Trouble at' Mill

Moto-Media Editor and DRD contributor Alan Henderson is a committee member of Pukekohe Motorcycle Club and has been aware for some time of PMC Committee’s discontent around a decision by Motorcycling NZ to disqualify a rider from the NZ Veterans’ and Women’s Champs hosted by PMC in September 2010.

---

Alan Henderson: Why have the committee unanimously agreed to ‘go public’ on this issue now?

Scott Wilkins - President PMC:  Extreme frustration! The Board of MNZ are refusing to come up with any satisfactory explanation as to the apparent unfairness of their decision and have refused to supply answers to a number of questions around this matter that we have put to them. There seems to be no way that we can get any reasonable dialogue going. We had hoped, for example, to have some unbiased input from the MNZ patron but MNZ’s President has refused to involve him because "he is a very busy man”.

AH: Are you prepared to name the rider?

SW: Nikki Scott ... but her identity is irrelevant in that she was completely blameless in this whole saga. She paid her money and handed in her International Licence at sign-on and as far as I am aware had no knowledge that MNZ rules were being broken. Her entry was accepted by PMC and she rode in good faith based on that acceptance.

Ken Knarston, Vice President: And the women’s field were pleased to have her competing! She had been riding in the Women’s World Championship and had just arrived back on the Tuesday.

AH: Would you briefly background the issue please?                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Scott Wilkins                  SW: We received a letter dated the 2nd of November 2011 which noted that, despite my being advised that Nikki could not ride in the event on an International Licence, PMC had allowed her to do so. They demanded a written response explaining our actions within ten days. I provided my explanation via email back to the Operations Manager the day of receipt. I acknowledged having broken a MNZ rule and explained why I had allowed this. We had a number of Australian riders who had expressed strong interest in riding. I was concerned that if we made this an International Permitted event then they would have to have to purchase International Licences which are not cheap. Nikki confirmed she wanted to ride two days before the event and I accepted her entry knowing she didn’t have an MNZ licence. I acknowledged that I had broken the rules but explained that I felt that I had acted in the best interests of the sport and had done nothing to make the sport any less ‘fun, safe or fair’. I noted that this rule was archaic and was discouraging some Kiwi international riders from riding when at home. I also asked that the Board contact me if they wanted any more information.

AH: So you objected to this letter being sent by MNZ?

                                                                                                                                                                 Ken Knarston                       KK: Scotty had no problem responding to the letter and did so immediately. Our objection was to the arrogant tone of the letter. We (member clubs and MNZ) are meant to be working together to grow our sport and provide venues and events to ride. All MNZ Board Members know Scott and any one of them, or the Operations Manager, could have picked up the phone for a ‘chat’ or they could have sent a friendly ‘please explain’ letter. That would probably have resulted in an apology from PMC and an agreement to involve MNZ should similar circumstances arise.

What they in fact did was send a registered letter threatening unnamed repercussions unless a satisfactory explanation was received within 10 days. Surely this is not the sort of letter a governing body should send to a cooperative constituent club?

AH: So what happened next?

SW: We heard nothing more for some time, around 47 days, and assumed, given that MNZ hadn’t responded to my request to get back to me before taking any further action without contacting me, that my explanation was accepted. This belief was re-enforced when we became aware that MNZ’s had allowed other riders to ride on an FIM International licence a month later in another motocross event at Labour Weekend. That event did not have an international permit, according to the Steward of that meeting.

KK: Then on December 23rd we received a letter from MNZ stating that they had                 Nikki Scott - riding on the day             disqualified Nikki. Given that the MNZ Board meeting at which this decision was made                                                                 on December 9th, it took two weeks for them to inform anyone, including Nikki, of their decision. Despite the apparent gravity of the offence they held off until just a few days before Christmas which made any cohesive, timely response from the PMC committee impossible. This letter also suggested our committee discuss the decision and the ramifications that the actions of one person can have on the entire club and get back to them with our feelings. This is the sort of patronising language one would expect from a School Principal addressing a class of third formers, not an elected national body writing to a group of mature club committee members.

