administrator Joe L. Brown yesterday: As a result of the recent turmoil within the administration of the Bermuda Football Association I have been made to be the scapegoat for the failure of elected officials to properly manage the affairs of the association according to accepted practices and principles; but more importantly, according to the constitution, bye-laws and standing orders the officials were elected to be guided by.

Accusations, unsubstantiated facts, have been promulgated to the general public, and thus the affiliates, by BFA president Mr. Charles E. Marshall with his statements in the media, in particular those in The Royal Gazette on Thursday, January 21, 1993; only two days after I had been dismissed. There he was reported as saying, and I quote: "The reality of the situation is competency not personality with the running of the association. The association has got to be run properly.'' This, I took, and I'm sure all of Bermuda, including the affiliates, also accepted that Mr. Marshall was saying that I was dismissed for incompetency, not, according to his letter of dismissal, for changing the lock on my office door.

The situation of unsubstantiated accusations magnified itself during the inaugural live `Sports Voice' programme on ZBM's major television news when four callers to the programme defamed my character.

Those callers hurt me, my family, and my reputation almost as much as Mr.

Marshall and the association. It hurt even more when the Bermuda Broadcasting Company, to this day, have failed to extend an apology for this breach of public trust, and the broadcasting act, via the same medium they used when my character was defamed.

So many things have happened to me of late that I have been inoculated with a false feeling of guilt.

Some would have you believe that I perpetrated this upon myself by my action as the administrative assistant of the association. I strongly believe that nothing could be farther from the truth.

But in terms of the statement made by Mr. Marshall that I was dismissed for "incompetence'', I today challenge Mr. Marshall, and the executive committee to release to the public the report of the directors recommending my dismissal since it appears as if the directive from the affiliates is going to be ignored.

When individuals are out to injure one it can be done in so many ways. On the day I was dismissed I was not permitted to say goodbye to the office staff with whom I had worked for almost six years. In fact the office was closed and the young ladies were sent home while I cleared my office to ensure that I was unable to say goodbye.

Now, I would like to clarify a few things for the benefit of the public and the sanity of my family.

The affiliates, 19 of 23, like myself, wanted to have an impartial body to look into this entire situation since it is already proved that the executive committee, as presently made up, have shown its inability to deal with this matter impartially.

You see, I don't know for sure who actually dismissed me, for my "terms of reference'' said I worked under the direction of the executive committee, but only one executive committee member, per se, voted for my dismissal. The other three were directors, but on this historic night they were a separate body -- the individuals who recommended that I be dismissed. While the directors are members of the executive committee, and have votes in their own right, the constitution states: "Provided always that no person shall vote in more than one capacity.'' Hence you can understand why the affiliates asked for an impartial body to look into the constitutionality of the actions of the executive committee and those of the president.

That is even more clear today. The affiliates, according to the standing orders of the association, directed the president to call a meeting as soon as possible, "but in any case within 28 days from Friday, January 29, 1993'' to appoint the honorary vice-presidents as an impartial body, and that they be charged with the responsibility of investigating all matters pertaining to the administration of football''.

That means that Mr. Marshall could have called the meeting anytime after January 29, 1993, with at least 14 days' notice in writing, but in any event he had to call that meeting by no later than Friday, February 26, 1993. This directive by the affiliates appears to have been ignored. I say `appears' because contrary to the constitution a meeting has been called for tonight (Monday). The agenda for this meeting? To discuss the administration of the association, past, present and future; ironically the same things the affiliates want the honorary vice-presidents to investigate and report to them on.

Now, I did state that the directive of the affiliates appears to have been ignored for two reasons. The only council meeting the president can call, once he has received a directive from the affiliates, is the special meeting so directed by them. That is unless he had already called another council meeting prior to receiving the directive from the affiliates. This has not been the case since the meeting that has been called for tonight was dated Monday, February 1, 1993...three days after receiving the directive from the affiliates.

The fact that tonight's meeting has been called is a continuation of the aberration of the constitution. Even if the president had the authority to call tonight's meeting he had to give the affiliates notice, in writing, at least 14 days before the date of the meeting. This could not be the case if the correspondence was dated February 1, 1993, and mailed to the affiliates, as was the case.

Now today I'm told that no date has been set by the president for the meeting he was directed to call by the affiliates, but in any event it will not be called until sometime in March! That means he will not meet the terms of the directive from the affiliates. This is just a continuing case of the aberration of constitutional powers exhibited within the past 13 months by the present administration.

Let me give you another stark example: Mr. Marshall was elected president on November 23, 1991. I went on vacation two days later for three weeks. During his second executive committee on Wednesday, January 16, 1992, less than two months after taking office, Mr. Marshall announced to a stunned executive committee, and a shocked and embarrassed administrative assistant, that he was firing me! When questioned by members of the executive as to what meeting of the executive committee was this decision made, the president explained that it was made by the executive officers, who to a man, admitted that the president had expressed this wish during a meeting with them, but they had made no such agreement, nor recommendation to the executive that such a course of action be taken.

At a later meeting Mr. Marshall had to apologise to the executive committee for his insensitivity, and for taking liberties for which he had no authority.

He apologised to me privately in my office on the Monday following the Wednesday meeting.

For the next 12 months I had to work under the mental pressure of knowing that Mr. Marshall wanted me fired. As a result of this desire on his part so many things took place in relation to the administration of the association that I felt in some cases, and knew in others, that were wrong so I addressed my concerns in a memo to the directors on May 30, 1992.

My concerns apparently were ignored, but they investigated and recommended action on the president's concerns. I went to the individuals who were supposed to protect my interests. I had no one else to go to.

Finally, I would like to go back to my letter of dismissal and draw your attention to the second paragraph which states, and I quote: "concerning your actions, in particular, the change of the lock, the executive committee are satisfied your conduct has been such as to justify summary dismissal.'' I did not write that letter, Mr. Marshall did. I know why I was dismissed.

When you find out you will be as surprised as I was when the president made his first attempt last January. He finally succeeded two days short of a year later, with only four people supporting him.