The framer of a motion to next month's GAA Congress has accused association director general Tom Ryan of an "unfair effort to sway democratic debate".
Former Westmeath footballer John Connellan, who has been leading a campaign to revise the amount of funding being allocated to Dublin as part of a review of all games development grants, made the comments in a letter to Ryan, which was released to the media.
The communication also raises an issue with the GAA’s decision to rule out of order the original motion and allow only a few days to rectify it for congress. Connellan points out that he had requested last May a consultation with the Rules Advisory Committee (RAC) for the purpose of ensuring the motion was correctly drafted.
“We find it entirely disingenuous and contrary to the democratic principles which are supposed to underpin the association to cite technical reasons to disallow the motion from debate at congress in light of a request made directly to the Asrd Stiúrthóir eight months ago to prevent this very situation from transpiring.”
This request was however declined, as the role of the RAC was stated to be to advise counties rather than clubs. Supporting documents show, however, that one of the sponsoring counties, Roscommon, did apply to Croke Park for assistance in drafting the motion after it was passed at December’s county convention.
Accusations of unfairness relate to requests for data on funding in order to inform arguments on the motion. According to Connellan, this has not been forthcoming and what was produced had been “subject to completely unacceptable delay”.
He continues: “It was with great surprise that on the eve of county conventions across the country your offices issued correspondence to county board management committees indicating that you are conducting a ‘review’ of games and development funding, which incorporated many of the principles which we have been advocating for over the last 18 months (i.e. self-sustainability of stronger units, business case analysis etc.).
“We were extremely disappointed that this correspondence and details around the proposed review were not shared with our group of GAA volunteers who have been campaigning, advocating and working in this area for almost two years now.
“Undoubtedly, this was a last ditch attempt to by your office to disrupt healthy and meaningful debate and stymie a motion relating to an issue which clearly has resonated with the GAA community across the country.
“You have had my email address, my phone number and my willingness to engage with you for in excess of 18 months. This correspondence issued on the eve of county conventions in an effort to sway democratic debate was uncalled for and entirely unfair.”
The motion, which has the support of a number of county conventions, Westmeath, Roscommon, Galway, Mayo and Tyrone, has until this Thursday to be put in order.
Revised wording
Connellan has repeated his request for consultation with the RAC, asking for a Zoom meeting should there be any further technical issues with the wording.
It is intended to provide a two-pronged remedy for the situation at present: basing development funds on registered membership numbers and allowing counties – especially smaller counties – to submit a ‘business case’ for funding, which would “redress the imbalance that has manifested over the last 15 years”.
The motion was referred to Croke Park by Roscommon secretary Valerie Murray to ascertain whether or not it was in order. This referral took place just after the county convention had approved the forwarding of the proposal to congress.
Although the letter went out on December 15th, two days after the Roscommon convention, a reply wasn’t received for three weeks – allowing that most organisations are extensively closed during the Christmas period – and requested a response within eight days.
The reply said that the RAC had ruled that the motion out of order for incomplete citation of rules and indicated how this could be addressed. It remains to be seen whether the revised wording, which attempts to meet the RAC’s concerns, will be deemed in order.
Connellan also argued in previous correspondence with Tom Ryan that it was the role of the RAC to advise “units sponsoring motion” and not just counties. Rule 3.56 (B) states:
“The Committee shall have authority to: (1) Engage and consult with Units sponsoring Motions for Congress with a view to deciding whether the Motions are in order. The Committee may put a Motion in order where there is a failure to quote the numbers of the Rules affected or where there are minor clerical errors.
“In the case of a Motion submitted by a County not being in order, the County shall be advised in writing of the reason(s) for a Motion being not in order and, subject to a time-limit determined by the Committee, shall be afforded an opportunity to resubmit an appropriately corrected Motion for the consideration of the Committee.”
