Lively Debate Likely On Club Representation

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31627, 13 March 1968, Page 13

Lively Debate Likely On Club Representation

'A NOTICE of motion from the Marist club asking for a change in the numbers of the management committee of the Canterbury Rugby Union is sure to provide some debate at the annual meeting of the union this evening. The Marist motion asks for the membership of the management committee to be increased from eight to 10 with no club being represented by more than one person, excluding the president. The motion is a thinly disguised attempt to have a more general representation on the management committee and is similar to attempts in previous yeans to have each senior club represented. There is no doubt that in previous years some clubs have felt snubbed. Year after year they have put up delegates for the management committee and had them turned down by the annual meeting. Other clubs have had regular representation on the committee. It is only in recent years that clubs such as New Brighton and Albion have gained a delegate on the committee. Belfast is one club which has not had representation. The question of having each senior club represented on the management committee has been sternly resisted in the past and, at present, it is unlikely that there will be any change. The danger, of course, is that if there is universal representation there is the possibility of members of the committee being simply mouthpieces for their clubs.

This is a situation which the management committee has avoided in the past. It may have some faults, but club parochialism is not one of them. At times, when there has been an ordering off the member of the club concerned on the management committee has been a bit more penetrative in his comments, but otherwise members have applied themselves to the task of administering Canterbury Rugby. The motion, however, will probably gain some support, particularly from those

clubs that feel that they have been overlooked in the past while other clubs have had two members on the management committee. For example, High School Old Boys has the presidentelect (Mr C. H. McPhail) and the treasurer (Mr R. W. Thomas), two men who are very capable administrators.

The motion does exclude the president from the club affiliation but obviously it has been framed to avoid any embarrassment to present incumbents. But if it was passed there could be a problem with the Christchurch representaives, Messrs Aj K. Johnson, the immediate past president, and J. K. Torrance. It surely would not be the intention of the movers of the motion to have either Mr Johnson or Mr Torrance removed. There is some merit in the motion, because an extra two members would spread the burden of the duties on sub-committees, but if the various dubs wish to have the best persons represent Rugby as administrators then it would be unwise to have a clause which forbids any club to have more than one person, excluding the president, on the management committee. A small amendment, deleting the part about two representatives should mean that Marist may gain support for its motion. There have been complaints from clubs in the past that they are not conversant with the workings of the management committee. The plethora of newsletters; the far more liberal attitude towards the press in the form of policy state ments makes this view nugatory. It would be far better for the meeting of delegates te night, if it considers that a greater spread of representation is needed, to make some provision for the cooption of persons to the sub-committees of the management committee.