AN ATHLETIC BREEZE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 44, 16 November 1926, Page 10

AN ATHLETIC BREEZE

SUSPENSION OF. A MEMBER CHAIRMAN S RULING DISOBEYED Spirited exchanges between the chairman (Mr. R. W. McVilly) and the Wanganui-West Coast delegate (Mr. F. Wilton) enlivened a council meeting of the New Zealand Amateur Athletic Association last evening. The meeting was a special one, called to consider the position of Mr. Wilton, who refused to withdraw a remark lie was alleged to have made, “that the council was like a body of showmen.” After a heated and lengthy discussion a resolution, that Mr. Wilton be suspended from sitting as a member of the council until he withdraws his remarks, was carried. Mr. McVilly explained the circumstances that led up to the incident, and pointed out that some time ago a sub-committee had been set up to make inquiries in regard to a proposed tour of athletes from abroad. At a special meeting called to consider the sub-committee’s report Mr. Wilton had made use of the words "body of showmen.” He, as chairman, considered they were iinproper, and reflected individually and collectively on the council. He called on Mr. Wilton to withdraw the remark, but not only would he not withdraw, but he repeated the statement. All told, he had given Mr. Wilton five opportunities to obey his ruling, but still he declined. At one stage Mr. Wilton had pointed out he was the oldest member of the council, and possibly that was so. “But the point is this,” added Mr. McVilly, “if during the course of a debate any member makes use of an expression which the chairman thinks ought not to have been used, □nd asks that it be withdrawn, then the right and proper thing is to ooey the ruling of the chair. We cannot have the chairman’s ruling flouted, and I regret exceedingly that Mr. Wilton did not avail himself of the opportunities he had to obey the ruling. I move that Mr. Wilton having disregarded the ruling of the chair be suspended.” The secretary, Mr. L. A. Tracy, seconded the motion, and considered the chairman’s ruling must be adhered to. If any ruling was disagreed with there was the opportunity to move that the chairman vacate the chair. Such a resolution had been proposed by Mr. Wilton, but it had been defeated. Mr. Tracv then read a letter from the Wa-nqanui-West Coast centre stating that their executive viewed with surprise the motion Mr. McVillev proposed to move, and asked that the matter be postponed until it was placed before all centres. The secretarv also read a further letter from the Auckland centre stating that thev had been asked by the WanganuiWest Coast centre to intervene in the dispute. Mr. Guy: I rise to a point of order Mr. Chairman. What right has Auckland to intervene in this matter. I do not really think Wanganui had a right to write in. The council is under the control of the chair and not the centres. Mr. Wilton declared that he wanted no favouritism, but he came to the meeting expecting justice, and he felt sure that he was not going to be disappointed. While debating the proposal to bring athletes The chairman: I Yvould ask you Mr. Wilton to confine your, remarks to the question under discussion. Mr. Wilton: If you are going to attempt to prevent me from stating my case it makes the matter very difficult. The chairman: Once again you are imputing wrong motives. You be particular to confine your remarks to the question under discussion. Don’t insinuate that any member of the council is going to be unfair. Please don’t impute motives. Mr. Wilton went on to say that during discussion at the meeting at which the trouble first occurred he had given his opinion that instead of fostering athletes in the smaller centres the council was acting like an “enterprising showman.” The chairman: Nothing of .the sort. Mr. Wilton reiterated that the term he had used was “enterprising showman.” “Who,” asked Mr. Wilton, “is likelv to remember the exact words: I who. used them, or you, sir, in the heat of the moment. I leave that point with the delegates. You refuse to listen to a couple of delegates, and take up that dogmatic note which is quite unworthy of the office you hold. I will allow no man to call me a liar and go unchallenged.” The chairman: I must request you to take back that term. You withdraw it. Mr. Wilton: I will withdraw, but will not be told that I am guilty of untruthfulness by any man. My words were fair comment, and were inoffensive in application. The worst thing that can be said by any fairminded man was that they were not fair comment. I am quite at a loss, Mr. Chairman, to understand your persistency. Rather than cause dissension twice, I have asked my centre

to replace me, and twice they have refused, but asked me to serve them for a further term. a

Mr. Wilton added that the present council was now in its dying hours. The annual meeting was to be held later in the evening, and the new council would not be bound by any motion of suspension passed now. Why attempt to make me a “slaughtered innocent?” asked Mr. Wilton. The president of. the Otago Centre had told him that his personal opinion was that the chairman’s ruling was too drastic, and he had ample testimony that the Otago president was not alone in that opinion. It was a misstatement of the position that he had consistently disobeyed the ruling of the chair. The fight was not between the chairman and himself, but between the chairman and certain members, perhaps, and the whole of the West Coast Centre. Mr. R. Connop said he failed to see any grave reason to warrant so drastic" a resolution. It was only a trivial thing and the incident could be overlooked. He would vote for the resolution if any man could prove anything that Mr. Wilton had done to the detriment of athletics. Mr. E. G. Guy: The question at stake is whether a member is going to obey the ruling of the chair, whether it appears fair or not. Mr. G. H. Lusk thought far more publicity had been given to the incident than the sport of athletics warranted. It seemed to him that Mr. Wilton, having said what he meant, and made it known, should have withdrawn the remark when requested to do so. The chairman: It is obvious that Mr. Wilton’s views on the incident have been distorted, and five times he has refused to withdraw, his remarks when given the opportunity. Mr. Wilton now seeks to justify his attitude becaust he left the meeting when the remark was made, and a subsequent one. Until he obevs my ruling, I will not allow him to "take part in any meeting over which I preside. Two or three weeks prior to the incident Mr Wilton accepted the chairman’s ruling on a more vital question without a quibble or word, but when the same chairman gives a ruling where Mr. Wilton himself is concerned the latter and his centre declines to see any virtue in it. What sort of bear ganoen would the e-'uncil be if every member disobeyed the ruling of the chair whenever he thought fit. The motion that Mr. Wilton be suspended from sitting as a member of the council until he withdraws his remarks was then put to the meeting and carried by seven to three.