January rugby AGM: true or false

Just to hear the good doctor even say it sounds sweet music to the ear: the SLRFU’s AGM is to be held in January. The sweetness of that message from Dr. Maiya Gunasekera, chief of Rugby Interim Committee: the game’s management returns to elected officials – after nearly a year of interim committee rule.

A more controversy-riddled season than that presided over by the IC in 2009 is difficult to find in the chronicles of Sri Lanka rugby. The government-appointed committee crossed swords with just about all of the game’s auxiliary bodies, from provincial unions, selectors, referees, coaches down to even the players. And, of course, there’s also the ongoing dispute with the IRB. So, to hear Dr. Gunasekera’s promise of change ought to have evoked cries of hallelujah – but past experience cautions optimism to not tumble overboard: The promise of an AGM, after all, is as old as the IC, and its periodical public pledging, critics allege, is an excuse to spend more time in the seats of power.

A quick recall of the previous times the same promise was made is not without relevance. When Sport Minister Gamini Lokuge appointed a two-man IC (the first since rugby was played here a century ago) last February, he was at pains to explain that it was for the specific purpose of calling for an AGM in March – a job the then incumbent committee was incapable of performing after the abrupt resignation of President DIG Nimal Lewke and his Secretary SSP Duke Hamid, curiously at the time when their term was nearing an end. CEO Dilroy Fernando had quit the month before –which meant the DIG Lewke committee had no official vested with constitutional authority to summon the 2009 AGM.

Broken promises

Given that SLRFU members should officially be noticed a fortnight prior to the AGM, Minister Lokuge pledge in February for an AGM in March seemed credible – right? Not by a long shot. That was broken promise (henceforth to be referred to as BP) no.1. Then, when two IRB officials came a-calling to make clear to the Sport Minister that the world body doesn’t recognize appointed administrators and was so freezing payment of its Rs.14m. annual development grant to Sri Lanka, the Minister quickly vowed an elected committee in May. Sorry, never did happen; BP – 2.

The unfulfilled promise was again renewed last month by the Minister – on a curious piece of logic: Asanga Seneviratne and DIG Leslie Hewage, the Minister said, are being added to the IC so that the AGM can be held “soon as possible’’ – which prompts the question, why can’t Dr. Gunasekera and Kiran Atapattu do the same?  What makes the new twosome more powerful than the old twosome? The Minister, of course, won’t agree with the popularly-believed theory that the inclusion of Messrs Seneviratne and Hewage were the requests of the leader of the land and no way could the Minister have rejected the new twosome. So on the apparent pretext of holding the much-postponed 2009 AGM, the two new appointments were announced.

But could this lead to BP – 3?

There is hopeful evidence that it might not, and the promise, this time round, might really actualise. For one thing, the pledge is made by Dr. Gunasekera, who, as head of the IC, one assumes, ought to be its chief defender. But here he is calling for its disbanding. To be fair it has to be said that the good doc never pretended the IC job was for as long as he likes. But as to the specific life span of the IC, he was chary to commit to a date – other than saying that he won’t stay a day longer than required, which is until his much-touted new constitution is readied.

A draft of the new constitution was completed some three months ago and has since been with the Attorney General’s office for scrutiny. According to Dr. Gunasekera, the AG’s study of the new constitution has been why an appointed date could not have been given for the AGM. This time, of course, he’s come out unambiguously: it will be in January. One can only assume that the AG’s clearance has been obtained for a January AGM – which is a hopeful sign that an elected committee will be in place come January.

Another hopeful sign is that Seneviratne is to represent Sri Lanka at this month’s IRB Congress in Dublin – and not the Union chief, as is the custom. The grapevine for long had it that the IC’s lifespan was prolonged so that its head might attend the IRB Congress.  Dr. Gunasekera, however, says that he made way for Seneviratne to attend the IRB Congress so as to establish honesty of the IC’s intention to transfer administration to an elected committee in January – and be eligible for IRB’s annual development grant. Whether the IRB buys that is a toss of a coin, but at least Seneviratne’s presence at the Congress suggests he might well be the one who will call the shots in the run up to the promised January AGM.

