Compared to the tumultous year 2000 AGM of the USA Cricket Association, the 2001 meeting was brisk but perfunctory. There were few personal diatribes, and more calls for unity, but very few of the pressing issues facing US cricket were dealt with.

Attendance was sparse-- other than the Executive and 6 members of the Board of Directors, there were perhaps 20 in attendance, many of them non-members (i.e. not representing USACA member clubs, and therefore without a vote in the proceedings). Under the circumstances, many policy issues became question-and-answer sessions between attendees and officials. This may have served to clarify USACA's positions, but there was little time for in-depth discussion of the issues themelves.

Atul Rai, President of the USACA, opened the proceedings by asking for silence over the tragic events of September 11 in New York.

Dr. Rai then pointed at the lack of resources available to USACA from the ICC as a major problem; the USA, he said, receives only 1/50th of funding that Europe received from ICC and yet the USA was as big as Europe.

He wanted feedback from membership on how they wanted USACA to move forward. This was all going to take time, and "Rome wasn't built in a day".

Dr. Rai then came up with a new goal for the USACA-- to develop "at least one turf wicket in each major city" in order to to bring international cricket to the USA. The hope was to see international cricket being played in the USA-- Dr. Rai disclosed that the WICB had pledged to play some games at the next World Cup outside the West Indies, a point supported by other USACA Officers as well.

Dr. Rai then touched upon what he considered to be other major goals for the USACA in the year ahead. These were: 1. "Junior Cricket Development" which had been "seriously lacking"..."We will make necessary changes", he claimed, "to make sure this is not an idle effort". 2. Senior team - a phased development would take place, so that the USA could qualify for the 2005 World Cup; 3. "Bring in top professionals to run [USACA] as a professional organization, and move cricket along." Dr. Rai concluded by urging people to help USACA and help Cricket; to "put differences behind us" and to "put things in perspective and move on".

Mr. Lesly Lowe, 1st Vice-President of the USACA, echoed Dr. Rai's point about the need for more turf pitches in the USA as discussed with the WICB. He also pointed out that the current Executive had been in place for only three months, and defended the USACA Board of Directors as working to do what was positive for US cricket.

The first discordant note at the AGM was struck by Mr. Ashok Patel of the New Jersey Cricket Academy. Mr. Patel accused the USACA of "waiting to get money from ICC, [spending] it the way you feel like, and having nothing to show for [it]." He told the USACA, " You choose players to represent America by picking people out of your pockets". Instead, he wanted the USACA and all parties should " work together and start developing [facilities] now."

The reaction to Mr. Patel's comments was vaguely conciliatory. Dr. Rai echoed Mr. Lowe--The USACA Executive "have been here [only] 3 months", and "facilities were one of the biggest priorities [of the USACA]." Mr. Masood, ex-President of the USACA and current Board member, praised him for being "one of us - Patel is part of [USACA's] Youth Program--" and saying he was "glad to see [Mr. Patel] do all [these] things". Presumably Mr. Patel was mollified, and discussion moved on to other topics.

Mr. Selwyn Caesar, USACA Treasurer, said that there were 416 clubs in USACA. Of these, however, only approximately 140 clubs had paid their dues for this year, i.e. only 32% were paid-up members. He thought there needed to be a public appeal to Presidents of leagues, Member clubs and Directors to pay annual membership fees In 2002, said Mr. Caesar, the ICC was changing its funding policy, and it was critical to the USACA "to get our house in order".

Mr. Shafiq Jadavji of USCRICKET.COM disputed Mr. Caesar's figures-- he thought there were more like 516 Clubs (the actual number of US Cricket Clubs is, in fact, more than 600-- CRICINFO-USA.) . What was the USACA doing, he wondered, about the situation? The reply to Mr. Jadavji was by now a familiar one--"[we have been here only] 3 months, we are trying to do a lot"-- and "[in the] next 2 or 3 months we will have a better handle [on the situation]."

Mr. Bobby Refaie, Secretary of USACA, covered a lot of ground in his report, emphasizing and clarifying many issues which had been covered by the previous officers. He again stressed the need for first-class facilities for cricket in the USA. He also informed the meeting that "every Wednesday there is a [USACA] Executive phone conference. If you are interested in serving, submit names--there are 16 committees. Put some faith in us." Laks Sampath, President of NCCA, asked: "What are these 16 committees and have the goals of these committees been defined?" Mr. Refaie's answer was that "[the] committees [had been] finalized but people not. The regional directors had submitted names, and these will be announced." On hiring "professional staff to reach financial goals", Dr. Rai announced that the USACA would "identify [a] marketing group who will then help us PR, fundraising etc...for USACA". A part time admin assistant, "Sid [Muthevi. of Minnesota], would help initially.." .

