Re: USARRA
From: Allan Miller, Former Chairman, NorthEast Rugby Referees' Society; President of New England Rugby Referees' Society
To: Referees in the NorthEast Territory
The purpose of this memo is to provide an update on the activities of the national referees' body, USARRA.
Since I wrote my previous memo, the referee representative to the USARFU Board has been added to the membership of the General Committee, making a maximum membership of 14.
The By-Laws were amended to allow the General Committee to act without a face-to-face meeting, by using a written or electronic ballot to vote. In the event that three members of the GC request a meeting, then there will be a discussion, either face-to-face or via conference call. The stated rationale for this change was that it would allow USARRA to act on "non-controversial" [sic] issues without having to meet face-to-face.
In response, Dave Williamson (Pacific), followed by Charlie Haupt (West, and Secretary of USARRA) and Allan Miller (NorthEast) all asked for some explanation as to the reasons behind such changes, and sought to discuss the merits of the changes.
There followed a deafening silence, leading at least one member of the Committee to conclude that the draft proposal had crawled back under the rock whence it came. This was not to be.
On May 2nd, an electronic ballot was distributed, asking the committee to vote on an edited version of the amendment. From a procedural standpoint, this was somewhat naff, since the actual language of the edited amendment had not been circulated, and there was no proposer or seconder for the By-Law amendment. More of a problem for rational discourse was the fact that no-one had offered any explanation whatsoever of the reasons for the proposed change, despite the request for discussion made eight weeks earlier by three members of the GC.
Miller, Haupt and Williamson requested a conference call to discuss the amendment. Only at this call (on 5/15/03) did the proponents of the amendment finally communicate their reasoning. A number of false statements were used to support this argument, but as this was the first we had heard of them, it was not possible to effectively refute these statements. Now that is "ramrodding".
The Selection committee thus created comprised :
All responsibilities of the Evaluation Committee, except providing reports, were deleted. Under the new By-Laws, no-one is responsible for ensuring consistency of standards in the grading of referees. The GC was told that, as this goal has been achieved, there was no need for it to remain anybody's job to maintain standards.
As soon as the amendment had passed, two new amendments were proposed by Gary Andrews (SoCal). These took away one of the A panel slots and one of the National assessor slots, and gave them to an appointee of the executive committee and an appointee of the seven territories, respectively. Since these were new amendments, and not modifications proposed before the vote was taken on the tabled amendment (the notice period is waived for such modifications), they should have had to wait a further 30 days. A ballot was distributed immediately after the conference call and voted on two days later. An erroneous tally of the number of votes cast in favor and against was published, but two requests for a roll-call on the vote were ignored. Yes, they had enough votes to pass, but the people running the ballot really should have the guts to report the correct numbers and publish the roll-call. The Selection committee now has the composition:
Ideally, the selection process should be insulated from political pressure. There are a couple of ways of achieving this, but the presence of delegates who have no role except voting is extremely counter-productive.
For instance, the Selection Committee could consist of the former A-panel (in its entirety) or could consist solely of people appointed by the former A-panel to life-long terms. This provides independence, but at the cost of accountability.
Alternatively, we can have the people who actually do the work sit on the committee as a team, and recognize that if we don't like the job they are doing, we have to find replacements who are willing and able to do the work in their stead. Oh wait a second, that was the old system that we just got rid of.
I cannot for the life of me fathom what Gary Andrews is whining about - he got exactly the Selection Committee he wanted.
In any case, I cannot understand the unseemly rush to push all this through before the July AGM, and I cannot tolerate the absence of timely discussion of issues.
As the reluctant cannibal put it - "I don't want any part of it."
To: Interim Chair, USARRA, c/o Secretary USARRA Dear Sir or Madam,USARRA has changed its "By-Laws" on numerous occasions. While I agreed with few of these changes, I recognize that reasonable people may differ, and I accept the will of the majority.
However, the manner in which USARRA conducts its business, elects its officers, and amends its By-Laws is so far removed from what I consider a reasonable process that I cannot in good conscience continue to participate in any way. I therefore resign as Chairman of Northeast Rugby Union RefereesŐ Society, effective immediately.
I thank Charlie Haupt and Dave Williamson for their efforts on the USARRA Board of Directors, and I thank the many people who have worked so long and so hard on behalf of US referees, in particular Harry Laws, Don Morrison, Dick Podmore, Bryan Porter, Ed Todd and Peter Watson.
Yours Sincerely,
Allan Miller
| Allan Miller's at Home | NERRS Home Page |
| Drop me a line | Referees' Manual |