With the Guyana Football Federation (GFF) currently undertaking the process of constitutional reform, Eton Moses, Secretary of Buxton United FC, has declared that the club will not support any third term proposal for the federation or the dismissing of voting rights of delegates, who arrive late to Congress.
This was stated during an exclusive interview with Stabroek Sport. Below features the entire transcript of the interview:
SS: What are the thoughts and overall position of the club on the GFF initiating a constitutional review process?
EM: “BUFC, like all other members of the football family, wants the activities of the GFF to be a success. Hence, the club, upon invitation, attended a consultation with the GFF Constitutional Review Committee. It must be noted that this process was premised on improving accountability and transparency. However, members only knew of the areas in the constitution which were proposed for amendments when the Chairman of the Committee read it to them for the first time during the consultation meeting.”
“Nevertheless, BUFC is prepared to trust the process once rational proposals are presented which would benefit football and not just the GFF Executives. It is true that the process is not yet completed but, based on the content of the amendments posited by the GFF in the name of FIFA and those proposed by the committee during consultation, one can easily conclude that the only winner in this process would be those gunning for power. It is BUFC’s considered view that none of the proposals presented by the committee were tailored to positively impact accountability and transparency in football. A careful analysis of the quality of the amendments proposed, thus far, has revealed utter desperation. Why would a GFF want to legislate the taking away of voting rights for Members in good standing?”
SS: From the club’s perspective, what might have been the motivation for initiating such a process, especially with elections constitutionally slated for 2023?
EM: “Since none of the proposals presented by the committee to amend the GFF constitution directly addressed improving the game or increasing accountability in football, one can easily recognise that the motivating factor is subjective. This position is supported by the trivial nature of most of the 17 proposed amendments. Secondly, the regressive character associated with the proposed amendments to Articles 28 (2), 34 (4), and 24, of the GFF Constitution are appalling at best. The proposals for Articles 28 (2), 34 (4), and 24, if allowed to become a part of the Rules by Congress, will invoke smiles from Robert Mugabe and render as silly, all those who once fought Collin Klass.”
SS: Is the BUFC aware if this process has been conducted or is being conducted in any manner or capacity within the CFU region?
EM: “The country was informed that the GFF Constitution review process was aimed at bringing the GFF Constitution in alignment with FIFA and CONCACAF statutes. However, something seems farcical about that proposition. No evidence was shown to BUFC at the consultations demonstrating that a similar exercise was ongoing anywhere in CFU. Hence, BUFC is forced to ask where in CFU, FIFA and CONCACAF statute, a member in good standing loses his/her voting rights because he/she arrives late for a meeting or a Congress, as is proposed for amending Article 24. Secondly, the issue of third term is located nowhere in CONCACAF 2016 and FIFA 2018 statutes. Thus, what are the 2022 proposed amendments for Articles 28 (2), 34 (4) and 24 of the GFF constitution aligning to? Hence, it is now reasonable to postulate that these proposals were never recommended by CFU, FIFA and CONCACAF, but were proposed by the principals at GFF with the sole aim of consolidating authority.”
SS: Similarly, what is the view of the BUFC on the composition of the committee tasked with undertaking such a critical procedure?
EM: “It is understood that ad-hoc Committees can be formed as the need arises to facilitate special business of the GFF from time to time. The question that arises, however, is whether the specific skills-set of Committee Members can do justice to the review process. While that is not BUFC’s call, it is hoped that whatever deficit exists, perceived or real, those deficits can be adequately addressed by an alert Congress. More importantly, one needs to pay serious attention to the role that will be played by the GFF’s legal advisor, who is the president of an associate organisation for the last twenty-five years.”
SS: Was congress involved in any capacity in the nominating of individuals for the committee to ensure qualified individuals are selected?
EM: “BUFC is unaware of whether Congress played a role in the selection of the members of the Review Committee. Rather, the critical issue is how alert are the Members of Congress on the issues of the constitution? This will be more important going forward, as it is the congress that will have to demonstrate its capacity when dealing with this issue.”
