Chairman's Corner
No.14, November, 2007
The Australian Bridge Federation (ABF), as the name suggest, is a federation of
the six State and two Territory bridge associations. The powers of the ABF,
according to its constitution, are vested in a Council made up of two
representatives from each state and territory. The ABF Management Committee
(MC) is empowered by the constitution to manage the affairs of the ABF when the
Council is not in session and is subject to the directions of the Council. That
at least is the theory. In practice, the MC runs the show. Council meets for a
one-day session twice a year at which it is presented with an agenda clogged
with routine, inconsequential and mind-numbingly boring items. Not
surprisingly, it has been reduced to a toothless tiger whose role has
degenerated to rubber stamping decisions made by the MC behind closed doors.
This is unfortunate as the interests of the ABF and the
State bodies do not always coincide. The proliferation of gold masterpoint
events is a case in point. Gold masterpoints are a nice little earner for the
ABF but, by debasing the appeal of red masterpoint events, they have had a
devastating effect on the finances of State bodies and more importantly those
of their affiliated clubs. It’s hard enough for a club to make a buck running a
red point event these days without having to compete with yet another super
congress shoehorned into an already over congested congress calendar.
This is not a reflection on the current management of
the ABF, they are doing what they believe is in the best interests of
Australian Bridge on a national and international level. The problem is that
the power of the MC is unchecked. For the sake of good corporate governance, if
for no other reason, the MC should function much like the executive team in a
public company and should be answerable to a board, in this case the Council,
which is there to protect the interests of all the stakeholders. With the
advent of Skype there is no reason why relatively short board/council meetings
cannot be convened, by way of a conference call, on a monthly basis to review
major policy issues. The day-to-day running of the ABF would remain in the
hands of the MC which, on my reading at least, is all that those responsible
for drafting the Constitution had in mind.
It is high time, I contend, for the State and Territory
bodies to regroup and reassert the ascendancy of the Council over the
Management Committee or else risk seeing their influence over ABF policy wane
further. Dr Alex Yezerski Chairman
Dr Alex Yezerski
Chairman NSWBA
