Gentlemen... Stated below is a general sequence of events that has affected not only [the United States of America Cricket Association, or] USACA, but also you and your clubs. Please bear in mind that I do not wish this to be a long, long letter and hence I have only brought to your attention the major factors and events that have taken place.
OCTOBER 1, 1999: The new Executive committee took over power to run US cricket after promising a new democratic era in US cricket. This "new" committee consisted of: Mr. Ricky Craig - President, Mr. Kamran Khan - 1st Vice President, Mr. Selwyn Caesar - 2nd Vice President, Dr. Atul Rai - Secretary, Mr. Mike Miller - Treasurer.
DECEMBER 1999: First sign of infighting between the Executives .... For example, emails regarding the appointment of a Director of non-alliance clubs, when in the constitution it is clearly stated that the Chairman of the League Presidents will be the 10th Director on the USACA Board.
( A significant proportion of cricket clubs in the USA, perhaps 10 to 15%, are "independents" who do not belong to any cricket leagues. The issue of how to have them represented at the national level has never been fully resolved. Resistance from established Leagues which are represented on the USACA Board has been cited as one of the reasons. Whatever the merits of this particular matter quoted by Mr. Refaie, something may need to be done about the disenfranchised status of the "independents".)
FEBRUARY 2000: After the Directors on the Board pushed and coaxed, the first Board and Executive Committee meeting was held in New York. In this meeting, the President's apology for not communicating with the Board was extended. Clarification that the appointment of the 10th Director to sit on the US Board would be the Chairman of the League Presidents, and not the Chairman of the Non-Alliance Clubs ....
[There was also] the surprising announcement of the trials to select the US team to tour England and South Africa would be "fully financed by some multi-national companies". The Treasurer... suggested [that] ...the US Cricket Association [declare bankruptcy] so we can get out of our financial commitments. The date for the next meeting was fixed as April 29, 2000. The Executive Committee in closing promised better communications with the Board of Directors.
(If a person or organization is unable to meet its financial commitments, bankruptcy CAN be a viable option. Was, or is, the USACA really unable to meet all of its financial commitments? That would seem to be the issue.
As to the England tour being "fully financed by some multi-national companies", see CRICINFO's earlier comments on the topic--it would appear that if there had been offers of sponsorship by "multi-national companies", they were withdrawn because of reports on internecine "warfare" within USACA, and its perceived problems with financial accountability dating back to earlier times.)
MARCH 2000: No concrete communication from the Executive Committee-- and the whereabouts of the President, Mr. Craig, were unknown. This, specially, after getting the promises and handshakes that better communication between the Board and the Executive Committee would be maintained.
No meeting was held in April as promised and agreed upon. The Secretary of the Board, Dr. Rai, resigned citing lack of communication within the Executives as the reason.
(A correction here--Dr. Rai was not the Secretary of the Board, but of the USACA. The "lack of communication" issue as of March 2000 was more between the members of the Executive than between the Executive and the Board. Specifically, our information is that most of it had to do with the President of the USACA-- as Mr. Refaie correctly states, "the whereabouts of the President, Mr. Craig, were unknown".)
MAY 2000: Mr. Kamran Khan asked the Directors for the list of players to participate in the trials. A very surprising announcement ... that the trials were not paid for, however the tour to England was fully sponsored.
(The USACA President had appointed then Vice-President Kamran Khan as chairman of a four-person ad hoc committee to spearhead new USACA development. He was acting in that capacity when making the stated announcements.)
The Board of Directors asked for a meeting on the same weekend as the trials in PHL. The Board of Directors requested Dr. Rai to attend this meeting and explain his resignation. Two days before the meeting ... the Executive Committee sent an e-mail out saying that they could not attend. However, most of the Directors attended the meeting and asked several questions about the finances, team selections, sponsorships etc.
(Is "asking for a meeting" the same thing as "calling an extraordinary meeting"? If it is a request, can it be declined (in this case, by the Executive)? If it is a FORMAL "extraordinary meeting", did a majority of the Board make such a formal request, and does documentation exist to prove this? Different views have been expressed on this matter to CRICINFO--and we are not sure.)
JUNE 2000: With the approval of the majority of the Board, Dr. Rai's resignation was rescinded. Mr. Ricky Craig resigned. Mr. Kamran Khan took over as Acting President.
The USACA Treasurer announced USACA Board elections without consulting the Board, and appointed an auditor from his hometown of San Rafael, CA.
(See earlier comments--it is not clear if the meeting of the Board was "formal" or "informal", and whether the Board could act to rescind an officer's resignation without reference to the General Membership-- a point made by John Wainwright, President of the US Northwest Cricket League, in his open letter to USACA.
As to announcing the USACA elections without consulting the Board-- the opposing viewpoint is that since an interim USACA Secretary had been appointed after Dr. Rai had resigned, and he was in charge of supervising the elections as laid out in the USACA constitution, and since the procedures for holding the elections are fully laid out, there would appear to be no reason to get the Board's permission. As to the Treasurer appointing an auditor, the USACA constitution does not say how the appointment is to be made--and we have heard no suggestion so far that the "named auditor" was not professionally qualified.)
