IntroductionIn December 2008 Gordon Rigg, a longstanding and distinguished member of the BHPA and Champion Hang Glider pilot contacted the BHPA Chairman regarding a complaint about the selection of the GB team for the World Championships in Laragne in 2009 by the Hang Gliding Competitions Panel (the Panel). Gordon was asked to put his complaint in writing and the Chairman convened a Sub-Panel (the Sub-Panel) of the Executive Council of the BHPA (Exec) to examine the matter. This comprised of Board Directors Martin Heywood, Steve Walsh and Brett Janaway. The Sub-Panel will require ratification by Exec of any findings or decisions made. Gordon’s ComplaintThe following matters have been taken from Gordon’s email of 20 December 2008 (see appendix), and paraphrased:- 1. That the Panel’s own rules were not followed, namely 1.1.3 and 5.1.3. RemitExec discharges its duties to the membership either directly or via specialist panels. The role of each panel is to apply expertise and experience to the matters at hand, and act by way of delegated authority from Exec. They therefore carry the power of Exec and are answerable to them in return. Any BHPA member who has a complaint about the activities of a panel may ask Exec to look into that concern. It is the task of Exec to see that the panel concerned has acted with responsibility, fairness and within the guidelines or rules laid down by that panel or any other of the Rules, regulation or operating procedures of the BHPA. Where a complaint relates to a decision of a panel, Exec may either:- • Uphold the decision The steps to be taken by Exec will depend on the findings made. The Sub-Panel considered Gordon’s complaints, put these to the Panel via John Aldridge (Competitions Director), and Mike Stephens (the Panel chairman), considered the replies, and examined the associated documentation including the Panel minutes and the National Hang Gliding Championships Rules (the Rules). Selection ProcessThe team selection meeting took place on 15 November 2008. Present were K Rigg, J Aldridge, D Bluett, N Bray, T Birkbeck, B Kavanagh, S Penfold, M Stevens, C Wallbank. Apologies were received from G Phipps and W Greenwood. The relevant part of the minutes reads:- 723. INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONSa. 2009 Worlds,Laragne, 20 Jun - 4 Jul. JA identified the need to select a team of 4 pilots for immediate entry and a further pilot for the place that the UK is expected to pick up in a round of reallocation of spare places. This pilot will not form part of the team i.e. he will not score for the team nor win a medal, unless a place has been offered in the reallocation round to all nations who entered 4 initially. It is unlikely that the reallocation will proceed to a second round. CW and BK left the meeting at that point; CW was selected and returned to assist with the remaining selections and KR left shortly after. Team selection was the most difficult anyone could remember but eventually selected were: Carl Wallbank (Captain), Grant Crossingham, Robin Hamilton and Gary Wirdnam. Bruce Kavanagh was selected as the 5th pilot with Gordon Rigg and Dave Matthews selected as reserves in that order. Nick Pain is appointed team manager with BK acting for him until he returns from Australia. The team budget is set at £6K. e. Team Selection.Having abandoned the automatic selection of pilots in the top 30 of the WPRS this year the panel decided to continue with full discretionary selection. The Rules were formulated years ago and have been regularly updated as the nature of competitions has evolved. The most recent amendment was made in August of 2008 to delete Rule 5.1.1 which made reference to selection on the basis of a pilot’s position in the WRPS ranking system. However, other parts of the Rules may be important to this matter and are set out below, being reproduced from the “Rogallo” website:-
In relation to the specific complaints:-The points raised will be taken in turn and numbered as above. 1. The Sub-Panel found that on any interpretation, the rules as written could not be regarded as anything other than a guideline to the selection process. Only the now deleted rule 5.1.1 could be seen as a strict entry criterion to the National Team. In fact, the Sub-Panel were worried that the imposition of strict criteria could bind the Panel unnecessarily and in some circumstances would prevent them from selecting the best available team.
