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.