JULY 2000: The famous "fully sponsored" and "successful" tour to England where the US Team won three matches out of the seven played.... The Board of Directors forced a meeting so that the Executives would reply to all unanswered questions. Once again, [the Executive] opted to "duck" this meeting by saying that the meeting [was] not legally called. [They] were issued legal notices to attend this constitutionally called meeting to answer these serious questions pertaining to finance, the web-site, the new company called US Cricket Board, team selection, US elections and appointment of the auditor. [The Treasurer] did not turn up.
(See earlier comments on constitutionality of calling Board meetings. CRICINFO was also told that the Treasurer had not been informed until the very last minute that the meeting was indeed "on"...he was going by the Executive's decision that the meeting had not been legally called...and he was unable to change his travel plans.)
[At] the Board meeting on July 29, 2000, Mr. Kamran Khan was confirmed as President after his ...promises to maintain a better line of communication with the Board as well as consulting them on all decisions. Mr. Lloyd Rambaransigh was appointed the 1st Vice President. In the same meeting, the Board decided to replace the auditor with a new auditor from the State of New York. This task was given to Mr. Selwyn Caesar. The new dates for USACA elections were decided for September 2000.
AUGUST 2000 : Disastrous US cricket trip to Canada for ICC (Americas Cup). Mr. Selwyn Caesar sent an email informing the Board of appointing an auditor in PHL, hometown of the USACA President. Board members questioned the reasoning behind this appointment of the auditor from PHL. Mr. Selwyn's reply was that he picked the auditor thru the Internet, with Mr. Kamran Khan denying any knowledge or link with this selection.
The Secretary of the USACA contacted the auditor and was surprised to find out that not only had the USACA President initiated the contact but ..[that] one of his team members from a club in PHL worked for the same company as the auditor. He immediately informed the Board and stopped the election until a neutral auditor was decided upon.
( We have not been shown any record of Mr. Caesar saying anything about where he picked the auditor. On The USACA President's denial, see correspondence between Mr. Rai and Mr. Kamran Khan on this point.
An issue which seems not to have been discussed by anyone is, whether a professional and certified auditor can be so biased as to "tilt" his/her reports in favor of a client, or customer. If proved, such a performance could immediately cost the auditor his professional license. If there are grounds for believing that these professional requirements can be circumvented, these need to be stated by those challenging the appointment--that the "wrong" person initiated the contact, or that there were "friends" or "mutual acquaintances" involved in the identification process, would not seem-- in our opinion-- to be sufficient grounds in themselves for challenging the professionalism of auditors with national credentials and track records.)
SEPTEMBER 2000: [The USACA President] decided to call a special meeting for member clubs.. While all this was going on, the selectors were ... picking their friends and whom they knew for the US Team to participate in the Red Stripe Tournament in West Indies. Once again, we saw what a performance by the USA Team in the tournament.... However, ...[you will be told that] it was a successful tour just because they beat Barbados when Barbados had [already] qualified for the finals and rested all their key players. This is the result of picking the US Team comprised of friends instead of talent.
(It is true that Barbados had already qualified for the Final, but only two of their top players were rested--there were still five in the Barbadian team who had played for West Indies. In any case, the US success made international headlines--it was, after all, the first defeat of a major Caribbean team in the Red Stripe competition by an "outside" international team-- see Report on Red Stripe 2000.)
OCTOBER 2000: Notice Letters of the Extraordinary Meeting mailed out to the League Presidents supposedly by [the USACA Prsident] but bearing the Post Office mark of San Rafael, CA. ...
( The Post Office of San Rafael, CA is at-- or close to-- the residence of the USACA Treasurer. The insinuation is an obvious one. But is too much being made of this? Since the Treasurer is the one who would presumably have the funds for a mass mailing--couldn't this be a matter of convenience? Just a question we thought we would raise... )
Gentlemen, ... I have tried to be as factual as possible but please excuse the ... sarcasm.... I definitely think that there is enough cause for ANYBODY to feel betrayed and "Let-Down" ...
Please re-read the above once again and you will notice that at no time did the majority of the Directors hinder anything. WHY?? Simple !! Because we were not consulted at all and decisions were taken by [the Executive]. This ... was responsible for all the fiascos taking place. Right from the selection of the auditor to the selection of the team.
... Going back in USACA history, there was a time when the Treasurer... was accused of running the organization instead of the President.... At that time the Board was not happy and there were many upheavals. It looks like history is repeating itself, and the Treasurer of the association is still the"Phantom of the Opera" ..
.
On a lighter note, maybe we should dissolve the President's post and let the Treasurer run the Association. However, on a serious note, as you all know, the terms of the Directors are over and the Directors anxiously want the elections to take place through a neutral and impartial auditor.
I request ...that you should get rid of all the Executives...the Executive body is a defunct body with their personal agendas and no respect for accountability or the constitution of USACA. Conduct a fair and impartial election, and let the new Board elect the new Executives who can work together to put USACA back on its tracks and achieve its goal.... [otherwise] the USACA, [which is] being run as a rodeo show, ...will turn into the "Wild, Wild West". ... See you in New York on November 4, 2000 and I hope that the above has brought you "upto speed" with what is happening!
Bobby Refaie, Director, USACA Board
