Boothman defends committee

Gaelic Games Rule 42 debateA member of the GAA's Motions Committee has hit back at criticism over their initial rejection of all motions dealing with amendments to Rule 42.

They are due to meet next Tuesday to decide if the re-submitted motions are in order for debate at Congress in April, but it seems most of those motions calling for the opening of Croke Park to other sports were hopelessly worded by the 11 counties involved.

Sitting on the Motions Committee is current president Seán Kelly, director-general Liam Mulvihill and 10 former presidents. Yesterday one of those former presidents, Jack Boothman, explained just how and why the 11 motions submitted to amend Rule 42 were sent back to the relevant counties for correction - the result of a new provision decided at a Special Congress last October.

"There seems to be an impression out there that the new proposal passed at the Special Congress only refers to Rule 42," said Boothman. "In fact it refers to all motions, so we have to scrutinise them all the same way, and send back all motions if they're not in order, with recommendations for correction.

"That significantly increases our workload, because we're dealing with between 80 to 100 motions, some of which are completely stupid. And they all have to be dealt with in the same way. But our time is limited. We have lives to live too.

"So we're not going to do all the homework for people who've had the past year to get their motions in order. All we can do is point out the corrections that are needed, but we're not going to cross every 't' and dot every 'i' for them. That would be physically impossible."

The 11 counties had until 5 p.m. on Wednesday to re-submit their correction versions, and will find out in the next fortnight if any of them will make it to Congress for debate. It is known at least one county - Wicklow - missed that deadline, yet Boothman had little sympathy for the counties which complained about the apparent lack of information passed on by the Motions Committee.

"In some cases we got exactly the same motions as last year," he said, "which were also rejected. So I honestly think some counties have done no homework at all on this. People seem to submit the same motions every year, and not learn from their experience.

"But what surprises me most is how some people are saying it's now so difficult to write proper motions. Well, there have been huge, huge changes to the association over the past 15 or 20 years, and they were all brought about in same fashion. So why should it be so difficult now? Are we getting a lesser type of official? It would be horrifying to think they don't even know the rules."

But it also appears many of the motions failed to address the real issue of opening Croke Park to sports such as soccer and rugby. Rule 42, Boothman says, is only a side issue, not the crucial issue.

"It's actually my opinion that they're focusing on the wrong rule. Everybody is talking about Rule 42, which in fact has nothing to do with it at all. I mean, already enshrined in Rule 42 is the power of Central Council to dispose of GAA property from time to time as they decide, provided the use of it conforms with the policies of the association.

"But those policies are not enshrined in Rule 42, but the first five rules, which we commonly call the charter. So until people actually sit down and change the policy then neither Central Council nor anybody else can do anything about the use of GAA property."

There are obvious complications to any amendment of the basic aims (Rule 2) or the additional aims (Rule 4) of the GAA, but that, according to Boothman, is what counties need to get to grips with.

"I know that is very far-sighted, and means writing down that soccer and rugby is on a par with, say, ladies football and camogie. Maybe they don't have the courage to do that. But no matter what way you look it, renting out property to rival sports is aiding and abetting them. Right now, though, our policy doesn't allow that. And whether it's temporary or not doesn't matter.

"But if people are only concerned with Rule 42 then they're asking Central Council to act in contravention of the rulebook. And they can't do that."

Some of the counties which last week had their motions rejected were left feeling that somehow the Motions Committee were trying to prevent any debate on the opening of Croke Park from making it to Congress, but Boothman wholly rejected that suggestion.

"That's completely erroneous. The role of the Motions Committee is very specific in that, as past presidents, we'd be expected to be entirely au fait with the rulebook. Over the years we have had motions that we wouldn't all agree with personally, but we never judge a motion on its merits - that's up to Congress. We would simply judge its presentation, ensuring that everything was in order so that it could be properly discussed."

While the 12-man committee will this weekend look over all resubmitted motions, Boothman had mixed opinions on the likelihood of any county getting the wording right regarding the opening of Croke Park.

"Well, of course it's possible, provided they know the rules they have to approach to do that. But what some motions have said is rewrite Rule 42, and then amend Rule 5 accordingly. The obvious weakness there is that they're not stating the amendment they want. In other words, they're expecting Congress to vote on something that is not in front of them, and then expecting somebody else to amend Rule 5."