Further thoughts on the role of the SRU president
Kevin Ferrie (April 9) states he disagrees with the alleged proposal that the SRU president should have executive powers over the CEO and board chairman.

I agree with him in that for me, the CEO oversees the paid executives while the president should oversee the general council. Both the CEO and the president should report to the chairman and the three should work in partnership.

One aspect of the president's role I am opposed to is that of its recommended ambassadorial' role. We simply cannot afford the role to be purely ambassadorial. The president should be business-focused, ensuring the general council and its members achieve their performance objectives and that the clubs are supported and represented at all times.


There is also a huge political role to be undertaken given the need to influence in local and national government circles and the ambassadorial' role, although not ignored, should be kept to a minimum. I also believe that in order to keep some consistency then the president's post should hold a two-year tenure.

Jim Stevenson may have gone a step too far with his discussion document' in suggesting that the president's role has executive powers over the CEO, but he has to be congratulated in challenging the status quo and starting the debate.

Allan Mackintosh, via email

Kevin Ferrie's clearly humorous mock-trenchant article begs the question that (having himself employed the word "patsy") The Herald's august scribe may not, after all, fully understand the underlying management requirements and governance issues, if not Murrayfield's traditional manoeuvrings and political dynamics . . .

Ron Sutherland, Innerleithen

This article was posted on 10-Apr-2009, 07:17 by Hugh Barrow.