[blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Robert Geller]

Hi Reg,

>Reg:
>But Bob this is not the answer. The footnote does not apply to Law 80, 
>and it seems to me that the footnote refers to such things as the 
>observation of rules of natural justice etc.

->
Perhaps Grattan has something to say about this.  It's true the the
placement of the footnote seems to imply it is related to the appeal
process.  But it doesn't say that RAs must obey national law with
respect to appeals but are free to otherwise ignore it, so this to
me suggests that RAs must obey all national laws at all times, not
just as related to appeals (the infelicitous placement of the footnote
notwithstanding).  


>The fact is that, on June 1 in Australia, under the Laws of Bridge the 
>ABF will be the sole RA in Australia, and the ABF intends to assume 
>those powers. If I believe that the ABF in accepting this power is 
>acting ultra vires under the constitution, who is to, as you put it, 
>promptly tell the ABF to stop? Or has the WBF forecd us into a position 
>of having to chase this matter through the courts?
What exactly is it that the ABF will do which heretofore has been done
by the state federations?  Could you please provide some specific
examples?


>The WBF could have (and arguably should have) anticipated this problem. 
>And it could still clear the air. All it needs is a rider to the effect 
>that, should there be doubt as to the constitutionality of the NBO 
>accepting sole rights as RA, then the NBO may make 'power sharing' 
>arrangements with other stakeholders (clubs and states) so that they 
>have RA rights in their own areas.  Assignment is not enough. The ABF 
>has already decided to assign their rights s RA to the states, but only 
>for a period of five years. The states hopefully will reassign rights to 
>the clubs.  Assignment in perpetuity would relieve the problem, but not 
>solve the actual legalities involved.

->
I'm a little confused.   L80A3 says:
*************************************************************************
3. The Regulating Authority may delegate its powers (retaining ultimate
responsibility for their exercise) or it may assign them (in which case
it has no further responsibility for their exercise).
**************************************************************************
What exactly is the problem with this?   Up until now the duties and
rights of NBOs were specified by the WBF Constitution, bylaws and various
regulations, but were not written in the Laws.  I haven't checked this
super-carefully, but I don't believe L80 changes significantly anything
that was already istated in the WBF Constitution, bylaws and regulations,
but just writes  in explicitly into the Laws.

This doesn't seem to be something that can't be amicably resolved by
discussions between the ABF and state federations to reach an agreement
that reflects local conditions.  Although I can understand your position
that the ABF shouldn't be the RA in the first place in fact it probably
already was (although not called RA) under pre-existing WBF Constitution, 
bylaws and regulations.

-Bob  










>Reg
>
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>blml mailing list
>>blml at amsterdamned.org
>>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG. 
>>Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.2/1471 - Release Date: 28/05/2008 5:33 PM
>>  
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com