AK: You obviously responded?

KK: We wrote a very comprehensive letter back on January 19th after our next committee meeting. Our huge concern was the unfairness of their decision. We reiterated that our club fully acknowledged that we had broken the rules. Whilst this decision was initially made by Scott we had fully accepted his explanation for doing so and had therefore endorsed it as being a club decision.

We were extremely concerned that the only person ‘punished’ by this decision was the person who was absolutely innocent of any wrong-doing and this seemed to be in direct conflict with the ‘fun and fair’ aims of MNZ. Nikki was never informed by anyone from PMC or MNZ that her riding contravened the rules. We also insisted that either we be given an opportunity to discuss this at the next MNZ board meeting or that a board representative attend our next committee meeting to discuss the matter. We were concerned that if MNZ could not explain who ‘suffered’ because of this rule breach, then the decision to disqualify Nikki was unnecessary and therefore purely punitive.

AH: And the response from MNZ?

SW: A very prompt response from the President of MNZ challenging Ken’s authority to be writing the letter and the fact that it was not on club letterhead paper was received on January 19th - both of which we answered and then nothing. We went back to Operations Manager on March 2nd and copied all board members, asking that they respond to our letter of February 19th.

KK: MNZ finally replied on March 8th. This was an eight paragraph letter of which the first five paragraphs were MNZ stating that a rule had been broken. We had admitted to having broken this rule from day one of this dispute and so this all seems a little pointless. The letter explained that the breach threatened to compromise both MNZ’s insurance and Nikki Scott’s ACC cover. I think this is really grasping at straws. If one rider participating outside of MNZ’s rules in a field of over 150 riders compromises their insurance then MNZ should look to change their broker/insurer. Nikki’s eligibility for ACC within NZ for an injury occurring within NZ is not affected in any way, how much ever time she has been out of the country.

Both these points are total red herrings anyway. The point is that there was no incident involving Nikki at the meeting and MNZ were well aware of this when they decided to disqualify Nikki and report her to the Federation in Luxemburg.

We have never challenged MNZ’s right to make this decision. Our very real concern is that MNZ decided to exercise this discretionary right against an innocent party when absolutely no harm had occurred. We believe this decision lacks logic and transparency and breaches all the concepts of natural justice.

I find it interesting that MNZ, in their final letter, say that they are "dissatisfied that they have had to defend themselves”. We have never asked for a ‘defence’, only a reasonable explanation, which we feel is our right as a constituent club.

They also "caution PMC and imply that our integrity is impugned by our actions.” I and our fellow committee members take great exception to this.

AH: I have spoken with Nikki Scott via email. Were you aware that she said they had contacted MNZ before the Champs and they said it was fine, she never received any contact from them saying she could no longer ride, even though they are debating that, claiming they sent out an email? They sent it to the wrong address.

SW/KK: No, that’s news to us.

AH: Nikki also made the point that she ran an alpha letter, not numbers, on her bike number boards and there was no secrecy on her behalf. She also said, "Makes me laugh as they sent a overnight courier with a hard copy of my disqualification letter. Why did they not call or send a hard copy letter with the words NO you can’t ride?”

AH: So what now?

SW: I’m not sure. I am heading off for 18 months sabbatical soon so it will be up to the incoming committee but I will support any decision they make. My biggest concern is the fact that only the innocent party Nikki has been penalised and that is very unfair. If they had taken action against me I would have accepted that.

KK: Obviously our ongoing membership of MNZ will be high on the Agenda of our next AGM unless we can find an acceptable compromise before this.

AH. If one of the biggest motocross clubs in New Zealand were to pull out of MNZ then this could be seen as ‘throwing your toys out of the cot’?

KK: Any such decision would not be made without a large majority consensus at the AGM. If such a decision were to be made however, then be rest assured that we would be keeping ‘the cot and the toys’ (pause) ...… it would be MNZ that were thrown out!

Footnote: ‘Trouble at’ Mill is a Northern English expression made famous by the television comedy series Monty Python's Flying Circus. Basically it means that there is a bit of a crisis. Alan H.