It has to be remembered that Seneviratne was vice president in DIG Lewke’s two-year regime and so is the logical president of the next elected committee. It is thus a safe assumption that he will press for elections in January rather than tarry along with the present IC and its blundering ways.

New constitution

The more immediate issue, however, is the new constitution. For the many months spent on redrafting it, one hopes, it doesn’t turn out be a case of the remedy being worse than the malady. To be fair though, it has to be said, the case for a new constitution is not groundless. The grouse about the present constitution has been its “unequal’’ distribution of votes among the provincial unions. It shouldn’t be forgotten however, the present constitution was designed to serve the noble and necessary cause of expanding rugby from being Colombo-centered to country wide anyway– so that reposing power to provincial unions was inevitable.

Of course, just how many votes each provincial union was to be allotted depended on how many active clubs it had on its member-list. Bar Western Province, where the established Colombo clubs reside, the other provincial unions would have to start from scratch to build their list of clubs. You wouldn’t expect those provincial unions to muster overnight clubs worthy of A division, and so it was agreed and accepted that clubs competing in any Union-recognised tournament are entitled to a vote each. The way to start was to nurture B division clubs

No one quite had any quarrel about allotting A and B division clubs the same number of votes. Drafters of the present constitution, in the early 90s, were hopeful the other provincial unions’ B division clubs, with time, would develop into A division clubs, as worthy and as many as those found in the WPRFU, which last season fielded seven of the eight teams in the A division tournament. The eighth team was of course CPRFU’s Kandy SC, the champions.

That after nearly 15 years the present constitution became operative, five provincial unions, commanding 34 of the 54 votes, haven’t produced one A division team, is jarring to say the least. So it’s hardly surprising that the legitimacy of their voting strength is now being questioned. At last count, the Western Province RFU had 10 votes; Southern 12; Central 10; Uva 8; Sabaragamuwa 6; North Central 4 and Wayamba 4.

Constitution yet to be circulated

Dr. Gunasekera’s proposed new constitution has yet to be circulated among members. But it’s common knowledge that it aims to redress the balance of power by allotting more votes to A division clubs. The WPRFU can’t be unhappy about an increase of votes to its member-clubs. The other provincial unions, however, won’t take too kindly to a diminishment of the powers they enjoy. Their argument: they might not field A division clubs, but they’ve contributed players generously to Colombo’s A division clubs. As well, CPRFU can rightly claim they’ve contributed the most to the country’s team through the majority presence of Kandy SC players in the national side.
Supporters of Dr. Gunasekera’s constitution will, however, ask: how much longer than nearly 15 years do you give provincial unions to produce at least one club worthy of A division participation – and might cite the sorry state of the A division tournament as being a consequence of the voting might of the minions. Opponents, though, will claim the new constitution will be the death of provincial rugby. As well, they’ll point out that any change to the constitution is the sole business of elected representatives of clubs/provincial unions and not those appointed by who ever, as is the written law of the IRB. The argument is endless.

Anyway, presuming that the proposed constitution might serve rugby better than the present one, its acceptance isn’t going to be a surefire thing. On clearance from the AG, the new constitution faces its severest test: a Special General Meeting at which the membership will decide whether to adopt it or not. Already allegations that amendments agreed upon between the IC and provincial unions for incorporation in the new constitution have been altered or deleted. The veracity of these allegations, however, can’t be checked because, as said before, the draft of the new constitution has not been circulated, which needless to say has aroused the suspicion of the provincial unions.

Well and good, if the amendments agreed between the two parties are included, un-tampered. If not, you can bet a majority of the provincial unions will boot out the new constitution – which is to say, there’ll be no AGM in January, the interim committee stays put – and BP no 3 would’ve been chalked.