MSNZ & TMC - 'Wheels start to come off'

[socram]

Maybe this is back to the Historic Commission to challenge?

Part of the reason for AA (as I see it) was that some modern (safety) rules cannot be applied to cars that were constructed in a different era or using a different construction method.

Equally, the aim is to get many of the cars currently mouldering in garages, back out on the track and to do so means that they have to be viewed differently.

The waters at the moment are extremely muddied as to the age of the car shell/chassis and the perception of what is required to get it onto the road or the track or both as they are not mutually compatible rules.

If MSNZ says "no" to any specific, then many a car is effectively eliminated either from road or track use (or both) - without costly and often extensive modification which may well include REDUCING the safety of the car to comply!

A shell or chassis built 60 years ago, should not have to conform to any 2013 safety standard - and from my perspective, that also includes a roll over structure.

Even on the road, a 1955 or earlier car does not have to have any form of seat belt, not even a lap and diagonal and the reason for that is that the 'B" pillar was never built to take a seat belt anchorage.

[raymond]

Originally Posted by socram

Maybe this is back to the Historic Commission to challenge?

Part of the reason for AA (as I see it) was that some modern (safety) rules cannot be applied to cars that were constructed in a different era or using a different construction method.

Correct. Therefore I am guessing it's too valuable to loose?

[sollitt]

It's not a Commission responsibility Ray. All they could do, if in fact they agree change is needed, is to put it to the Exec. as a recommendation.
I would seriously doubt it's chances of success if handled that way.

This kind of change needs to be decided at conference where it is the member clubs who make the decision, not the Exec.
Also it is an item for general assembly, not limited to H&C workshop.
The Commission is not a member club and cannot post a remit.

Simple fact is, if you want change you have to bring it about yourself.

Similarly, I believe that there is a remedy for your rollcage woes in a remit proposing a change to Sched. A.

You have until early April to get those remits in.

[socram]

As I have been stuffing around and been stuffed around, since the end of last year, getting a club to put up a conference remit for May, or indeed, leaving a lot of these issues to conference, is not going to solve issues, when the problems have not been because of conference remits...

Why should anyone have to wait 6 or 7 months and get shoved from pillar to post because the systems (or people) can't cope with anything out of the ordinary?

Conference does not make technical changes. The technical department does.

If the H & C Commission cannot act as our voice, being the only group who are likely to understand our issues, but we can leave it to a touring based club to cast a vote on something that they are neither interested in, nor the consequent effect on those who do, then it is a process situation that is never going to be satisfactory.

Can we put up a remit that common sense should be applied?

(Rather than accepting that changing the rules that have worked adequately for years, then claiming that something doesn't now conform, yet happily ignore the fact that the majority of cars are in fact running to the old rules anyway?)

The key goals are clearly defined in its current mission statement as follows;

•MotorSport New Zealand is committed to develop and maintain an environment that enables the people of New Zealand to enjoy motorsport as a leisure and sporting activity.
•MotorSport New Zealand is committed to promoting and improving motorsport in New Zealand as a widely recognised, accepted and respected sport.
•MotorSport New Zealand wants people to enjoy and participate in the adventure and challenge of cars being driven with speed, safety and skill.

It appears that from where I sit, some people are not fully aware of the MSNZ mission statement. If ALL employees don't adhere to their own mission statement, then conference isn't going to change anything.

[sollitt]

Ray, here's how the present system works.

For 364 days of the year the Executive make all the decisions.
The chair of the commission representing your code is one voice and has one vote.
During the meetings the Executive will listen to a disproportionate and an inapropriate level of advice from a number of unrepresentative, and unknowledgable, departments i.e. the technical dept, the stewarding dept, the CotC dept. Their agenda seldom aligns with the sporting interest.
Consequently most commission recommendations fail as the considered view of these parties is not to effect change.

For one day of the year member clubs have an opportunity to impose their will on the heirachy.
Yes, it has been difficult historically to bring major change as most clubs send the same delegate each year who ticks the box by enjoying the free lunch and supporting the status quo.
Nevertheless commonsense does usually prevail and, with a mood for change, a competently delivered proposal stands a very goosd chance of success.

