Congress to debate GAC split

CONGRESS will this weekend debate a Central Council motion recommending a separation of the fixtures and disciplinary functions of the Games Administration Committee (GAC).

The proposal is to establish a Central GAC and a Central Appeals Committee.

Apart from lessening the workload, the appeals body aims to lessen the practice of people going to the courts to seek redress.

With the four provincial secretaries to be included in the fixtures body (for the first time), all other members would be appointed - as distinct from being elected - either by Central Council or provincial councils.

Paraic Duffy, who chaired the task force which has recommended the new format, highlighted the increasingly heavy workload on the GAC.

The Central Games Administration Committee would deal with all matters relating to fixtures and not be concerned with the appointment of referees or any disciplinary matters arising from games.

“It’s a big change to have the provincial secretaries involved. We felt that it would bring a new cohesion to fixture-making,” he says.

The Central Disciplinary Committee would be responsible for disciplinary matters arising from games under the jurisdiction of the Central Council, as well as inter-county senior championship games.

Appointing members, as opposed to electing them would ensure that the committees had the best possible people available, adds Duffy.

Additionally, Congress will vote on further proposals to establish a central appeals body and an arbitration system based on a ‘disputes resolution’ code. The idea is that in future appeals would only be heard by a Central Appeals Committee, whose decisions would be binding and where there would be no right of appeal to any other body.

Anybody with a grievance in regard to the legality of a decision made, or a challenge to the procedure used by the Appeals Committee, would have access to arbitration.

If the system is adopted by Congress, members will be ‘obliged’ to use the arbitration system. The effect of this would be to discourage, if not end, the practice of people going to the courts to seek redress.

Frank Murphy, chairman of the committee which has put forward the recommendation, points out that arbitration would not be about the control of games or overturning a referee’s decision.

“The decision of the arbitration tribunal would be final and could not be overturned by a court unless it was proved that there was some malpractice or whatever,” he said.

“It would be a binding decision, not subject to judicial review,” he added.