Heavy Reading - But Worth Ploughing Through

I AM still working my way through the details of the SRU's Decision-Making Matrix. (By the way, many thanks to David Barnes for publishing a link to it, trying to find it on the SRU website, where it seems to be hidden behind ten levels of smoke, mirrors, passwords and anti-virus protection proved beyond me.)

What is published is heavily redacted, understandable, since most of the redactions concern matters of extreme sensitivity, but, what immediately struck me was – just how little say in things the Council actually has.

We are told, this body has overall responsibility to the clubs – who actually own the SRU and should have oversight on the activities of the Executive and the main SRU Board.

Then, when you start reading through the various levels of responsibiloity, what is immediately striking how seldom the Council actually has a say.

The various constituent parts of the SRU: the Executive, the Board, the Board sub-committees, the Council and the Member Clubs each has a part to play in decision-making. But, in Section One, covering appointments, the Clubs only need to approve: the new President and Vice President and the Council members.

The Council only needs to approve five appointments: their own nominated Non-Executive Directors to the Board, the International representatives in their capacity as ex-officio Council members, SRU Trustees, Chair and Members of Council-sponsored Standing Committees and Working Parties and Under-18 and Under-20 Ambassadors.

The CEO, for instance, gets to recommend – subject to Board approval: other Executive Directors, subsidiary company Directors, the Championship Committee convener, the Reserve League Committee convener and ther Chair and members of the Discipline Panel and Appeals panel. Since these last three appointments are all concerned with the club game, surely it makes sense to have the clubs' representatives – the Council members, more involved in deciding who gets these posts rather than merely being telt from on-high: “Pugh will chair the Discipline Panel, assisted by Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grubb.”

TCD could put this team on an SRU committee,

and there's nothing the Council could do about it

The CEO also gets to recommend the National Team Head Coach. I think that job ought not be down to just one man, although I accept Board approval is still needed. The job of Chairman is down to the Board's nominations committee, perhaps when the time comes to name a successor to Gregor Townsend, the noms com. Might also have some involvement.

Section two of the document covers SRU rules and regulations, and here, as the representatives of the Clubs, who “own” the SRU, you might expect the Council to have more of a say.

However, the Council has approval of only 4 of the 18 sections covered in this part of the document, they can only recommend in 3 sections, consult and inform on 4 and consult and recommend on just one.

The overall Membership need to approve a mere four articles here, while the Executive/CEO get to make recommendations on nine of the sections. The Board has most say on these matters, being required to recommend in four cases, approve in ten and only7 to be informed in a further four.

It is in section three of the document, which covers Decisions, that the true relative impotency of the Council is shown. This section covers 24 different decisions which have to be made.

The Council only has to approve: the decision to call the AGM and propose the motion. The Council is consulted on the SRU's strategic plan

and gets to make recommendations when it comes to disposal of the whole or substantial parts of the SRU's assets.

In a further 16 decisions, covering such areas as: date, time and venue for the AGM, the annual budget, external investment (Nice, Old Glory), full and associate membershiops, change of club names, removal of club membership status, the Council, the clubs' representative body, need only be informed of what is happening.

Section Four of the document covers decisions usually reserved to the Board and Executive/CEO. Therefore, it is to be expected that the Council will not be involved in too-many of these decisions. This section covers 27 sections. The first of these listed is the Scotland national team strip design, while the subject of stirp sponsorship is also covered.

The Executive/CEO make recommendations on this, subject to Board approval, but, in what might possibly be seen as a subject for debate – shirt sponsorship, the Council has no say, but, will be informed as to the Board's decision.

However, of the 27 sections in this part of the document, the Council need only be informed as to decisions in eight – so much for over sight.

Section Five of the document is redacted in its entirity, but, since this covers operational expenditure limits and contract signings, we should hardly be surprised at this redaction – don't want anyone outside The Ruling Junta knowing what is going on.

This long-hidden document surfacing has clearly caused a few uncomfortable questins to be asked – the question now is: who is going to ask them?