Mr. Arun Vittala, Regional Director of USACA, commented that "plans [were] being put in place for helping clubs and leagues for funding...", although it was not clear what plans he was referring to. He added, "we firmly believe we are coming up with a Cricket Plan just like a Soccer plan."

Mr. Zamin Amin, former captain of the USA team, then asked why if "Fitness was supposed to have been 75% of team selected. 75% of people selected not fit enough to play". He argued that "the US has been prostituting themselves... the Manager [of the USA team at the ICC Trophy] practically bought his way into the position." He went on to say that "excuses that you have not been around long enough is nonsense and not an acceptable excuse. The team that went to Canada was not the right team. Lots of talented cricketers are going to turn away because of your policies."

There followed a series of reports by Regional Directors on activity in ther respective reasons, which are being omitted here for reasons of space.

Discussion then moved to USACA's Junior Cricket Development Program. According to Dr. Rai , " As a national organization we felt that there was a need to help coordinate the efforts nationally for U-13, and moving forward to U-15 and U19. He said that the Florida [U-13] tournament was to be held next year, and that "the USACA [is] to be the flag bearer for the USA team". And that the USACA "will make sure we are involved in planning and implementation of this tournament". The statement about the U-13 team was interesting since it it did not deal with the disputes and arguments that had occurred over the past year in this area between USACA, USJC, Major League Cricket Inc and the CCAM regarding US U-13 activities, but none of the other protagonists were present at the AGM, so these points were not raised.

The obvious question did get posed from the floor; namely, what was being done to work with the United States Junior Cricket Program which had, after all, been active in US Junior cricket long before the USACA had thought of starting its Junior Development Program. After two long answers which did not address the question directly, Dr. Rai replied that "As per USACA constitution we cannot bring in USJC as a Member of USACA. USJC could not have been accepted as an individual entity." Shafiq Jadavji of Uscricket.com commented that "[USJC] It is not just a regional organization. Their membership consists of people from different regions. Would USACA entertain the idea of [USJC] leaders to be a part of the USACA Junior cricket program?" Dr. Rai replied that he didn't "want to talk abut history. Malcolm and Mike can be a part of this Youth Program. We will extend a invitation to all to be involved." He added that "when it comes to the USACA Youth Development Committee, nothing is set in stone, changes can be made"-- an open-ended, if somewhat ambiguous, answer to the issue of working with the USJC.

After a series of comments and discussions about upcoming tournaments and selection processes, Shafiq Jadavji of USCricket.com raised another issue; namely "What was the process for recall of [USACA] directors?" Clifford Hinds responded by asking Mr. Jadavji to read the USACA constitution. Once the letters of recall were received, the Board of Directors would conduct an inquiry, and allow for the person under question to respond and only then would they take the appropriate action.

At this point, the meeting was adjourned.

As a show-and-tell effort on the part of the USACA Executive to lay out what it was proposing to do in the next year and beyond, the meeting was informative. The emphasis on parks and facilities is obviously related to laying a groundwork for first-class cricket to be played in the USA, up to and including the possibility of future World Cup matches to be played on US soil.

But where would that leave US cricket? Is it likely that US cricket teams will be able to challenge these future world-class visitors on equal terms? Or will the USA be spectators in a first-class cricket show dominated by foreign teams? Judging by their comments, the USACA is clearly hoping that it is able to upgrade US cricket enough in the next few years to make a respectable showing against first-class teams which visit the USA in the facilities that are constructed and available. Whether this is wishful thinking or not, only time will tell.

A more serious problem with the AGM was that several "hot-potato issues" were either not addressed, or swept under the rug. No serious attention was given to working with the USJC in the field of junior cricket, although an olive branch was extended to individuals from the USJC who might wish to join USACA's junior program efforts-- an offer likely to be rejected by USJC, as USACA officers might have known. The USACA also refused to deal directly with the problems of non-representation being faced by its Northwest Region, preferring to point to its Constitution and stating it would deal with the issue on its own terms.

All in all, it is likely that the 2001 AGM will be remembered for what did not happen, as much as all that did occur. There was no classic confrontation, no duels over principles or positions, no threats or counter-threats, no dark mutterings on or off the floor about perfidies or betrayals. Nor, unfortunately, was there any real debate over important policies or issues.-- and several important questions about US cricket were left unasked, and unanswered. These will undoubtedly have to be dealt with somehow. But where, and when, is anybody's guess.