Prospect of little motion on debate looms large

Annual Congress Rule 42The Kafkaesque manoeuvres of the GAA's Motions Committee raise two issues. Firstly, what is to happen to the debate on Rule 42? And, secondly, what is happening to the boast on which rests the association's claims of mass democracy - that any member can shepherd a motion from local convention to Congress without becoming snarled in red tape?

When motions on Rule 42 - in effect, the ban on soccer and rugby being played in Croke Park - from eight counties were knocked on the head last year, GAA president Seán Kelly moved to introduce procedures that would ensure that motions over which reasonable care had been taken could be helped on to the clár even if they were technically deficient.

"That was the clear understanding of the membership after last October's Special Congress," says one senior official about the provision allowing the re-submission of motions found to be out of order.

It's clear the 11 counties who submitted motions on the subject of opening Croke Park didn't do so in a frivolous fashion, and even last year the help of the director general, Liam Mulvihill, was sought in an attempt to ensure acceptance - but to no avail.

Despite these bona fides, the Motions Committee, largely comprised of former presidents, has struck down all 11 proposals and have not assisted in trying to rectify whatever fault they believe to exist.

It should also be stated that motions concerning other topics have been similarly treated. But, to many observers, the point at issue concerns Rule 42. For the second year the Motions Committee has become an obstacle to debate rather than a facilitator, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that this specific rule, rather than bad drafting, is the crux.

For instance, has any other topic been the subject of 19 motions ruled out of order in the space of two years, with no attempt being made to assist in their correct formulation?

Whereas no final decision has been made on the motions' validity, there are valid concerns that this week's meeting of the Motions Committee will again drive all 10 (one has already fallen by the wayside because Wicklow were unable to re-submit by the deadline) off the park.

Seán Kelly is said to be - justifiably - alarmed at the prospects of the Motions Committee once more preventing the issue getting on to the clár. A more likely outcome, however, is that a milder motion, aimed at discussion rather than abolition, will be put forward by the GAA Management Committee.

The thinking of the Motions Committee has remained a secret, apart from statements from former president Jack Boothman both last year and in yesterday's Irish Times.

His argument is that Rule 42 is irrelevant because the opening of Croke Park affects the first five rules of the GAA, "the charter", as he refers to it: "I know this 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 at 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."

This is a nonsensical contention. Rules 1-5 make no reference to other sports; they merely charge the GAA with promoting and controlling Gaelic games. At no point do they refer to rival sports or renting property.

It's a frequently made point, but there's as much validity in saying that allowing U2 play rock and roll in Croke Park is contrary to Rule 4: Additional Aims: (a) The association shall actively support the Irish language, traditional Irish dancing, music, song and other aspects of Irish culture.

So the line emerging from the Motions Committee is that Rule 42 is subservient to Rules 1-5. Yet, Rule 42's only reference to this is in the stipulation that the association's property can be used "for such other purposes not in conflict with the Aims and Objects of the Association".

Yet, there is a difference between being in competition with Gaelic games and being in competition with the GAA's aims and ideals. If Croke Park decides to earn money from renting its facilities for an event that will take place anyway, it's hard to see how this is in fundamental breach of what the GAA stands for.

Boothman's last sentence about "temporary" change is significant because it covers the suggestion that Croke Park might be made available to the Ireland soccer and rugby teams while Lansdowne Road is being renovated. Any assumption that the GAA would balk at the sight of national teams playing abroad has more recently been questioned.

"I don't think it would make any difference at all," said GAA director general Liam Mulvihill. "In fairness, about 90 per cent of the people who are against the opening of GAA property are against it for reasons of conviction. I don't think that anyone is going to change that conviction for a one-off."

The director general was deeply unhappy at the rancour of last year, both in the unprecedented abuse Kelly received during the convention season and the whirlwind of condemnation that engulfed the past presidents after the Motions Committee's decision became public.

Significantly, Mulvihill was unwell during last year's controversy and is privately regretful that he wasn't around to influence the matter to a less rancorous conclusion. Maybe he can succeed this time around.

But, ultimately, it won't make much difference. Few believe that any motion on dropping Rule 42 will actually be debated and, even if it were, fewer believe that it would have any prospects of success.

In other words, we haven't heard the last of the Motions Committee.