Sometimes faster doesn’t mean better. There have been special congresses after which top-table surprise has been expressed at the lack of debate on a specific issue. The fastest special congress ever! It’s comparable to the fastest root canal – the time it takes not being the greatest of preoccupations.
Last Saturday, however, the speed of deliberation didn’t cause that much soul searching. As GAA president Larry McCarthy observed, there were only 11 motions on the clár and one of them fell without discussion and most were nodded through.
If this makes the weekend proceedings appear almost disposable, it’s a false impression. This was a significant hour’s work for two specific reasons.
The most obvious was the importance of the gender balance proposal, motion nine. Under acknowledged pressure from Government – and despite all the hackles that was guaranteed to raise – it had to be passed and for reputational reasons, had to be passed well.
‘I’ll be back all right’: John Conlon has no plans to hang up boots as he commits to Clare for 17th season
GAA previews: Loughmore throw down gauntlet to fancied Ballygunner
Dual in Tipp’s crown: Love of both codes makes Loughmore double trouble
Cork take eight camogie All Stars as Laura Hayes wins player of the year
Hitting nearly 80 per cent of the vote for the changes suggested a fairly comfortable outcome for all concerned but there had been genuine apprehension during the week that the introduction of greater gender balance to the GAA’s governing management committee might prove a tricky sell. Any slippage in the outcome would have been embarrassing.
Given the importance of the motion going through, director general Tom Ryan took the unusual step of proposing it himself. Until his predecessor Páraic Duffy’s time, the role of DG was seen as largely incompatible with advocacy positions in congress debates.
Ryan has his critics for not being sufficiently public on issues of importance but his imperturbable style makes him a safe pair of hands, as he showed at July’s Oireachtas hearings on the future of sports broadcasting.
Again on Saturday he brought the motion home with a very effective proposing address – admittedly backed by some positive contributions from the floor. The problem, as outlined in one of those by Galway chair Paul Bellew was that those opposing wouldn’t state their case so any strategy to reassure dissenters was necessarily elusive.
Ryan simply took the most obvious points of contention head on: explaining why the integration talks with the women’s associations were not connected to how the GAA should order its affairs and why Government pressure was not a reason to risk losing funds but an opportunity to do the right thing without any further delay.
One official had been taken aback at the poor level of understanding among some delegates, who believed that the minimum 40 per cent female requirement for the national management committee would apply to all county boards.
Again, Ryan repeatedly emphasised that this wasn’t the case while at the same time expressing the view that ultimately such matters would be settled “organically”, as more women filled administrative roles within the association.
There is a sensible view that county boards will be the hardest units to crack in that clubs are community-based and already deploy women in 30 per cent of their administrative tasks whereas national level can be addressed by rule as on Saturday, but the counties are in between and will need encouragement.
On the looming matter of integration, the talks chaired by Mary McAleese are expected to produce a report in the new year. Building on that with regulatory union will be when it becomes challenging on issues from finance to intercounty teams to simple facilities for all players.
It is likely that some sort of advisory structure will also be necessary to advise and mediate if required.
Tucked away just after the gender balance proposal was one of those apparent housekeeping motions from the Rules Advisory Committee – except its implications went farther than usual.
Motion 10 concerned nothing less than the reshaping of the Official Guide, the GAA’s rule book. Now, why would that be of the remotest significance to anyone who didn’t have compulsive red-tape issues?
Because it is part of a streamlining process to take certain matters out of the hands of congress and assign them to Central Council and the management committee. This means that at least a number of rules – or “codes”, as they are now designated – won’t require the palaver of congress debate and the uncertainties that go with it.
Those who sit on Central Council are up close and personally acquainted with the association’s governance in a way congress delegates are not and that makes for better informed decisions.
Of course it’s not as representative. Congress delegations reflect the size of the county whereas Central Council is one delegate per county or body entitled to be there. One well placed official said that it also requires persuading about 50 people and if that’s a fraction of nearly 300 delegates, it’s still a room that has to be talked around.
This new departure is restricted to certain areas – the old Part 1 and Part 2 distinctions between broad policy or administration and the playing rules are maintained – that include off-field behaviour, sponsorship, administrative protocols, championship eligibility, aspects of intercounty regulation and procedural issues in the enforcement of rule et cetera.
There was also a simple rule of thumb in the discussion of these matters: in the case of disagreement, the more conservative argument prevailed so that misgivings might be allayed and horses not frightened.
It is though only the start of the move to tidy up GAA rules and governance, which McCarthy declared a personal priority on taking office. Anxious that it not escape attention, he included it in his opening remarks at the post-congress media conference.
“We’re also very happy with the rule book motion. I asked when I came in that we simplify the rule book so this is the start of that process.”
It should eventually make for more nimble and efficient decision-making – something that congresses can’t by their nature provide.
