Controversial changes to the statutes of Formula 1’s governing body approved on Friday constitute a “worrisome concentration of power”, according to the head of one of its member clubs.
Changes to the statutes concerning the ethics and audit committees each passed with about 75% approval at the FIA general assembly in Rwanda on Friday.
Opponents say the changes will reduce accountability at the FIA.
Before the vote, Thierry Willemarck, the head of the Royal Touring Club of Belgium, expressed to FIA members his concerns about the process through which the changes had been made.
He told BBC Sport: “It is a concentration of power that we have to be worrisome about.”
He said the “correct interpretation” of the changes was that they essentially put the president of the FIA and the president of the FIA senate, who are allies and on the same leadership team, in control of the ethics and audit committees.
They have been proposed at the end of a year in which the ethics and audit committees have investigated a number of allegations about the conduct of Ben Sulayem.
Motorsport UK chairman David Richards also expressed his opposition before the vote at the FIA general assembly in Rwanda.
Richards told BBC Sport: “I’ve got reservations about a number of issues within the changes but it’s the process that I’m challenging and want to see more transparent in the future.
“This is not an issue about what the changes might or might not be to the rules on the senate or the ethics committee. This is a fundamental debate about how governance should work within the FIA and the opportunity for proper, open debate on these matters.”
Willemarck added: “I don’t say anyone plans to abuse this, but with good governance normally you would have an audit committee that in our case would report to the senate and the denomination of the audit committee should be approved by the general assembly.
“And you should prove the possibility for general assembly members to make reference to the audit committee if they have doubt on some practices so there can be an inquiry running independently of anyone who is leading the federation.
“It is just a matter of good practice and governance that you see in most organisations around the world.”
Both Richards and Willemark said the FIA’s statute review commission had been bypassed in the process of drawing up and approving the changes, which had been put to an e-vote of world council members with no discussion before the general assembly.
Willemark emphasised that it was “not mandatory” for changes to pass through the commission so “nothing illegal has happened in the process”.
But he added that he would seek to “benchmark” the new FIA statutes on ethics and audit with those of other bodies.
He would “communicate the main differences we observe and then see what happens”.
Heads of Belgian, British and Austrian members of the FIA have now all publicly expressed their opposition to the process of introducing the changes, and there is said to be a groundswell of opposition among European member clubs.
The votes passed with 24.51% opposition on the ethics changes and 23.83% on the audit committee.
What does the FIA say?
The FIA has for the first time sought to explain the reasoning behind the changes in the wake of their adoption.
A spokesperson said there were three main reasons for the changes to the ethics committee.
The first was to “preserve and enhance its independence by reducing the involvement of the FIA administration in its operation” and that the committee “now has the powers to independently assess whether or not to launch an investigation”.
Critics point out that the new statutes mean it cannot do so without the approval of the FIA president.
The spokesperson added that “as a result of continuous leaks to the media of confidential material” it was “proposed that the distribution of any ethics committee report will be limited”.
They said this “does not prevent” the two presidents from “involving the senate or senate members or other members of the FIA or its staff discussing or implementing any recommendations from the ethics committee”.
However, critics say it does remove the obligation for them to do so, which previously existed.
The statement added that it was “necessary to limit the automatic sharing of information with multiple members” because ethics committee reports “often contain material of a confidential nature”.
Critics point out that the changes limit oversight only to the FIA president and the president of the senate.
On the audit committee, the FIA said the changes were to clarify that it is an advisory body to the senate “retains its powers to assist and investigate if asked to do so by the president of the senate”.
Critics point out that the fact that the audit committee cannot act unless asked is a significant concern when it comes to transparency and good governance.