SS: In the club’s estimation, what are some of the most contentious proposals that are reviewed by the committee?
EM: “Based on proposed amendments presented at the consultation, BUFC finds proposal for amending Article 28 (2), Article 34 (4), and Article 24, as most contentious and an erosion of the rights of members of Congress. The amendment proposed at Article 28 (2) seeks to reduce the number of days’ notice (from 6 weeks to 10 days) given before a Congress. The proposed 10 days does not specify whether the days are working days or are inclusive of weekends and holidays. Notices are sent electronically and cost nothing so why reduce the time for members to prepare? Secondly, the proposal to amend Article 24 to prevent Congress delegates in good standing, from voting in a sitting of Congress if they arrive while Congress is in session. This is a 16th century strategy. Imagine this rule is in place at a Congress where the election of Officers is an agenda item.”
“Will Presidents and Secretaries of Associations and Clubs vote to take away their own voting rights because they are late for a GFF Congress?” These are repressive proposals which should have no place in the rules of a 21st century organisation. Thirdly, the proposed amendment to Article 34 (4) addresses allowing third terms to the president and vice president, is self- serving at best. The constitution is framed to all staggered retention of some members of the executive to enable new members to learn from those who were there before. But the rules now seem to be in the way of people with vested interest who are seeking more authority. To this end, it will be difficult to get better results in football if all we do is recycle the same people who created moral dilemmas in the game.
SS: Equally, what are other important issues that can be addressed during this review process?
EM: “It is BUFC’s considered view that none of the proposed amendments presented by the Review Committee will improve football or accountability. Nevertheless, the review process can be used to address issues such as having 25 percent of all football boards (members & affiliates) reserved for women as a means of increasing female participation in the game in a tangible way. The process also presents an opportunity to assist in improving accountability by proposing an amendment for Article 29 to allow ‘Matters Arising’ from the minutes to be on the Agenda of Congress. This will give delegates the opportunity to seek answers to commitments made by the executive from a previous Congress.”
“It is a travesty that, in the 21st century, delegates at a GFF Congress can only vote to confirm minutes but are not allowed to ask questions on its content or seek clarification. It will be a useful undertaking if the technical budget and the youth budget could be guaranteed at a minimal percentage of the GFF annual budget. This should be accompanied by benchmarks for the attainment of targets, all written into the rules. Given the state of the youth academies and the quality of coaches available to the 108 clubs, it is necessary that a different approach to football development be adopted. Resources should now be reassured to the critical sectors in football, via the rules, so that there can be consequence-management within the GFF.”
SS: How is BUFC, and more importantly, Congress going to deal with the possible issues that might arise at the conclusion of the process?
ET: “It is important that all Members of Congress broaden their knowledge on the Constitution or [risk being] outmanoeuvred by those who have a vested interest in consolidating authority. Given that these proposals will be presented to a Special Congress set by the GFF executives, delegates will only be able to debate, propose amendments where necessary and vote. Against the desperation expressed in the content of at least three of the proposed amendments, one can expect these amendments to be grouped to avoid individual interrogation of their specifics.”
“Nevertheless, individual Members can propose amendments from the floor as they deem necessary and those will have to be put to a vote. Correspondingly, Members must expect those with vested interest to weaponise the argument that a vote against amending Articles 28 (2), 34 (4) and 24 would affect the entire package of amendments. The Congress, thus, must be very prudent in its approach. Either it seeks to amend some specific proposals on the floor before a vote on the motion or it denies the group of amendments entailing Article 28 (2), 34 (4) and 24, by ensuring the two-thirds majority is denied.”
“The question each Member/Delegate must ask is whether their Club, Association or Football would be better off with or without amending these three specific Articles. BUFC wishes to put on record that the amendments proposed overall will not improve football or accountability and, thus, it will not support the amendments proposed for Articles 28 (2), 34 (4) and 24 of the GFF Constitution. Equally, the culmination of this process will demonstrate that many of the principals in football were wearing masks long before COVID.”
