Bri­an Lewis

Why are the prin­ci­ples of good gov­er­nance im­por­tant?

As a so­ci­ety what do we val­ue most? Do we place a high­er pri­or­i­ty on per­for­mance, suc­cess and achieve­ment than we do ethics and in­tegri­ty?

When the uni­ver­sal prin­ci­ples of good gov­er­nance, democ­ra­cy, trans­paren­cy, and ac­count­abil­i­ty come un­der as­sault, lead­ers be­lieve they can walk on wa­ter.

Loy­al­ists are re­ward­ed while those in op­po­si­tion are ig­nored and dis­card­ed. De­ci­sions are made by a few peo­ple be­hind closed doors, and democ­ra­cy is of­ten heard but sel­dom seen. Per­son­al agen­das take prece­dent over the greater good.

A lack of gen­uine ac­count­abil­i­ty be­comes the norm. Gov­er­nance is played out like a game where per­son­al win­ning is the goal, dou­ble stan­dards pre­vail, pa­tron­age abounds. The game is all about con­trol and per­son­al agen­das.

In the ab­sence of good gov­er­nance, lead­ers be­lieve they can nev­er have a con­flict of in­ter­est as long as their per­son­al in­ter­ests are al­so, in their opin­ion, in the best in­ter­est of the or­gan­i­sa­tion, group or coun­try.

Elect­ed ex­ec­u­tives have a du­ty to dif­fer­en­ti­ate and sub­ju­gate their per­son­al in­ter­est in or­der to main­tain un­di­vid­ed al­le­giance to the in­ter­ests of their sport.

Even the ap­pear­ance of con­flicts of in­ter­est, if not han­dled ap­pro­pri­ate­ly and sen­si­tive­ly, can do last­ing dam­age to a sport's gov­er­nance, its rep­u­ta­tion, its cred­i­bil­i­ty, and its abil­i­ty to car­ry out its mis­sion.

We must cre­ate a sport gov­er­nance mod­el based on fidu­cia­ry du­ty, not a sys­tem based on pa­tron­age, the spoils sys­tem, and "be­hind-the-scenes" con­trol.

When ques­tions about the in­tegri­ty of a sport or­gan­i­sa­tion arise, elect­ed ex­ec­u­tive com­mit­tee mem­bers can­not hide be­hind the cloak of ig­no­rance. Ig­no­rance or ab­sence is not a de­fence when there is a breach of a fidu­cia­ry du­ty. Elect­ed and ap­point­ed lead­ers must see their fidu­cia­ry du­ty, role and func­tion as one of strict li­a­bil­i­ty.

How can we de­mand dis­ci­pline, in­tegri­ty and eth­i­cal con­duct from our youth when they per­ceive their el­ders and lead­ers as ei­ther cor­rupt or tol­er­ant of cor­rup­tion?

Sport lead­er­ship is not a pop­u­lar­i­ty con­test. When elect­ed, the du­ty of care, oblig­a­tion and re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to look af­ter the best in­ter­est of the or­gan­i­sa­tion is para­mount and sacro­sanct.

The op­por­tu­ni­ty pre­sent­ed to all na­tion­al sport or­gan­i­sa­tions, with­out ex­cep­tion is sim­ple, when your neigh­bour house on fire wet yours.

To those who rush to con­demn and crit­i­cise be care­ful how you pelt stones. As the say­ing goes when you "live in glass house don't pelt stones."

Some elect­ed sport ad­min­is­tra­tors may be liv­ing in a glass house and they may not know. Ig­no­rance is not an ex­cuse or de­fence. Lead­ers must stand up and be count­ed. Do­ing the right thing it's the best ex­am­ple to set.

Eter­nal vig­i­lance and dili­gence is the best in­sur­ance against a break­down of good gov­er­nance in na­tion­al sport or­gan­i­sa­tions and I dare say the wider so­ci­ety.

Bri­an Lewis is the Hon­orary Sec­re­tary Gen­er­al of the T&T Olympic Com­mit­tee http//: http://www.ttoc.org/