Revise first.
Vote second.

We understand the value of SASCOC recognition, including its potential to unlock support and funding that can help grow our community. This is not a call for “no Constitution” or “no vote”. It is a request for the right sequence: independent redrafting, proper discussion, and then an informed member vote.

We also recognise the urgency of pursuing SASCOC recognition, including the opportunities it may create for national teams — such as the U24 team representing South Africa at a world championship — and for university programmes. A dedicated SASCOC Recognition Working Group can begin immediately: it can verify the requirements, identify outstanding work and help prepare the supporting material while the Redrafting Commission works. ExCo can then submit the application once members have adopted a Constitution that satisfies SASCOC's verified requirements.

• 1. “Adopt it now and review it later” is not a safeguard.

  The proposed framework would give ExCo more than one-third of Council's votes in the five-Province scenario ExCo has acknowledged as likely. Four ExCo members voting together could therefore block any later constitutional change — including a member proposal to remove those same ExCo votes.

  Read the full objection

  The proposed Constitution states in bold that ExCo may never hold a voting majority of Council. That sounds reassuring, but it protects only against ExCo holding more than 50%. It does not protect members against an ExCo veto. [3]

  A safeguard against an ExCo majority is not a safeguard against an ExCo veto.

  The framework gives every ExCo member a Council vote, requires at least four ExCo positions, permits additional ExCo positions, and requires a two-thirds majority to amend the Constitution.

  In the scenario ExCo has acknowledged as likely, Council would include five Provincial Associations in Good Standing, two voting Commissions and four ExCo members. ExCo would hold 4 of 11 votes — approximately 36%, and therefore more than one-third. [5]

  With ExCo holding more than one-third of the vote, four ExCo members voting together could block any constitutional change supported by every other Council member.

  For example, members may later decide that ExCo should no longer have four Council votes and that only the SAFDA Chair should have a casting vote to break a tie. The proposed Constitution would allow the four ExCo members being asked to give up those votes to block the amendment. The framework would require ExCo's consent before members could remove ExCo's own voting power.

  If additional ExCo positions are created, or enough Provinces or Commissions lose their voting status because they are not in Good Standing, ExCo's share of Council grows further. In a nine-vote Council, four ExCo members would need only one additional Council member to secure an ordinary majority.

  Trust should be placed in the Constitution

  This concern is not an accusation against the intentions of the current ExCo. Members should not have to trust particular office-bearers; they should be able to trust the Constitution itself.

  A sound Constitution must protect members when a future ExCo takes positions on important policy matters with which many members strongly disagree. It should keep ExCo accountable to the members from whom its authority is derived, rather than give ExCo power over the representatives who are meant to hold it accountable.

  We do not know who the next ExCo will be. The Constitution must remain trustworthy regardless of who holds office.

  Other sporting bodies protect member voting

  We believe ExCo should attend Council, provide advice and implement Council decisions, but should not enter Council with a multi-person executive voting bloc. Only the SAFDA Chair should have a casting vote, used when the member representatives are tied.

  • South African Rugby Union (SARU): Executive Council members may attend general meetings, but the remaining Executive Council members do not vote. Only the President, or the chair in the President's absence, may vote, with a casting vote available in a tie. [6]
  • Cricket South Africa (CSA): CSA separates its Members' Council from its majority-independent Board. The Board does not enter the Members' Council as a ready-made executive voting bloc. [7]
  • World Flying Disc Federation (WFDF): Congress voting rights belong to National Members in Good Standing. Executive Committee office-holders do not receive additional Congress votes merely because they hold executive office. [8]
  • SASCOC: Its General Assembly is the supreme decision-making body, and its Constitution gives ex officio and Board members no vote at General Meetings. [9]

  The executive administers the organisation. Member representatives hold the executive accountable and determine its constitutional direction.

• 2. One-size-fits-all governance could silence smaller communities.

  Some proposed standards may benefit larger organisations, but applying the same administrative burden to every club, district and Province could cause smaller volunteer-run bodies to lose Good Standing — and their communities to lose representation.

