GAA democracy shooting itself in the foot
Congress retains disproportionate power that is not always designed for best results
YOU know we live in strange times when Government-led hysteria over an imminent cold spell leads to panicbuying of bread and milk days before the skies even darken and when weather forecasters vie to become ‘the face of the crisis’.
Perhaps I’m a touch cynical over the increasing trend in recent years towards over-dramatising weather events but, given the week that’s in it, I have an excuse.
Attending GAA Congresses lowers your tolerance close to drought level, so after sitting through a long day in Croke Park last Saturday, I’m finding it hard to listen to Government ministers and various ‘experts’ dispensing advice on having a candle handy in case the lights go out.
The ‘will to live threshold’ was challenged several times last Saturday as Congress waded its way through a whole raft of motions dealing with amendments to administrative rules.
Most were so highly technical that it would be easier to understand obscure sub-sections of the Chinese Constitution. The GAA rule book has always been like that so it was encouraging to hear new president John Horan promising a review.
“A functioning and user-friendly rule book would improve the performance of Congress,” he said.
Indeed. So too would some other changes, such as slashing delegate numbers.
He will hand the rulebook review over to the Rules Advisory Committee, which last Saturday sponsored 15 motions designed to tidy up technical loopholes.
All 15 were passed on an average majority of 93-7 per cent, but only after a few hours of excruciatingly turgid debate. It provided plenty of time to reflect on how the GAA is absurdly over-democratic in some respects, yet not in others.
VOTING
If, as the voting showed, the case for change was so overwhelming, surely all the motions could have been packaged into one and voted on after a short presentation?
Later on, Wexford proposed that transparency apply to Congress votes so that they could be traced back to individuals.
That used to be the case under the traditional ‘show of hands’, before being replaced some years ago by an electronic system which computes votes into ‘for’ and ‘against’, showing the result on large screens.
The Club Players’ Association (CPA) have been agitating for an electronic system which includes traceability and got the motion on the Congress agenda after it was passed at the Wexford Convention.
Liam Griffin proposed it with trademark eloquence and he was supported by GPA chairman Seamus Hickey. Of course, we all knew that despite its merits, it hadn’t a hope of being passed.
Delegates took umbrage over the CPA questioning whether they were voting as mandated by their counties. Nor did delegates want it known publicly how they voted.
Why so? Aren’t GAA members in each county entitled to that information? The Wexford motion lost on an 83-17pc vote.
Translated into delegates, that’s 231-47. Do all 231 delegates who voted ‘no’ really believe that secrecy is sacrosanct or was it a case of giving the CPA a slap?
If the Rules Advisory Committee had proposed the motion, it would almost certainly have won as easily as the earlier technical proposals.
There’s also the question of why it’s deemed necessary to have almost 280 delegates at Congress.
Only around 50 of them made any contribution whatsoever, other than pressing Button 1 or 2 on their handset, while secure in the knowledge that no one would know how they voted.
Democracy is not best served by having 280 delegates – it used to
be more than 300 up a few years ago – at Congress. Most of them contribute nothing to the debate anyway so what are they doing there?
A much smaller, more focused Congress has many advantages but it won’t happen. Why? Because a three-fifths majority is required to change the rule governing Congress, a target that won’t be achieved since the annual get-together seems to hold a great appeal.
On an another governance issue, the Leinster Council proposed that club and county chairpersons or secretaries be the automatic representatives on county boards/ provincial councils/Central Council. Leinster argued that it would improve decision-making processes and communications.
Since the two top officials in any unit are most closely involved in key administration, Leinster’s case was perfectly logical, but after some emotive contributions from opponents, their motion was voted down on an 81-19pc majority.
Democracy had won again, even if wasn’t backed up with logic, no more than with the voting transparency proposal. As for the motion where counting the number of players in a melee was an issue, surely there’s a better way to deal with rules.
Citing democracy as a GAA cornerstone is fine in theory, but is it working?
Are the GAA over-democratic in some areas and under-democratic in others? A search for the right balance can’t be delayed any longer.