The Historic & Classic fraternity have long decried a lack of representation. The reality is that they have seldom used the opportunities available to them to bring meaningful change, instead focussing on trivial nonsense. Here's an opportunity to make valuable change. Will you take it?

[socram]

Bruce, I am not a club representative... I do not sit on any club committee these days and as stated before, larger clubs have very varied interests, just as the example you quote.

It is difficult to know exactly what remit(s) to suggest a club puts forward! From my experience of attending dozens of other AGMs, the constitutions are usually structured in such a way that suggestions coming from the floor on the day, having been fully debated, often get through.

When all remits are demanded in advance and no new remits are allowed from the floor, it always seems to be a somewhat defensive attitude. With this being a clubs based organisation, then area clubs need to meet in advance to thrash things out as best they can.

We do have meetings of the sporting clubs of Auckland, to which I am invited, to try and get some semblance of co-operation, prior to conference but I am not always party to the end results of their remits. The main exception being that last year, TACCOC presented their well structured remit for discussion.

Your comment about the Executive making the decisions for 364 days of the year may well be correct, but they are ALL bound by the constitution. However, a mission statement is merely something that hangs on the wall in reception, between the pot plants to appease the visitors. It appears to be nothing more.

When an organsiation is all powerful, makes and applies the rules as it thinks fit, without a conference mandate for the details or the policy, then that power has to be handled very carefully indeed, also very wisely and with respect to all members and their interests.

When that power is abused, misapplied or the judgement is questionable, then it attracts criticism. If as a member you don't agree with a ruling, you have every right to question it. Our own series members are not above criticising my dictatorial rulings, (thank goodness!) but most are made after consulting with the members themselves and therein lies the difference.

If however, we dare to question or challenge a ruling or rulings, no matter how illogical we believe that ruling to be, our options are very limited and relying on conference is not going to help.

Message boards such as this are often the only means to raise awarenes of issues and without making anything personal, I believe that this is the way a lot of information is disseminated. It is the computer age and a tool for us to be used.

There are some great discussions on message boards and yes, we all know that the organisations read them - particularly this thread(!) and hopefully, they will get an understanding from those prepared to stand up and fight for solutions. Many readers are lurkers and may well either be nodding in agreement or shaking their heads.

Sadly, those who stand up are usually branded as troublemakers. Some are, but many are trying to make sure systems and processes are transparent and for the greater good.

At the end of the day, for most of us, it is our leisure activity, our hobby and our sport and we want an organisation that recognises the difference between the hobby racers with their old road/race cars and the professionals with their modern race cars.

[RogerH]

Ray, there is more than an element of truth in your post. It is hard for a competitor who is not on the committee of a club to get remits accepted and carried forward to the AGM. Even if a remit does make it, there is the chance that there will be an orchestrated defence of the remit by the hierarchy of MSNZ if it is contrary to their views - of course they will deny that such things happen.
An example of this was when the remit was put through to reject MSNZ's stance on the ban of using Avgas. MSNZ organised for a so-called fuel expert to address the AGM in support of MSNZ's position before the remit was voted on. They had no right to do this and it was nothing more than a blatant attempt by the Executive to influence the voting in their favour.
At last years AGM proceedings were "organised" so that the remits were left until the end of the meeting and had little time for discussion - again there will be denial that there was any such "organisation".
In the face of this it is probably better to raise a motion from the floor (without prior warning) and get it discussed and voted on. However, this must be done by a club delegate.
As far as having the Executive bound by the Constitution, there is an out for them to just make up their own minds on matters - it has been used on more than one occasion :

19. Matters Not Provided For:
19.1 Any matters which are not provided for in this Constitution shall be decided by the Executive

I think it will be a very interesting AGM this year as the push for change may finally get some traction. Unfortunately I won't be TACCOC's delegate this year as I will be overseas.

[socram]

What is the date and location for the AGM/Conference this year? It doesn't seem to be on the MSNZ website as far as I can tell.

[RogerH]

Originally Posted by socram

What is the date and location for the AGM/Conference this year? It doesn't seem to be on the MSNZ website as far as I can tell.

I think 24-25 May in Wellington.

[Club racer]

They need to play that one as a home fixture alright lol!

