Rule 42 counties faced with an ‘impossible task’
On one side are the 10 counties who await a decision on the correctness or otherwise of the motions on Rule 42 which they were permitted to put in order after an initial examination revealed flaws.
The men charged with the responsibility of ensuring that these and all other motions are in order for Congress are the 10 ex-presidents, the current holder of the office, Sean Kelly, and Director General Liam Mulvihill.
While it was confirmed that the meeting will take place this evening, no information on the outcome of their deliberations will be made public until after counties have been informed tomorrow.
Ex-Munster chairman Noel Walsh, an advocate of change, admitted yesterday that there was no guarantee there will be a debate at Congress.
As far as he is concerned, there is 'every possibility' of another PR disaster, similar to what happened last year after motions on the use of Croke Park were ruled out.
A decision subsequently taken at a Special Congress in November cleared the way for counties to be given the opportunity to re-submit motions to a second meeting if they were found to be flawed.
Mr Walsh said he and the other prime movers behind similar motions had been in regular contact in a bid to ensure that they met the strict criteria demanded (under rule) by the Committee. While the motions had been amended 'as per the recommendations sent out', he is seriously concerned about the outcome.
"There is every possibility the re-submitted motions can be incorrect, because the recommendations we received were ambiguous. I understood from the Special Congress decision that, if motions were incorrect it would only be a matter of form to re-submit them,'' he said.
Elaborating, he highlighted the importance of not only referring to motions that would be affected by a change of policy, but quoting the actual amendments in this case, Rules 3.4.5, 43, 44 and 72.
He said he found it difficult to reconcile what happened in 2002 and 2003 when motions from Roscommon and Clare were cleared for debate when they did not quote the rules 'which were very relevant now'. In the case of the Clare motion which he submitted it was voted on even though then President, Sean McCague had cleared it was out of order. One ex-President felt it might have been a mistake to allow a vote except that 'people had been clamouring for a debate'.
The ex-Presidents have not been together since the first meeting (not attended by all ten) and won't view the re-submitted motions until tonight. Another one I spoke with said he would welcome a debate at Congress on Rule 42.
They are annoyed at suggestions that their personal views on the Croke Park issue might influence their decisions on the vetting of motions. "It was said last year that we did not want the matter to go on the Clár, that we 'obstructed it'. "We are concerned with what the rule book says and our power under the rule book,'' he said.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
