When a president errs

One of my first political experiences was the election for the Sport Federation Committee at university. I had interests in a few sports, but I seem to remember there were over 80 sports clubs, so I'm sure there were 75 that I had no direct interest in. If the mountain climbers came to me asking for money for a field trip, would I be able to make a balanced judgement on it?

The leader type

As soon as I became elected, which I very proudly achieved in first place, we had to elect a new President, from those members who had been elected by the students. This was a foregone conclusion. We had one student who was fast becoming a mature student, so he had presidential history from at least the two previous years. I must also say that I had complete confidence in him. He certainly knew more sports than me, and he understood the whole money-raising and decision-making process for sports from the highest to the lowest level. I was very young, so I had no reason to doubt his skills.

It was at this moment that the whole idea of Presidency and leadership became a sort of fixation. In school I had always been a leader, taken on school responsabilities and delivered them for the benefit of the school and my fellow pupils. Now I was to be doing the same thing.

Only this time it was different. Now I had to learn about the mechanics of sports funding before I could consider being a decision-maker. Whenever a sport organisation or person needed money he'd come to the Sports Federation Committee and make an offical request for funds. We'd question him as a committee on various aspects of his request, and more often than not, we'd give him what he wanted. He knew how much money we had to spend. He knew what sort of questions would be asked. He prepared himself to make this request convincingly. We'd have to have serious reason to refuse his request if he had respected this protocol.

Ask the President

This did not mean there were no conflicts on the committee.

One day there was a new sports club who required about £250 for some equipment expenses. The request was made correctly, and the questions we asked were all met with determined convincing replies. There was only one problem. This was a new club, and his budget allocation was a totally new one. He had not featured on the previous year's funding. Our President was inclined to refuse the request on these grounds. I remember saying something like " this club has got to start somewhere", and I remember the President replying to the effect of, "but they should have already got on the funding sheet of last year."

This illustrates subtlely a problem with Presidents and their committees. The President is in a position to impose a protocol and system, which in some cases, he has put in place, or, if not, is able to control. Anything which breaks with "his" system is liable to be refused however good the argumentation.

Most organisations are run by committees, with some sort of President or leader, or boss. For many years I believed that this was the only way to operate - that you had to know how the President worked (with his committee) in order to have any chance of affecting their thinking.

So for many years I practised various roles either on committees, and when I was fortunate enough, as President myself. I realised that the only way to get any satisfaction out of decision-making, is to be President yourself. If you spend all your life as a committee player, you'll end up making plenty of comments that get ignored, simply through the pure inertia of organisational protocol. Everyone intrinsically respects the power of the President, and it is practically impossible for a majority vote on a committee to move a President away from his standpoints.

Bothersome benevolence

Recently I was asked to participate on some committee meetings at my tennis club on an informal basis. The President, and the committee, respected my "considerable contribution" to the club, and felt that I should be part of their current discussions. I was hesitant, through experience. I envisaged sitting at a table where nothing gets written down, discussions go in circles, most comments go on deaf ears, because any decisions on our discussions have already been taken, before the committee meeting had taken place.

And so it was. Once again, it was a total waste of my time, even though I understood WHY I had been invited to committee meetings. By inviting me, the current President was validating her actions in front of an important outsider in the club, an outsider who in fact was a potential threat to her power. This threat was someone who'd not only be making different decisions about the club, but also would be using his committee members differently, and who would effectively remove her totally from this committee. A very dangerous person.

So how do these ineffectual Presidents stay in power? In my experience this is circumstantial. Most Presidents have access to time, money and people that gives them certain advantages over any rival candidates. It may be that they as people are actually quite incompetent, but through their advantages are able to maintain their position, are able to command votes from weary supporters who know they don't have the time, money or contacts to exercise what would be their form of power.

The result. A tennis club in crisis. Tennis clubs in crisis. Leagues in crisis. Federations in crisis. Tennis organisations crying out for strong leadership and strong ideas, not realising that the "Presidential" system itself is the main reason why crises occur.

The solution. There's only one. Professionalise the system. Take away the committee, that is the volunteers who sit around tables nodding. Take away voting procedures and protocols and Presidents. Install a manager, who works to objectives, and  must get measurable results. He must be trusted to take 100% responsability, and the only way to do this, is not to vote for him, but to pay him.

For votes, and political wrangling, the job gets abused. For money, for survival, most people can do a good job.