[socram]

"Issues such as constantly changing regulations drive me demented and I have come exceptionally close to packing up motorsport altogether on several occasions over the last three or four years. My car was built in 1970 and apart from better tyres, is as near as possible to performing exactly as it did in 1970, but with a few stronger details such as seat belt mountings, so why the need to keep changing the rules if it is really a classic car, racing in classic events?

The CoD is of no use whatever and as a race organiser, we can’t have six different classes on the day just for saloon cars, so that all can race against each other in tiny groups, some with one docket and others with another."

Crunch, this is part of what I wrote to MSNZ - January 2002!

[Speedwayracer44]

Great post Ray, no one could of said it better than you.

[sollitt]

Originally Posted by RogerH

In the face of this it is probably better to raise a motion from the floor (without prior warning) and get it discussed and voted on. However, this must be done by a club delegate.

I am not sure that this even permissable, is it?
I understood that business for discussion/voting must be posted in the agenda which is required to be available to member clubs at least 21 days prior.
Discussion items have been allowed from the floor at the meetings discretion but I'm not sure they've ever been able to be voted on, the Exec. usually agreeing to 'take matters under advisement for future consideration'.

Notwithstanding the two issues you raise Roger, the paranoia is a little misplaced. Remits, no matter how controversial, are generally given fair opportunity for debate. I would suggest that, rather than ambushing the meeting with sensitive topics, you'd stand a far better chance of winning acceptance by early notification and sensible lobbying.

[RogerH]

Originally Posted by sollitt

I am not sure that this even permissable, is it?
I understood that business for discussion/voting must be posted in the agenda which is required to be available to member clubs at least 21 days prior.
Discussion items have been allowed from the floor at the meetings discretion but I'm not sure they've ever been able to be voted on, the Exec. usually agreeing to 'take matters under advisement for future consideration'.

Notwithstanding the two issues you raise Roger, the paranoia is a little misplaced. Remits, no matter how controversial, are generally given fair opportunity for debate. I would suggest that, rather than ambushing the meeting with sensitive topics, you'd stand a far better chance of winning acceptance by early notification and sensible lobbying.

Remits and motions are matter that should be dealt with in a constitution - the Registrar of Incorporated Societies has a suggested constitution that addresses these matters. Many sporting body constitutions also specifically deal with these matters.
However the MSNZ Constitution doesn't even mention the word "remit" or "motion". The way that the MSNZ Constitution deals with this matter (or more correctly, doesn't deal with it) leaves the whole area open to challenge. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits motions from the floor and precedent has been made with this at past AGMs. I would think there would be a difficulty in stopping a motion from the floor if there is nothing in the Constitution that can be pointed to that specifically excludes such action. Of course it is too late to make any change to the MSNZ Constitution in respect of this year's AGM.
I understand that there was some concern at the last AGM that things were left to the last minute and insufficient time was allocated to discuss remits and I also understand that there may be a remit coming (not from our club) addressing this particular concern.

[socram]

Originally Posted by RogerH

I understand that there was some concern at the last AGM that things were left to the last minute and insufficient time was allocated to discuss remits and I also understand that there may be a remit coming (not from our club) addressing this particular concern.

I wasn't aware that a time limit could be put on an AGM... The implications of that should be obvious and I have never come across it before.

A chairman can make rulings as to how a meeting is to be conducted, such as allowing a proposer to speak for say 4 minutes, a seconder for 3 minutes and all others speakers 2 minutes, then allow the proposer to sum up for 1 minute. They can also rule that no-one can speak more than once per motion.

The Chair has that power, but not cutting short a meeting because the wine is getting warm or the missus expects them home.

Having suffered through AGMs that went on long into the night through poor chairing was a salutary lesson as to how NOT to conduct an AGM, but I have never heard of an overall time limit per se.

It is also acceptable to have a trained person on hand to advise the Chair on matters of meeting procedure and also the constitution.

[RogerH]

Originally Posted by socram

I wasn't aware that a time limit could be put on an AGM... The implications of that should be obvious and I have never come across it before.

