GAELIC GAMES:With GAA president Christy Cooney saying he would like a review of provincial and county conventions as well as congress, change is on the way, writes SEÁN MORAN

IT’S DOUBTFUL if the GAA director general’s wide-ranging annual report contains a more fundamental issue than the one referred to under the heading of “Congress and Central Council”.

These two bodies are the most important decision makers in the organisation and it’s been clear for a while that congress isn’t working. On one level it continues – literally – to go through the motions and project the image of a great democratic gathering at which the humblest club can submit proposals for debate.

The substance is however very different. There are both too many (about 350 delegates) present and frequently too many issues – last year for instance had an agenda of 123 motions; even this year without that sort of overload has 49 – for the notion of genuine deliberation to hold much validity.

Delegates get bored and easily swayed and vote down proposals by a default setting to oppose as much as by conviction. On the reverse side they accept preposterous ideas when not paying attention (like last year’s temperance crusade to drill holes in all trophies capable of holding champagne or stout or whatever).

Yesterday the director general, Páraic Duffy, had the following to say about the gathering that is scheduled to debate his annual report next month.

“One also has to question the value of bringing 350 delegates together for a convention where a relatively small number contribute or have the opportunity to contribute. It is, perhaps, time to review the entire functioning of congress with a view to ensuring that it fulfils its functions effectively, as outlined in the Official Guide.

“One wonders, too, if non-compliance with motions passed at congress is related in any way to the minimal time available for debate. It has to be a matter of grave concern that congress decisions on key issues such as closed months/collective training and the availability of intercounty players to clubs are so widely ignored at county level.”

The first point refers to the matters already covered, the mechanics of congress, which is now run over a far shorter length of time than used to be the case when motions were discussed on Friday evening, during Saturday and then again on Sunday, sometimes right up to tea-time.

Given how excruciating that must have been, it’s not surprising the Sunday sessions were cut back until one year, the then president Peter Quinn drove the clár so hard he was able to announce triumphantly one Saturday evening that there would be no further business the following day – nor indeed as it turned out, on any future Sunday.

The second part of Duffy’s criticism is very interesting, as it casts light on one of the other problems bothering Croke Park: alienation between the GAA’s national administration and the membership at large.

Does the view of head office as a ceaseless source of irritating regulations – a perception that Liam O’Neill, the incoming president-elect acknowledges is out there – derive partly from an incomplete understanding of the rules and more pointedly because there is no sense of ownership of the process by which they are passed at congress?

Many of the functions of annual congress are largely routine: electing presidents and representatives of congress (formerly trustees), considering reports, debating motions and approving Central Council rules’ interpretations. The one function that has suffered over the years is arguably the most interesting: 3.38 (f) To determine association policy in broad outline.

In the thickets of lengthy motions’ lists and reacting to reports congress loses sight of that.

One opportunity to voice opinions on broader aspects of policy is the discussion that follows the director general’s report on the Friday night but there is rarely any genuine engagement.

In fact last year in Newcastle there were so few contributions on the subject of his report that Duffy remarked on the matter. It was explained from the floor that everyone was happy – and agreed – with the report, so there was no need for further talking.

But the lack of response was as much to do with the manner in which congress is conducted – racing from one item on the agenda to the next and often gliding over areas that could do with more discussion so that when something that doesn’t have to be discussed arises delegates are happy not to do so.

Unless motions are controversial and everyone has some sort of a worked-out position on them, they’ll only capture attention if they’re of particular relevance to a county delegation. For the broad mass of other delegates they’ve either a mandate on a motion or they’ll make up their mind on what they hear.

Proposals with the support of the congress heavy hitters or a top-table intervention go through on the nod; others get voted down, particularly if they’re complicated.

The link drawn between this dysfunctional decision making and the disinclination to stand by congress decisions makes sense. In other words, does the perceived lack of ownership of the decision-making process make it easier to disown responsibility for observing rules? It’s also likely that on many occasions counties, regardless of how they voted, haven’t actually bought in to the original decision because they weren’t paying attention or hadn’t thought through the consequences.

There is plenty of evidence beyond the two examples cited by Duffy. When it was decided to trim back the intercounty season by removing the first round of the qualifiers through the mechanism of diverting defeated Division Four counties into the Tommy Murphy Cup, the initiative lasted little over a year as affected counties created uproar – but after the decision had been taken without anything like the same protest.

At least that was all done by the book. The burnout proposals experienced a similar journey from being accepted to the realisation that they cause inconvenience. But in this case the solution for a number of counties has been simply to ignore one of the central ideas, the prohibition on collective training in the months of November and December.

Asked about his reservations on the subject of congress and what might be done to address them, the director general said “it’s easier to pose the question than come up with the answer”.

He did suggest that a smaller number of delegates and a longer congress might permit more serious business to be conducted. Significantly, GAA president Christy Cooney agreed with the need to rethink the matter and added that he would like a review of provincial and county conventions as well as congress.

Change is on the way.