positions are re-advertised.

   

• Who may stand

  Applicants for any of the above positions must be financial members of Petanque New Zealand.

   

  Members may hold more than one position, eg. Magazine Editor and Webmaster, Umpiring Director and Regional Representative, except that board members may not also be Regional Representatives. This is to avoid conflict of interest between regional and national perspectives.

Proposed PNZ Governance Structure

Voting process

• Voting will be proportional to numbers – e.g. 1 vote per 25 Club members or part thereof.

   

• Votes may be cast either

  • In person. Each Club appoints a representative to attend and vote at the AGM (A delegate could vote on behalf of another delegate if they have written authority to do so)

  • By post or electronically. Votes must be received prior to the start of the AGM.

Voting in proportion to numbers is considered fairer in terms of representing the wishes of the membership than one vote per Club.

The voting system and process will have to be assessed carefully, to ensure fairness and to minimise incentives or potential to “rig” voting outcomes (e.g. by forming “shell” clubs).  Thus we need to

• Establish a minimum number of members required to be a Club (e.g. 15, which is the number required to form an incorporated society).

   

• Look at the membership number profiles of clubs to determine the proportion for voting e.g. 1 vote per 25 members.

   

• Look at whether we need a threshold (number/proportion of clubs or members casting votes) for an election to be valid.

Comment

The benefits of these changes are

• Decision-making at Board level will be streamlined; resulting in a more responsive and more effective Board whose focus is on national performance.

  • The Board will be small enough to function efficiently on a day-to-day basis (only one more member than the current Executive), but large enough to allow responsibilities to be spread.

  • Roles and functions will be clearer; people will stand for election based on what they can offer the organisation, in the required areas of expertise (see diagram for examples).

Examples of distribution of responsibilities

• With respect to regional representatives, there need be no restriction on the number or size of “regions”. These can form naturally in the areas where petanque is strong, without having to try and fit outlying clubs into artificially determined areas– so there can be a Northland region as well as Auckland; a Tauranga/Bay of Plenty region; a Hawkes Bay region. All of whom can put their region’s views to the Board.

   

• At the same time, each Club will have a more direct say in determining the makeup of the governing body, so their views are not lost in the amalgamation to a wider region. There will be a closer linkage between members and their elected representatives, as each Club can send a delegate to the AGM to speak and vote.

While some may not be comfortable with the idea of non-voting regional representatives, the governing body is charged with running the organisation for the good of all its members. This requires people with the necessary skills, regardless of their geographical location. It may be that at any one time, the majority of the Board may come from a particular area; this should not be viewed as negative, or a weakness.

To create a closer relationship between the Board and members, it is proposed that one Director be designated “Membership Services” Director – responsible for liaising with clubs, with a specific duty to go around and talk to them, and be the point of contact between clubs and the Board. Thus there will be a much more direct channel from Clubs to the Board than there is at present.

Barbara Whittington

Secretary

Petanque New Zealand

25 January 2008