GAA must clear the air before Saturday’s election

Sports Commentary by Michael Bascombe

Before the Grenada Athletic Association casts a single vote at its elective general meeting on Saturday, August 22, it needs to clear up the questions now hanging over the process.

The association recently circulated a list of affiliates deemed eligible to participate in the election. That list should have brought clarity. Instead, it has created more confusion.

Several clubs and schools that competed in GAA-sanctioned events this year are not listed among the eligible affiliates. Those events included the National Relay Meet, National Championships and Whitsuntide Games.

Among the missing clubs are Top Flight Athletics of St John, Momentum Track and Field of St Mark and Altitude Track Club of St Andrew. These are not unfamiliar names. They have athletes competing regularly and have been part of the local athletics season.

Let us be fair: paying an entry fee to compete in an event may not be the same as paying an annual affiliation fee. Participation in a sanctioned meet may not automatically carry voting rights. Schools may also be allowed to enter competitions without holding the same membership status as athletics clubs.

But that distinction is precisely what the GAA must explain.

If these organisations were permitted to register athletes, pay event fees and compete under their club or school names, were they told that they were not financial affiliates? Were they given notice of the outstanding affiliation requirements? Was there a deadline by which fees had to be paid for them to participate in the electoral process?

Or were they accepted throughout the season to encourage maximum participation, only to discover shortly before the election that they could not vote?

We understand that both Altitude Track Club and Top Flight Athletics are questioning their omission from the list of financial affiliates. Representatives of both clubs have confirmed that their affiliation fees were paid at the start of the year.

Those payments should be easy for the GAA to verify against its receipts and financial records. If the clubs are financial, the list should be corrected before Saturday. If there is another reason for their exclusion, the association should explain it clearly.

There are also no clubs or schools from Carriacou and Petite Martinique listed among the affiliates eligible to participate in the election. For an organisation responsible for athletics throughout the State of Grenada, that absence should be concerning.

It may point to a wider problem with the structure of athletics in the sister isles rather than anything connected directly to the election. Either way, it deserves attention. A national association should be able to demonstrate that it is creating opportunities for organised clubs and schools across Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique.

The uncertainty surrounding the date of the meeting has not helped.

The election was constitutionally due in January at the end of the executive’s four-year term. It was postponed to maintain administrative continuity ahead of Grenada’s hosting of the CARIFTA Games in April.

That explanation was understandable. However, several people with whom I have spoken said they were informed that the elective meeting had been rescheduled for September. It is now being held on August 22.

Who decided to change the date? When was that decision taken? When and how were affiliates officially notified? Did the notice satisfy the requirements of the GAA’s constitution? Were clubs given enough time to settle outstanding fees, nominate candidates and prepare for the meeting?

The timing has attracted further attention because Kerlon Peters, who has confirmed his interest in contesting the presidency, was abroad representing Grenada at a World Anti-Doping Agency regional symposium when the new date became known.

That circumstance alone is not evidence that the meeting was scheduled to disadvantage anyone. It would be irresponsible to present it as such. However, elections must not only be properly conducted; the process must also give every candidate and affiliate confidence that the rules were applied fairly.

Poor communication creates suspicion, even when there may be an innocent explanation.

I have argued in earlier commentaries that our national sporting associations cannot become stronger without properly organised affiliates. Clubs cannot exist only in name or appear only when there is a competition.

A functioning club should have recognised officers, a membership structure, proper records, coaches, athletes and a development programme. It should hold meetings, account for its finances and meet the affiliation requirements of its national governing body.

Some clubs and schools may need to do better in those areas.

But responsibility travels in both directions. The national association should maintain an updated register of affiliates, communicate annual fees and deadlines, provide reasonable notice of meetings and help developing clubs meet the required standards.

Governance cannot suddenly become important during election week.

The GAA can settle much of this uncertainty before Saturday by publishing the formal notice of the meeting, the relevant constitutional provisions, the deadline for becoming financial and the basis on which each affiliate’s eligibility was determined.

It should also explain why the meeting moved from the widely understood September date to August 22 and provide an opportunity for any omitted affiliate to seek a review of its status.

If the exclusions are legitimate, the association should have no difficulty showing that the same rules were communicated and applied to everyone. If mistakes were made, there is still time to correct them.

Transparency is not a favour to any candidate or club. It protects the association, the electoral process and whoever is eventually elected.

The next GAA executive should take office with a clear mandate, not under a cloud of unanswered questions that could have been settled before the first vote was cast.