WITH Peter V’Landys set to become the NRL’s interim CEO next month, prominent lawyer Lee Hagipantelis has discussed how he could stay on in the position alongside his role as ARLC Chairman.<\/p>\n
After Andrew Abdo announced he would leave the NRL\u2019s top job to replace Craig Tiley at Tennis Australia in May, V\u2019Landys will take over the position when Abdo officially departs on July 15.<\/p>\n
This sees him take on his existing role of ARL Commission Chairman alongside the NRL CEO position while the competition looks to fill the vacancy.<\/p>\n
With this new role, it sees the Racing NSW CEO take on additional power, seeing him sit within the NRL’s executive team as well as the ARLC Board of Directors, which is set to raise plenty of attention.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it’s gonna get a lot of attention, there’s no doubt about it,\u201d Hagipantelis said on SEN\u2019s Kick Off.<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause strictly speaking, governance principles do provide that there is a separation of powers within any organisation. You want to separate those who make the decisions from those who implement them and those who supervise the implementation.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe executive chairman effectively combines all three. It vests in that individual a lot of operational power within the game.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt’s generally accepted that the constitution does provide that Peter cannot be appointed executive chairman under the constitution as it currently stands.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe can’t be appointed an employee of the commission or the NRL without an amendment to the constitution, which would be by way of a special resolution requiring the approval of the overwhelming majority of the clubs.\u201d<\/p>\n
But as Hagipantelis explains, there is a possibility of granting V’Landys these powers on a full-time basis without the need for clubs to vote on changing the constitution, thus making him an executive chairman.<\/p>\n
Currently, 16 of the NRL’s 17 clubs alongside the NSWRL and QRL would need to agree to make any changes to the constitution.<\/p>\n
But under clause 53, the NRL’s directors from time to time are allowed to create a position with similar powers to theirs and can appoint anyone, director or not, to the new position.<\/p>\n
This same clause allows them to terminate and abolish the position.<\/p>\n
However, in clause 35, it states that the Chief Executive Officer cannot be a director or a member of the board, which V’Landys currently is.<\/p>\n
This then forces the NRL to decide whether they interpret the broad or specific power within the constitution.<\/p>\n
\u201cSome very clever people are pointing to clause 53 of the constitution, which permits the board to establish an executive chairman without obtaining approval (as) they argue, because it gives the board the authority to create new roles (and) new positions,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n
\u201cGenerally speaking, in a constitution, if you have a broad power but then you also have a specific power, the specific power will take priority.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn other words, if the specific power says that you cannot do this, but the broad power can be interpreted broadly, it’ll be read down.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo, it’d be interesting to say whether they’re in favour of it or not in favour of it.\u201d<\/p>\n