2. It is not accepted that the decision was premature. The Panel is able to sit and make a decision whenever they feel it is right. The Sub-Panel was informed by the Panel that as there were no more competitions that the majority of the pilots would enter before the Worlds, there was absolutely no reason why they should not select the team at the November meeting. The next panel meeting would have been in May at the first round of the British Open and it was felt that the pilots needed to know before then so they could ask for time off from work. The Sub Panel accepts this as reasonable. 3. The question of selecting the 5th pilot would not have been reasonable to take by the team themselves before the first task. The Sub-Panel accepts the view of the Panel on this point that it would have been too late and put the team under unnecessary pressure at a crucial time. In addition the authority to select clearly lies with the Panel. 4. There has been no evidence to suggest that the two new members of the Panel would have been ill-equipped to deal with the process of selection. It would have resulted, if anything in a greater need by more experienced members of the Panel to set out the arguments in favour or against any particular pilot more clearly. 5. Sub-Panel members may have their own opinions about who should be in any team, but it has not been evident from the review of this process that selection was so ill-conceived that Exec must intervene and overturn the decision or even remit it to the panel. Exec does retain that power, but the Sub-Panel makes no recommendation that this should be exercised here. 6. Team selection involves many different considerations. The Sub-Panel recognises that national team selection particularly is a very difficult matter regardless of the sport in question. Any selector has to use a high degree of judgment, and even after consideration of all the merits of each of the available pilots for selection the final decision is unlikely to receive universal agreement. The Sub-Panel also accepts that the Panel must use all available information to decide upon a team, and take into account the many possible factors to produce the best possible team. The individual ranking of a pilot is important, as is their ability on any particular type of task, along with consideration of whether they will contribute best as individuals or team players. It is the totality of the team effort that the Panel must give maximum effect to. In performing this process, the Panel members must have regard to the positive and negative features of all the possible team members and a balanced decision has to be taken on each. Furthermore, the weighting attached to each of these is important and may indeed involve discussion that covers material the pilots themselves would not benefit from hearing even if successful in selection. These are simply the necessities of team organisation and management. For this reason, the Sub-Panel does not consider that the activities of the Panel, ie their precise deliberations should be published. The Sub-Panel fears that this could fetter the Panel because of a concern that the airing of such discussions may prevent the Panel’s members from speaking in a full and frank way about each competitor’s positives and negatives. This is necessary to make the best possible decision and reduce the possibility of the effect of external pressures. In the view of the Sub-Panel, any potential team member should be able to ask the Panel what the reasons were for failure to make the team, and the Panel may, if they consider it to be in the best interests of the team and the competitor provide the information to that pilot alone. 7. The Sub-Panel did have concern about the possible negative effect upon the strength of the UK Nationals, but considered this to be part and parcel of the difficult decision process involved in managing the team selection and Nationals themselves. ConclusionThe Sub-Panel decided unanimously that the Panel had acted within its delegated powers as an arm of Exec, within the Rules, and that it acted reasonably and fairly in the circumstances. The Sub-Panel found that the minutes of the meeting of the Panel of 15.11.08 were satisfactory, as far as the information provided is concerned and confirms the decision on selection was difficult. The Sub-Panel also notes that at key decision points, those on the Panel who may have had an interest in a decision withdrew at the opportune moment, most notably Kathy Rigg and Carl Wallbank. The Sub-Panel recognises the difficult position those members of the Panel must have been in at the time and applauds their actions. Recommendations
Finally, the Sub-Panel acknowledges that there must be significant concern when a member of Gordon’s standing within the sport and world stage has cause to complain about any BHPA panel’s decision. We take it that this indicates some disagreement about the team. Such disagreements are likely to a varying degree from time to time and do not necessarily indicate dysfunction of the process. We also understand that the outcome of this investigation may not be the one that was hoped for. However, Exec recognises that national team selection is a difficult process and everyone involved will have a difference of opinion over quite a broad range. Exec knows that the performance of a team is the sum of all parts, going way back to the selection process all the way through to the goal line on the final day, and only time will tell whether this formula for 2009 will be a success. However, that is the nature of international team sport, and the Sub-Panel have not found sufficient grounds, in terms of the procedure involved to recommend that Exec interferes with the final selection for the Worlds team. Brett Janaway Directors Ratified by Exec 29/01/09 AppendixHello Martin. Here is a brief summary of the chain of events including my specific objections.
