The FFA Board may have run a 'nominations' process but the Board membership isn't a bequest
It’s good to see at least one state federation President, Kimon Taliadoros, has enough of an
understanding of governance and process to baulk the system being imposed by FFA.
In case you didn't see Westfield/FFA deputy chairman, Brian Schwartz’s, letter reported on by Tom Smithies, a copy is available here.
Just a few observations arising from it. The issue is not the individuals per se. Here are the issues:
FFA is a member-based organisation. It doesn’t belong to the current Board to bequeath a Board place. Certainly, they should have an input and make recommendations but that shouldn’t carry more weight than those who ‘own’ it. The Board serves at the members’ pleasure and nine of the ten members are elected by the rest of us who pay fees, coach kids, serve in canteens, clean toilet blocks, put up nets and so forth.
There is no statutory requirement to have a ‘Nominations Committee’. This was a concocted process to get a desired outcome.
Members are entitled to nominate who they want subject to s10.16 of the Constitution. They do not have to go through the Nominations Committee.
The candidates selected by ‘EZ’ may not want to face an ‘election’ – heaven forbid that we should exercise some democracy – but the man who set the framework for the football community we have today, David Crawford, envisaged that members and existing directors should be able “to nominate any number of persons” as a director. Not just three.
The suggestion in Mr Schwartz’s letter that “politics” and “campaigning” are something restricted to “the ‘old days’ of football” – in other words, ‘wogs’ – is offensive, inaccurate and disrespectful. After all, it’s not as if FFA and the outgoing Board members were afraid to indulge in a bit of active “politics” when Mohamed Bin Hammam was running for the AFC Presidency in 2009, or when they – yet again – backed Sepp Blatter in 2011.
And while we’re on the subject of FIFA and the AFC, Mr Schwartz mentions that even greater “strategic engagement” is required with both bodies yet what has FFA done – ever – to bring attention to, let alone try to reform, these discredited organisations which, in the case of FIFA at least, the US Attorney-General likens to an organised crime syndicate? And what can or will the Board’s nominees do that will be different from the conduct of the last 12 years in this regard?
All power to Kimon Taliadoros. Let’s see if the other state federation Presidents stand up to be counted also.
You can let them know what you think by emailing them.
The Australian A-League clubs also have one vote between them.