  Read the full objection

  The proposed framework includes prescribed management structures, formal meetings and accessible minutes, financial records and annual accounts, safeguarding and demographic reporting, annual compliance reports, and post-event reporting. [4]

  Many SAFDA clubs and districts are small, volunteer-run communities. A large Provincial Association, a developing district and a small local club do not have the same administrative capacity and should not be treated as though they do.

  Under the proposed framework, these requirements form part of Good Standing. A body that loses Good Standing may lose membership and representation at the next level. Because only Provincial Associations in Good Standing may vote on Council, administrative non-compliance could ultimately remove an entire community's representation from SAFDA's highest decision-making body. [3]

  SASCOC requires National Federations such as SAFDA to submit governance and compliance information. However, the SASCOC material reviewed does not require every small club or district to reproduce the same national reporting framework. [10]

  A more effective approach could be

  • Governance requirements proportionate to the size, activities and capacity of each body.
  • Simpler requirements for small or developing clubs and districts.
  • Practical assistance and reasonable opportunities to correct non-compliance.
  • Protection against communities losing representation because of minor or remediable administrative failures.

  These are guiding principles, not a complete policy prescription. The Redrafting Commission should make reasonable efforts to consult affected communities and determine how the detailed standards should be expressed in the proposed framework.

  Good governance should strengthen developing communities — not exclude them from SAFDA.

• 3. The Constitution should be independently and openly redrafted.

  The current ExCo developed the proposed Constitution and supporting framework without first involving the wider playing community in the drafting. The rules defining ExCo's own powers should instead be redrafted by an Independent Constitution Redrafting Commission and then decided by members.

  Read the full objection

  ExCo's authority is derived from SAFDA's members and exercised on their behalf. Both Constitution documents referred to by ExCo give individual members a vote, recognise members' authority to determine SAFDA policy, and require proposed constitutional changes to be discussed at the meeting identified in the notice. [1] [2]

  Later opportunities to comment on a completed framework are not the same as community participation in deciding what the framework should be.

  This does not require an assumption of bad faith. The conflict is structural: the people who will exercise the new powers have also controlled the process that designed those powers.

  The body whose powers are being defined should not control the drafting of those powers.

  The Independent Constitution Redrafting Commission

  The Redrafting Commission should be independently constituted and mandated to prepare the proposed constitutional framework for members. Once completed, its proposed text should be circulated unchanged and placed before the members for consideration and vote, with ExCo facilitating the process rather than acting as an additional approval stage.

  The Redrafting Commission should make reasonable, open efforts to consult players, clubs, districts, Provincial Associations, ExCo and other affected groups; consider submissions from the wider membership; test the framework's practical effects; seek independent governance, legal or other specialist input where useful; and publish its mandate, working drafts and reasons for its key decisions.

  The safeguard is not having to trust the people on ExCo — or the people doing the redrafting. It is that members can examine, debate and accept or reject the proposed Constitution.

  A sensible way to constitute the Redrafting Commission

  Each Region should be able to nominate suitable candidates, with up to two representatives from each Region selected by the members of that Region. Current ExCo members should not be eligible to serve or choose the representatives. However, the Commission should consult ExCo and draw on the work it has already done, while ExCo provides administrative support and relevant information.

  • There should be no cap on the number of suitable candidates a Region may nominate; no more than two representatives from that Region ultimately serve.
  • Nominees provide a brief motivation and disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest.
  • Where more than two eligible candidates are nominated, that Region's members select up to two representatives through a transparent process.
  • The Redrafting Commission chooses its own chair and working procedures within its defined drafting mandate.
  • Commissioners should consult their regional communities and may seek specialist input where useful. Advisers do not automatically become Commission members.
  • ExCo may make submissions as a stakeholder and provide the information and practical assistance reasonably required.
  • Regions need not fill both seats, and vacant seats or inactive Regions do not prevent the Redrafting Commission from beginning its work.

  The Redrafting Commission must be independent of ExCo, while giving every part of the community — including ExCo — a fair opportunity to be heard.