The team selection was presented as complete part way through the November planning meeting. In the past difficult team selections have been delayed and sometimes only the first few places have been announced with a new selection date for the final place(s). This was the case for the last worlds which involved a lot of time and long haul flights to Texas. There would seem to be no need to rush this difficult team selection when the worlds location is so close and convenient to get to. At this point it is not yet certain if the team will be 4 or 5 pilots and it is also likely that the 5th pilot would need to be named on the entry and would not be able to score team points. With this uncertainty I am surprised that the selection was completed quickly, at the earliest possible opportunity, and with even the 5th pilot already named so long before when that could even be left to the team members themselves, or the team leader, just before the first task (as was ancient precedent when this happened before at world championships). After the chairman Kathleen Rigg was excluded from the meeting the panel was at minimum numbers to be quorate. Two panel members were new and taking part in their first panel meeting, and first team selection meeting. These new panel member would not necessarily be aware of the published rules on team selection, or what he panel had previously communicated to pilots about what would be considered in the case of discretionary team places. I was shocked and surprised at the selection of Robin Hamilton, and of Bruce Kavanagh ahead of other candidates and shortly after the meeting I sent this mail to the panel asking how this decision had been made – note that I have now inserted my own results for your reference. In the interests of everyone who ever might aspire to represent Great Britain at Hang gliding,
For your reference I provide the following results which are easily accessible on the internet, mine are not listed as I want this to be about Dave not me because I can be objective about Dave's situation but not my own. The pre worlds Laragne 2008 - this is where the worlds will be:
The UK nationals 08 this was where the worlds will be:
The nationals 07 St Andre, very close to where the worlds will be.
UK nationals St. Andre 2006 now included for completeness
The world championship 07 Texas (a flat place, nowhere near and not like where this worlds will be)
Bruce Kavanagh did not succeed in scoring a single point toward the team total, he finished 26 places behind Dave Matthews. Pilots up for selection at the Texas worlds were consulted about the consideration of Robin Hamilton for that team, because of the exceptional circumstances that he had excellent flat land competition experience at the worlds site. He has no recent mountain competition results of any note. We have only the pre-worlds result to go on and that is clearly not sufficient to be considered exceptional circumstances. So what exceptional reasons allow someone who has not entered a UK competition for many, many years to take the place of others who have outperformed him, considerably, at the site of this world championship AND given UK competitions their regular support? I refer to this part of the rule book. Aims Of The National Hang Gliding Championships
How does the stated aim 1.1.3 permit as much as half of the UK World Championship team to be pilots who have not competed in the last 4 UK national championships? Dave is aware of this message. I am concerned that he may abandon UK competitions, but I do not want this to blot his record with the comps panel for future selections should he decide to return to competition at some point in the future. As far as my own copy book is concerned, I am already far beyond the blotting stage. I have placed a short message on the mailing list so the existance of this message is a matter of public record. I have a forlorn hope that I might get a sensible response. This mail received no acknowledgement or response from the panel. I established through panel member Graham Phipps that it had not been distributed to the competitions panel and sent it again to him so that it could be distributed. Only after I had contacted BHPA exec did the chairman contact me (he was clearly aware I had taken things further). As far as I am concerned it seemed to me that after a fairly lengthy discussion, cut short due to a social engagement, that I had raised many issues to which the chairman had no answer. Although there was a promise to continue the discussion I have received no response from to an email asking what to do next. How the selection is not in line with the panels published rules
Robin Hamilton has taken no part in UK nationals for 10 years and many UK nationals competitors might not even recognize him, but his recent performance is inferior to several who are not selected and he lacks relevant mountain flying experience. Selection of pilots for UK teams who have not regularly attended the UK nationals has been extremely rare and may well only apply to Ribon Hamilton and Carl Wallbank. Generally they have only been pilots who were in some way an obvious and valuable choice as Robin was for the Texas which is where he lives, and UK nationals absenters have never been involved in the closely contested final team places (as would befit the application of rule 5.1.3!). Attendance at the nationals by the best UK pilots is essential for the transfer of skill to up and coming pilots for the future of UK hang gliding. I benefited because the likes of Whittal, Pendry, etc were compelled to attend the nationals when they could have been seeking prize money elsewhere. I feel I owe it to the UK pilots to attend and would not consider myself worthy of team selection without supporting the UK nationals. The last three UK nationals have been held at or close to the site of the 2009 worlds so the UK nationals were surely more important than ever – though it seems to have been almost disregarded as winning two of them and placing second in the other isn't enough to make the team, and 2 of the 4 “scoring” team pilots have not attended the UK nationals for the last 5 years. The panel have pointed out how very close and difficult this team selection was, but it is most unfortunate that they have selected a team which so severely undermines the importance of the UK nationals, and has caused so much unrest and demotivation among the pilots the panel should be encouraging to improve. - Original Message - Gordon Thank you for you recent communication about comps selection. We have decided that a panel should be formed from exec members to look into this matter. Normally, the first port of call in such cases would be John Aldridge himself on the case, but as he is involved we have decided to look at the case at Exec level at the outset. In order for us to start moving this forward, I wonder if you could therefore kindly let me have the specific queries and details of the matters that you would like us to look into. Regards Martin Heywood British Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association Limited. |
|
Exec Enquiry Review 2009
