From IC To Bits ‘N Pieces Elections

THERE was once a time when opposing a candidate nominated by the outgoing committee was considered as rude as laughing in church. A venerable custom of colonial times, giving undivided assent to the wishes of the departing committee helped ensure harmonious administration of sport – but was restrictive nonetheless. So unavoidably, holding of elections for office became an acceptable practice in sport.

The trouble, though, is you can’t be sure that every elected official will be aboveboard, and of late, the fact that controversies have overwhelmed sport is because men with iffy intentions have been voted into office – but that is the price “democracy” extracts.

As well, lobbying by aspiring office bearers, unpleasant though it is, became necessary all the same. Lobbying goes against the very grain of sport, causing as it does divisions in the body politic, but then again that is part and parcel of democratic elections. The alternative, after all, is to dictatorially appoint officials to administer sport. Locally, they call it an Interim Committee, a name that doesn’t quite smell of roses.

Differences were forgotten

There was a time, though, when electioneering differences were forgotten and all good men rallied to aid the sport. In other words, the losers and winners bury the hatchet and work for the cause of sport – some sore losers might’ve been disinclined to join hands, but a hindrance to the work of the winners they weren’t.
Not any more, as the sequence of events in the run-up to the March 30 AGM of the SLRFU show. This is not a straight-forward story of winners and losers – rather a tale of many questions, few answers and much suspicion in-between; stuff of cloak ‘n dagger, really.

The story is best told from the beginning. The 2010 AGM of the SLRFU is of immense importance: it marks the return of an elected committee to run the affairs of rugby (after 14 months of rule by a government-appointed interim committee) – a transfer of governance, which if not effected by March 30, would mean the country’s banishment from international rugby by the IRB, the sport’s world body.

So the Western Province RFU, one of seven provincial unions that make-up the SLRFU, met on Thursday (March 18) and duly decided on its list of nominees for SLRFU posts, to be elected at the AGM. Not all the nominees, however, won unanimous approval. And not insignificantly, it was the nomination bids of two interim committee members that were subject to contests. Lasitha Guneratne, IC CEO and known to have powerful political connections, lost the vice presidency race to Arjun Dharmadasa, the chief of Sabaragamuwa RFU and next in line in the last elected committee’s hierarchical list. The other IC member Kiran Atapattu withdrew his bid for the Treasurer’s job. The members, incidentally, decided the voting would be by secret ballot.

Controlling power

It must be remembered that the Western Province RFU commands the highest number of votes and thus holds the controlling power of the Union – which is to say that whatever WPRFU might want, it gets. So, all the WPRFU had to do to get its nominees on the 2010 SLRFU committee was to deliver its nomination list to the Sport Ministry in time, which it didn’t. That is another story which we’ll get to a little later.

Meanwhile, the Central Province RFU, on Sunday (March 21) summons a meeting and notwithstanding the futility of contesting the WPRFU nominations, make up a list of its own nominees, which, The Sunday Leader understands, has Guneratne as vice president and Atapattu as Council member – one a WPRFU reject and the other a withdrawal. The CPRFU’s voting strength is no where near the WPRFU’s, and whether you interpret the CPRFU’s daring as political maneuvering or downright stupidity, it certainly wasn’t acting outside its rights. After all, all provincial unions are equal in the eyes of the constitution – and just as much as the WPRFU can forward its nominees for union office, so can the CPRFU, more so as it boasts the champion club side of countless seasons. The CPRFU, thus, is a voice of some importance in local rugby.

Come Monday (March 22) and the 12 noon deadline for accepting the nominations: Only the CPRFU’s list had been handed in time. The WPRFU delivers its list some 30 minutes late – and is flatly rejected by the Ministry. The WPRFU President, Wimal Senanayake, says he was told by the Sport Ministry Director handling the nominations that it would be alright if the list is handed sometime Monday. Whether the WPRFU President’s explanation is accurate or not, failure to conform to the deadline is an appalling lapse.

Some WPRFU officials claim failure to keep to the deadline was due to the delay of one nominee signing his nomination paper. Whether the delay in signing was by accident or by design is hard to establish, but that won’t discourage critics from spinning a conspiracy theory of their own: the delayed signature was deliberate and part of a plot to hold back WPRFU’s nomination until the noon deadline passed – leading to Ministry rejection.

Intriguingly, a day after the March 18 WPRFU meeting and two days before the March 22 noon-deadline, the CR & FC charged that the constitution does not allow for voting by secret ballot and the nominations decided by that method was thus null and void. Why the objection wasn’t raised at the meeting itself is curious.
Be that as it may, it is obvious that CR’s secret vote had gone to Guneratne – logical, given that Guneratne has long been a CR stalwart. However, it’s intriguing how Guneratne came to represent rival club, the CH and FC, at the WPRFU nominations meeting. But then who should represent the CH is CH’s business and no one else’s, period. However, the signs were clear that the WPRFU nominations were headed to troubled waters even before it hit rejection.

What all this says is that new factions are emerging at a time when unity is imperative, with the country’s IRB-recognition at risk of being annulled. Faced with that dark prospect, the last thing the game wanted was for the CPRFU to be involved in the nominations imbroglio. But they did, summoning an emergency Special General Meeting and choosing a list of its nominees, which as aforementioned, has Guneratne and Atapattu as vice president and treasurer respectively.

Plethora of accusations

Though this is the only set of nominations before the Sport Ministry, its legality is being contested. For one, Kandy SC claim the CPRFU hadn’t informed them of the nominations meeting and thus were denied the right to have their say. And the club, thus, views the decisions taken at the meeting as illegitimate. Secondly, Kandy SC officials claim the CPRFU is as good as defunct as its 2010 AGM scheduled in January was never held, inferring the nominations forwarded to the Ministry aren’t that of the CPRFU – but of pretenders.
In the face of this plethora of accusations, the prospects of holding the March 30 AGM you’d think would be doubtful. Not so, thinks the Sport Ministry Director, Bandula Dahanayake. He told the Daily Mirror rugby writer, Asanka Gammanpila: “We will have the AGM as scheduled and will elect members for the respective posts based on the valid nominations submitted… as for the remaining vacancies nominations would be called afresh.’’

Why Dahanayake speaks about “nominations afresh’’ to fill “vacancies’’ – mind you, after the AGM provokes questioning. He also speaks of the March 30 elections being confined to only the “valid nominations submitted.’’ All this sets the imagination racing. Has the CPRFU sent nominations for only some posts, which is a strange thing to do; or are some of its nominations invalid? Nominations are declared invalid for various reasons, among them: a candidature without the required qualifications/ or unsigned nomination papers (which means the nominee’s consent to seek office is unconfirmed) / or papers with forged signatures of nominees.
If these might be the reasons for invalidating a nomination, then, the forwarding union is penalised, normally in the form of a rejection of all its nominees, as was the penalty the WPRFU paid for what appears to be a bona fide error. It is easy to suspect a case of kissing going by favour.

As things stand, the WPRFU’s nominations have been disqualified while the validity of CPRFU’s list of nominees is under legal scrutiny. Dahanayake insists the AGM will go ahead, come what may, even though enough nominations aren’t in hand to elect all of the office bearers. Chances of the AGM being scrapped can’t be ruled out either.

The whole issue, in my reading, is one of getting the two rejected IC members on the elected committee one way or another– which raises the question if our rugby is moving to a future where only politically-preferred officials will be permitted to stand for election. That is an “elected” interim committee, if you get what I mean.
Some five years ahead, this column’s opening lines would have to read: There was once a time when opposing “elected’’ committees was considered as rude as not bowing before the king…