JANZ executive director Russell Sinclair has conceded he made an error when he used the word "vote"
JANZ executive director admits error
By Coleby Nicholson
The confusion over who said what and when continues to disrupt the Kiwis and now there seems to be little hope for a unified New Zealand jewellery industry given that there is not even an agreement about what happened at a JANZ meeting.
After the JANZ Advisory Committee met last week and voted against the idea of a unified New Zealand peak industry jewellery body, JANZ executive director Russell Sinclair has admitted that he made an error.
JANZ chairman Mark Becket who is a member of the Advisory Committee refuted Sinclair’s claims that a formal vote took place. “No vote was conducted. If it was, it would have been minuted,” Becket said.
At the time another committee member confirmed Becket’s statement that no vote was conducted and Jeweller subsequently learned that Sinclair has denied saying that voting took place.
In an attempt to explain why other members of the Advisory Committee rejected a number of his comments, Sinclair has now explained in an email to Jeweller, “I don’t recall using the word 'vote' during our conversation [with Jeweller] but if I did it was an error.”
When questioned last week about how JANZ had come to the decision that there was no need for a unified peak industry jewellery body, Sinclair said it was a collective decision. “That’s the view of the JANZ Advisory Committee which consists of six people,” he explained last week. The six include Sinclair himself and five key people in the Kiwi jewellery industry.
At the time, Sinclair was unequivocal in his claim that a formal voting procedure took place because he added, “Of the six people, there was one dissenting vote but he [the dissenter] did not make a statement on it. He is probably not as enthusiastic about it [terminating discussions for a formal industry council] than the rest.”
When interviewed last week, Sinclair discussed a ‘vote’ twice and although he has now said he was mistaken and confirmed that there was no vote on the matter, a number of people are still disputing his claims about other events at the meeting.
If correct, Sinclair’s claim of a “majority decision” is also wrong.
Jeweller learned that Becket is the person Sinclair says ‘dissented’ and has also discovered that two other people on the Advisory Committee dispute Sinclair’s claim that only one person dissented. If correct, it means at least three of the five jewellery industry people on the JANZ committee dissented and want JANZ to continue formal negotiations for the unification of the New Zealand jewellery industry.
One committee member has gone further in disputing Sinclair’s version of events. He said he was astonished because the call to end discussion about a jewellery industry council was not on the agenda and was “dropped on” the committee at the last minute.
The committee member said, “All of a sudden, towards the end of the meeting, we were presented with this paper. We had about 30 seconds to read it and I got a shock at what I’d briefly read. Then there was no further discussion on it. I couldn’t believe it. For what we’d gone through with the forum, to get together all the factions of the industry and then to read that it wasn’t going to happen, I was gobsmacked.”
He said the committee was presented with a range of documents to review including an email Jeweller obtained last week that was sent to Jewellers & Watchmakers New Zealand (JWNZ) president Steve Crout.
In it, Sinclair stated, “There is no need for a formal jewellery industry council” and “There is no obvious advantage to JANZ/NZRA, or our JANZ members, in encouraging or supporting the development of a new incorporated jewellery body”.
After last week’s furore – but prior to Sinclair’s astonishing back-down about a ‘vote’ – JANZ and JWNZ issued a joint statement declaring, “Since the inaugural meeting of the various jewellery industry associations in New Zealand, a harmonious and co-operative relationship has resulted between JANZ and JWNZ being the two major representative bodies within the NZ Jewellery Industry.”
The statement goes on to confirm that the New Zealand jewellery industry will not be unified under one organisation because, “Each organisation will continue to retain their current structure”.
But it’s now become clear that that’s not what at least three of the JANZ Advisory Committee wanted.
Sinclair continues to claim that it was a majority decision but another of the six members of the Advisory Committee was left shocked and still refutes Sinclair’s claims. “They [Russell Sinclair and Steve Crout] think they run the jewellery trade in New Zealand and they don’t,” he said.
Ironically, the joint statement added, “Discussion and goodwill will continue with the objective being to have an industry representative body that initially will be unincorporated. This will give the opportunity for the industry to speak with one voice when issues arise that may be an impediment to our respective members.”
A number of key people in the Kiwi jewellery industry were unaware that a decision had already been made by Sincliar and Crout to end negotiations, including Selwyn Pearson – the independent chairman appointed from outside the jewellery industry to lead the first meeting, dubbed the Industry Forum, in February.
When contacted by Jeweller last week, Pearson said he was “gobsmacked” by a phone call from Sinclair telling him his services were no longer required, attributing JANZ’s disassociation from the move for a united council to JWNZ’s reluctance to co-operate.
“He called me last week and told me that we [JANZ] are not going to have another meeting. We don’t feel there’s a need because JWNZ don’t want any involvement with anyone else. That flew in the face of what came out of the forum,” Pearson said.
After Sinclair’s claim that JWNZ did not want to cooperate with JANZ, confusion arose from all quarters of the industry because the phone call to Pearson took place before the JANZ’s Advisory Committee met.
Pearson is bitterly disappointed at the outcome and when contacted after last week’s report he said, “I’ve failed because I thought the willingness shown by all parties at the inaugural meeting [Industry Forum] would lead to a united industry in New Zealand. How silly of me!”
More reading:
Fall-out over united NZ jewellery forum causes furore
Kiwi forum hailed a success but...
Kiwi jewellery forum a step closer
Too many cooks in the Kiwi kitchen?
Shaky start for NZ 'truce' talks
JWNZ calls for industry forum
JWNZ rivals support push for one jewellery body
Expertise Events challenges JWNZ
Dangerous ideas for Kiwi jewellers
Posted June 07, 2011