Governance Structures WPA Webinar 24 October 2019 The current federated system for water polo in Australia The traditional federated model is a ‘bottom up’ driven model with individuals being members of clubs, clubs being members of States and the States being the members of the National organization. This means that change has to be effected by the layer below e.g. Only the Clubs can change things at the State level. National WPA The State organisations are voting members# of WPA States Qld NSW WA Vic Tas SA ACT The clubs/ affiliated members^ are voting members of The State organisation Clubs/ Affiliated members* Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs The participants are voting members of The Clubs/ affiliated members Individuals Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Notes: # Voting members are those who can vote at the AGM. The vote on election of directors, changes to the constitution and decisions regarding the voting Members, plus anything else outlined in the constitution * Many of the States allow other organisations than an incorporated club to be an affiliated member, e.g. schools. The State organization constitution will Define who can be affiliated members ^ In the ACT individual full members are also voting members 2 The proposed system for water polo in Australia The main change was in the voting structure, allowing both the clubs and the States to be voting members at The National level. Therefore allowing clubs to influence what happens Nationally, providing a direct link between Grass roots and the National Level. The voting model would be tiered depending on the number of members. National WPA The State organisations and clubs are voting members# of WPA States Qld NSW WA Vic Tas SA ACT The clubs/ affiliated members^ are voting members of The State organisation Clubs/ Affiliated members* Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs The participants are voting members of The Clubs/ affiliated members Individuals Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Notes: # Voting members are those who can vote at the AGM. The vote on election of directors, changes to the constitution and decisions regarding the voting Members, plus anything else outlined in the constitution * Many of the States allow other organisations than an incorporated club to be an affiliated member, e.g. schools. The State organization constitution will Define who can be affiliated members ^ In the ACT individual full members are also voting members 3 Governance models in Sport There are three main governance models currently in use by Sports in Australia: Federated, One Management and Unitary. These are not the only three models and this is a spectrum. Some sports use a hybrid of one or more of these models. Federated Unitary One Management Management Model NSO SSO SSO SSO SSO SSO SSO SSO Assets Governance All separate legal entities with One legal entity for the whole sport in All separate legal entities. Boards responsibility for their own Australia. Assets all rest in this entity. remain and all entities keep their governance and execution There my be State based divisions/ assets. offices if necessary. Finances flow to and from the National organisation. Management All legal entities responsible for National workforce, all employed by Management comes from National their own management and staff the single legal entity. organisation and all staff are employed by this organisation. Ease to Status Quo Constitutional change. Requires detailed planning. implement Potential relocation of staff Staff employment resolution. Wind up of existing entities and asset Avoids major constitutional changes transfer. through use of service agreement Sports using this Majority of NSO’s Touch Football (Hybrid), Ski & Australian Sailing, Golf Australia model Snowboard Australia (hybrid). On the way: 12 sports identified by SA 4 Benefits of each model Model Benefits Federated • Maintains close management of local interests • Matches the government structure Unitary • Single National brand supporting outcomes focused on the best for the sport. • Single workforce working towards National outcomes, and structured to deliver high quality outcomes. • Reduced replication of administrative infrastructure and therefore reduction in associated costs. • Reduced replication of activities. • Enables sharing and ability to leverage learnings Nationally. • Absolute ability to ensure strategic alignment and achievement of common objectives. • Allows State staff to focus on delivering the sport and increasing participation locally. • Single pathway from participation to high performance, delivered and communicated consistently. • Improved and consistent support of HP athletes. • National brand with consistent National marketing messages. • Ability to attract high-calibre directors and staff. One Management • Reduced replication of activities. • Enables sharing and ability to leverage learnings Nationally. • National workforce structured to deliver consistent high quality outcomes. • Reduction in administrative burden for the State organisations. • Increased ability to ensure strategic alignment and achievement of common objectives. • Allows State staff to focus on delivering the sport and increasing participation. • Single pathway from participation to high performance, delivered and communicated consistently. • Improved and consistent support of HP athletes. • Ability to attract high-calibre directors and staff. 5 Risks of each model Risks of adopting / retaining Risks of not adopting / retaining Federated • The sport does not move forwards, nothing changes. • Cost to change is too high and the sport is no longer • Politics and history drive the organisation, rather than sustainable the needs of the sport • Not in line with SA direction therefore future funding at risk Unitary • Lack of buy in from the States • Change in roles and responsibilities of all staff • Disgruntled staff members leading to low staff morale • Capability and capacity of staff • Loss of local innovation • Sport does not move forwards • Difficult and time consuming to implement • Inability to align strategic objectives • State Boards will no longer exist • Not in line with SA recommendations, therefore • High administrative burden to achieve future funding at risk • Current issues are not addressed • Potential efficiencies not realized, therefore sport is less sustainable • Politics and history drive the organisation, rather One Management • Lack of buy in from the States than the needs of the sport • Change in roles and responsibilities of the State Boards • Confusion in the membership regarding roles and and all staff responsibilities at each level of governance. • Disgruntled staff members leading to low staff morale • Capability and capacity of staff • Loss of local innovation 6 Proposals from the GRC There are three main governance models currently in use by Sports in Australia: Federated, One Management and Unitary. These are not the only three models and this is a spectrum. Some sports use a hybrid of one or more of these models. Hybrid One Management Hybrid Federated Management Model NSO Assets SSO SSO SSO SSO SSO SSO SSO Governance All separate legal entities. Boards remain and all entities All separate legal entities with responsibility for their own keep their assets. governance and execution, but voting members of the Voting members of the National body are the States and National body are the States and the Clubs based on a the Clubs based on a tiered voting system dependent on tiered voting system dependent on the number of the number of members. members. Board composition and 9 Board members: 3 appointed, 5 elected and the Chair of 9 Board members: 3 appointed, 5 elected and the Chair of nominations committee the Athletes Commission. the Athletes Commission. Rotation of 2 elected and 1 appointed director each year. Rotation of 2 elected and 1 appointed director each year. Nominations committee initial 2 years: 1 Directors, 1 Nominations committee: 1 Directors, 1 external expert, 2 - external expert, 2 - 3 people selected by the States 3 State Presidents Nominations committee, 1 director 3 – 4 independents Management Finances flow to and from the National organisation. All legal entities responsible for their own management Management comes from National organisation and all and staff. staff are employed by this organisation. States can ‘opt in’ to operational shared services. Ease to implement Constitutional changes re Board and nominations Constitutional changes re Board and nominations Committee composition. Committee composition. Operations requires detailed planning. Staff employment resolution. Avoids further major constitutional changes through use of 7 service agreement Water Polo in Australia The Case for Governance change WPA Webinar 24 October 2019 Executive Summary The WPA Board believe that change is needed within Water Polo in Australia’s governance structure to ensure the survival and success of the sport in the current modern sporting landscape, this is also as per the results from the community survey. ▪ There are global and local drivers for change that are difficult to address in the current structure ▪ Other sports and NFP’s are going through/ have been through similar processes and have seen benefits. 9 Global trends Customers Competition • Ageing population • More sports, more provider • Increased demands on time more leisure activities and income • Technology supporting