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

[Reg Busch]

Robert Geller wrote:

>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  
>
>  
>
>From Reg

Bob, before answering the above can I say that I am surprised that we 
have had no contribution from players from other NBOs. Is it possible 
that the ABF is the only NBO with a federal structure?

An example of possible problems: The ABF has never had the right to 
regulate state events e.g. championships etc. Under the new Law 80 it 
will have such rights. I'm not saying that they will, but they could. 
But this is not about an ABF /state power battle that can amicably be 
resolved by discussions. It's about clarifying our position under civil 
law. I believe that .a player facing disciplinary action from a state 
could mount an arguable case that this body has no rights to make 
regulation under the new Law 80 and that the assignment of RA powers by 
the ABF is illegal because the ABF's assumption  of  the sole RA rights 
in Australia was illegal under it's own constitution, and  you can't 
assign a right you are not legally entitlrd to hold.

This is not a situation any of us want. We in Qld have already been 
through this. Some years ago we had an extended and expensive court 
battle with a litigious player challenging our right to take 
disciplinary action. We prevailed, but largely because we had ensured 
that every 'i' and 't' had been crossed in our regulations. I'm not at 
all sure that this is the case at the moment. There is a simple solution 
which I have already mentioned above. I'm hoping the ABF will take the 
matter forward.

I won't prolong this discussion further, but will inform the forum if 
there is any progress.
Reg

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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: 269.24.4/1473 - Release Date: 29/05/2008 7:53 PM
>  
>