Apart from the workshops, the AGM proper goes from 1pm to 4pm on the Saturday. It is usually closed down promptly as I understand the dinner/awards function has to be prepared for the Saturday evening with the pre-dinner drinks at 6.30.
The AGM timeframe of three hours is meant to cover the President's address, election of officers and commission members, presentation of reports from the various departments and affiliated bodies, general business and remits.
At last year's AGM the remits and general business were left to last and time and attendees' attention span ran out. This is what has generated the concern that the AGM should be structured to give remits and general business a priority over such things as commission and other entities reports/presentations.

[socram]

So presumably all those who keep telling us to bring things up at the AGM if we want change, may now realise why that isn't the either the easiest or the most democratic solution.

I presume that the various reports are in the hands of delegates before the meeting?

[sollitt]

Originally Posted by socram

So presumably all those who keep telling us to bring things up at the AGM if we want change, may now realise why that isn't the either the easiest or the most democratic solution.

Actually Ray, exactly the opposite is true, for reasons that I've already explained.
It remains, under the present system, the only opportunity for the sport to determine it's own issues.
At any other time, the decisions are at the whim of the very same handful of people frequently derided on this forum.

The situation to which Roger refers is not common, in fact I believe it was unique to last year's meeting. I cannot recall any other time when remits were not afforded a fair hearing.

[speedracer]

Hi All, would it be a good idea to establish an open online forum in NZ to discuss suggestions proposals and remits prior any forthcoming AGM's?

This would mean those who may be interested could be made aware of coming remits or proposals well ahead of time and perhaps reach
some form of agreement before attending the annual AGM.

Motorsport Club members, representatives, officials, delegates and the general public could have a fair opportunity to comment and contribute.

Regards
Michael

[socram]

Good idea. Would you like to start off a new thread?

I have so far read three club submissions and a commission submission to the review panel, but that is a longer term issue, so a new thread on either remits or suggestions for conference is a great idea, as if we are aware of the issues, we need to make sure a club puts in a remit that then needs no rewording to stand a better chance of success.

Hopefully, the Auckland clubs will also meet again, as they did last year.

[Just Do It!]

Originally Posted by socram

I wasn't aware that a time limit could be put on an AGM... The implications of that should be obvious and I have never come across it before.

A chairman can make rulings as to how a meeting is to be conducted, such as allowing a proposer to speak for say 4 minutes, a seconder for 3 minutes and all others speakers 2 minutes, then allow the proposer to sum up for 1 minute. They can also rule that no-one can speak more than once per motion.

The Chair has that power, but not cutting short a meeting because the wine is getting warm or the missus expects them home.

Having suffered through AGMs that went on long into the night through poor chairing was a salutary lesson as to how NOT to conduct an AGM, but I have never heard of an overall time limit per se.

It is also acceptable to have a trained person on hand to advise the Chair on matters of meeting procedure and also the constitution.

One reasonably-sized NZ company doesn't cut their AGM short "as such" but instead has it on Melbourne Cup Day. Everything rushes along to ensure that everyone has a cold beer in hand in time to watch The Great Race (Of the 4-legged kind).

[speedracer]

Originally Posted by socram

Good idea. Would you like to start off a new thread?

Hopefully, the Auckland clubs will also meet again, as they did last year.

Hi Socram,
thanks for the reply,

based on the lack of replies to my suggestion here there doesn't seem to much interest in a creating a Motorsport in NZ / AGM discussion forum?

If one were to be established I would suggest that it would need to be on a kiwi hosted website given the possibility that it could be somewhat political from time to time?

I don't think that would be fair to this forums moderators who have done a great job here to date.

Let me know your thoughts?

Regards
Michael

[socram]

Fair comment. We certainly need a NZ based, no holds barred forum where both individuals and officials can have their say on the issues.

The message boards are our water cooler/lunchroom chat opportunities, particularly for those of us who work from home or have idle time and are not on club committees.

[bluespur]

if you want a Kiwi moderated forum then move to one

onlinemotorsport.net used to be very good for airing kiwi motorsport issues - but it has fallen out of use - stll there though and am sure that boosting up its use would be good

[smokin'joe]

Originally Posted by speedracer

Hi Socram,
If one were to be established I would suggest that it would need to be on a kiwi hosted website given the possibility that it could be somewhat political from time to time?

there was one (the Boss) most of us subscribed to, but it went offline for what ever reason.
onlinemotorsport used to be a good forum until they changed the format making it near on impossible to use.