IBSF Annual General Meeting
As some of you may know, EASB, over the last three years, have been actively involved in progressing towards Sport England recognition, seeking to break the 17 year impasse which has existed between the snooker and billiards organisations in this country. After long negotiations, an agreement was eventually reached which satisfied Sport England, the EABA and ourselves. This involved us sharing our IBSF membership with the EABA, a proposal which we asked the IBSF membership to ratify at their AGM on 24th November.

In a deeply disturbing report from our representative we are given to understand that although the motion was properly proposed and seconded, the chairman of the meeting refused to allow the membership a vote. We are investigating the reasons behind this peculiar decision and will issue more news as it becomes available.

Jersey block Sport England approval
We have received further news from India regarding the failure of our motion to be considered by the IBSF AGM.

It seems that the Jersey Billiards & Snooker Association, who had enthusiastically supported our motion when it was registered as an agenda item, withdrew their support on the day of the meeting. It was for this reason that the chairman of the meeting, Pascal Guillaume, declared the motion invalid and refused the members their right to vote upon it. The first that EASB heard of this act was when the item was called on the agenda at the meeting.

This can only be considered as a deliberate act by Jersey , represented by Mr. Gary Truscott, which was calculated to prevent the settlement of the issues between billiards and snooker in England. The result of this duplicity is that EASB, who would have been immediately eligible  for Sport England approval had the motion been adopted, are now unable to progress with this matter for at least another year.

The reasons for Jersey's action remain unexplained, despite several request for them to do so. However, it is known that prominent members of the IBSF Board, namely Jim Leacy (European Federation Representative) and Pascal Guillaume (IBSF President) opposed this solution. Investigations are continuing as to whether there was any collusion between these parties to engineer this situation.

The results of ongoing investigations and actions will be posted on our website.

Complaint regarding conduct of IBSF officials
Today (1st December) EASB have lodged a complaint with the IBSF Board regarding the conduct of their officials towards the English representative, Steve Starkie, after the abortive AGM in India. Many members will recognise Steve as one of the best referees in England and an enthusiast who was prepared to spend his own money to travel to this event and give it his support.  A copy of the letter sent to Pascal Guillaume and the IBSF Board can be downloaded here.

Jersey representative suspended
We have received notification from the Council of the Jersey Billiards & Snooker Association that they have suspended Gary Truscott from all Association activities in the Island  with immediate effect, pending a disciplinary hearing at some time in the new year, where Mr Truscott will be asked for an explanation of his actions. Robert Sutherland, Secretary of the JB&SA, and co-signatory on the letter from Jersey seconding England's motion to the IBSF, has resigned his position with the Association in connection with this matter.

EASB would like to thank the swift and decisive action taken by the JB&SA Council.

Mr Truscott, who is also a registered referee with EASB, has additionally had his membership suspended by ourselves, pending a disciplinary hearing at the end of December.

Disciplinary Hearing
On 10th January EASB convened a postponed disciplinary hearing which investigated the activities of Mr. Gary Truscott in his capacity as representative for Jersey B&SA, and seconder of the EASB motion to the IBSF AGM. On the evidence available to them the Panel concluded that the action of withdrawing as Seconder was a deliberate attempt to block the motion. It was further considered that Mr. Truscott acted alone and his decision to do this was not influenced by any other party. It was concluded that the charges against him were proved and the Panel imposed a penalty of immediate expulsion from EASB membership. This decision is subject to appeal.

IBSF failings and cover-up
We are slowly managing to unravel the story behind the failure of the IBSF to present our Motion to their AGM on 24th November. It seems that information supplied by official IBSF sources has been substantially incorrect, and, it must be assumed, intended to be deliberately misleading.

We have referred the matter to our Solicitors, who have in turn obtained Counsels' Opinion, and from this a sequence of procedural failings by the IBSF have come to light.  Unfortunately, our investigations into the exact reasons behind the manoeuvrings by IBSF officials remain obscure as they have consistently refused to reply to any of our questions. Those facts which are available are detailed below.
 

• From the outset, the IBSF failed to give the required 12 weeks notice of the AGM in breach of their Constitution. Notice was actually given on 13 September 2009, almost two weeks after the due date.

• At this time the IBSF failed to give proper timescales for motions to be provided, specifying a date of 30 September, although they knew that 10 weeks notice was required by the Constitution. This actually gave us until 15th September to submit our motion: just two days!

• The IBSF first had notice of the EASB's motion, by way of letter from the EASB Secretary on 14 September, one day before the Constitutional deadline.

• EASB then provided a formal document containing the motion on 19 September. This was 11 days prior to the deadline specified by the IBSF.

• The IBSF failed to circulate the motion to members until 5 October, over two weeks after receipt of the formal document. This was in breach of the Constitutional requirement to do this 8 weeks in advance of the meeting (29th September).

• At the AGM, the IBSF failed to allow the motion to be voted upon. The only correspondence from the IBSF General Secretary (received 24th November) suggests the reason to be that the motion was not seconded, although the Constitution has no requirement for motions to an AGM be seconded.

• It being pointed out to them on 2nd December that eyewitnesses provided a different version of events, the IBSF have, to date failed to provide an explanation.

As a result of the above, we are advised that either: (1) the AGM itself was invalid; or (2) if it was valid, then the IBSF's handling of the motion breached the Constitution. EASB are therefore in the process of issuing proceedings for an order that the AGM be reconvened, alternatively that an EGM be convened to allow the motion to be voted upon.

Of particular concern, bearing in mind the in-depth knowledge of the Constitution by the IBSF President, are the consistent failings of the IBSF to abide by its requirements. All IBSF members should be deeply worried that officials of their Federation, by the actions described above, have denied a member their Constitutional right to have a question put for democratic vote. If officials are allowed to ignore their statutory duties, or only apply them when they see fit, then no member can expect to rely on the Constitution for protection. It is hoped that our legal action will at least set an expected standard of performance for elected officials.

EASB members will be reassured that the action will be accompanied by  an application to recover legal costs, but should this fail, or produce a shortfall, the Directors will underwrite any costs incurred. Consequently, the Directors guarantee that not a penny of members' funds will be placed at risk.

I am sure that many people will have a feeling of exasperation that the administrators of the game seem to have nothing better to do than engage in "power struggles" when they should be working to create an environment where competitive snooker and billiards can be played by all who wish to do so. This opinion is certainly shared by the Board of EASB who have been working tirelessly behind the scenes to bring about a situation whereby, for the first time since our organisation was founded, Sport England, the EABA, and ourselves, all agree on a solution which allows us to work together. Only the IBSF Board now object to this, although they characteristically refuse to say why.

More information will be published as it is extracted from those who would keep it secret and deny a resolution of this matter.


Peter Ainsworth
Company Secretary