<<Secondly, If you do decide to print these emails on the CRICINFO website then these emails should be printed in its entirety WITHOUT any comments. As the CRICINFO website clearly states, this is the OPINION column. This is my opinion and NOT YOURS. If you or any other reader wishes to comment on this email then they are free to do so via your opinion column. WITHOUT you commenting my emails.>>
(1) I was the one who made that "clear statement" in CRICINFO--for carrying out editorial policy for the USA page.
(2) OUR policy is: (a) to print letters that are (in OUR opinion) important to US cricket---but (b) delete personal references or attacks likely to be considered libellous-- and, (c) where we think it is necessary, add explanations to establish context; e.g. mention opposing views where relevant, add facts or descriptions which could support or modify points being made, etc.
(3) When I decided to print excerpts from your letters, I added "clarifications", not comments, where an additional or/and alternative statement or fact seemed to be available. My other option would have been to delete all your statements which had been questioned or contradicted by anyone else. This is what I did with several other letters or e-mails--- I chose not to do this with your letters, because of the importance of the issues you were raising.
<< Maybe you should read the USACA Constitution regarding the rights of the Board of Directors, which the Honorable Julian Hunt very eloquently emphasized at the meeting, held on November 4, 2000. Also, as an additional reference, there is an email that I have attached to this document. In it, after a meeting of the majority of the Board of Directors, on April 29, 2000, it clearly states the role of the Executive committee. >>
I have not yet received any reports on the actual proceedings at the USACA meeting. And this is the first time I have seen the e-mail you attached. Thanks.
<< However, I got some emails and calls from some of the Directors/Executives/Club Members regarding the "Wild Wild West" email I sent to them. Strangely none of the parties involved replied to this email but you have taken it upon yourself to dissect and reply to this email. Your strike rate, as they say in cricket terminology, is 100 percent. Two articles sent out with questions and information regarding the Executives and you have replied to both of them. >>
(1) In your first article/letter, you clearly stated that you wanted someone to find out answers to the 8 questions you were posing, since you weren't getting the answers yourself. So, I tried to find out all I could--and printed what I had found out, as "clarifications" alongside your questions.
(2)On your second letter, I was providing clarifications as to statement or fact, to those points that I thought were important enough not to be deleted or edited out. As indicated, that is my editorial policy.
(3) There was a reply to the Time Out letter….check the letters. My comments were again intended as "clarifications"---for example, giving the USACA Executive's point of view on why they had failed to meet with TIME OUT, as charged by TIME OUT--- because both points of view needed to be placed next to each other for someone to decide which view they supported.
<<Regarding this open letter let me point out one more fact. In it, before the main body of the letter, you have clearly mentioned, "WE ARE NOT ABLE TO VERIFY THIS INFO." This line has been underlined and italicized. YET, you have provided justification and comments thru out the letter.>>
What I said "we were unable to verify" was that the letter was indeed written by Mark Mascarenhas, as it seemed to suggest. We (CRICINF0) chose to treat it as a letter from TIME OUT since the mailing had come from them. This had no bearing on the letter itself, or our clarifications of it.
<< Astonishing, isn't it?? Besides these letters, you have commented NO OTHER EMAIL/LETTER. Now I wonder why??>>
With other e-mails and letters, I deleted whole sections and comments, even entire letters, outright --rather than leave them in and try to clarify or comment. These three items--your two letters, and the TIME OUT open letter-- were too important in my opinion to delete.
<<As a Board member, it is my right and duty to ask questions. I believe in facts and figures and not fictional stories or listening just to one side of an account. I definitely believe in ascertaining the facts from all parties involved, not like some other people who don't bother verifying. Maybe because I am a very outspoken person, people on the other side of the fence don't like this. I don't need any shadow Executive or Phantom of the Opera or anyone else to tell me how to handle any given situation. The only way to stop me is to give me logical and straight answers to my questions.>>
I have not questioned any of the above points, regarding you.
<<Since you are now part of the shadow Executive Committee and answering my emails as well as love to investigate matters (Even though these investigations are rather tilted and one-sided!!), please feel free to answer these few questions.>>
I will answer THIS e-mail---
<< What is the US Junior Cricket Program?? Please be kind enough to be detailed about this to include who has registered it, what are it's links to USACA, how are it's Executives linked to USACA, What are the effects of cross-managements on any organization, etc. etc.>>
I have been promised a lot of information about the Junior Cricket Program, and hope to do an article on it in the next two months.
<<Since you are into bankruptcy law too, maybe you should be aware of the fact that if USACA files for bankruptcy, one of the options is that the Judge/Court can award the affected organization to the largest creditor to reorganize. In this case, Timeout Inc is the largest creditor... In your earlier article, you mentioned that the root of all problems in US cricket is Timeout Inc. So, maybe you have other information or even an opinion regarding the above and I hope that you will let us know. Or have you changed your mind??>>
I have no special qualification in bankruptcy law….my statement you must be referring to was that organizations have been known to use bankruptcy law to reorganize or/and deal with their debts. Your point about Time Out is interesting, however. I would like to find out, too.
<<3. Coming to the USACA web site. At present there are four ads running. [One of them is] CRICINFO.COM. ....I am sure that it will be a very easy matter for you to find out how much CRICINFO is paying. And please don't come up with an answer like "Nothing!" because there is no such thing as a "Free Lunch". And if it is really free, then why is it so?? Also please let us know as to where are these funds being accounted in USACA as well as where they are applied to. As an added afterthought, isn't it strange that these companies are also involved in sponsoring the US Jr. Program?? Is there any connection to this factor?? >>
The CRICINFO question is an easy one. As CRICINFO'S USA Coordinator, I can confirm that NO contribution (in $) is being made to the USACA Web Page or the US Junior Cricket Program. As to why USACA would be giving CRICINFO "a free lunch" --personally, I see the USACA being allowed to carry our button logo on their Web site, as a favor that we extended to a deserving organization--and the same thing applies to the US Junior Cricket organization.
<<Coming to your reply regarding the Non-Alliance Clubs. FYI, Mr. Das, THEY choose to stay out of USACA. Maybe these clubs think they are superior to the league players in the area. Feel free to get the reasons and opinions of these clubs. I am sure that the long-term benefit is for these clubs to join up with USACA or one of the recognized leagues in USACA and anything that can help achieve this, will be worth it.>>
That is an interesting point of view and one I want to explore in some detail. I am sure you are aware there is another point of view on this. I have some information, but not enough (as yet) for me to make any definitive statement.
<< Whose permission [was taken] to contact the ICC?? As a follow-up, Why did the ICC even consider a notion to get a resolution passed from the Board to close down USACA and open another organization?? (I wonder what were the tales and long-stories told to ICC??!!).>>
The discussions with ICC go back to the USCF days, when representations were being made to the ICC regarding finances, election issues, et cetera. I assume those lines of communication were still open upto and beyond the point that the USCF-USACA rift was supposedly ended. As to the "tales and long-stories told to ICC", I am sure you and I have a pretty good idea what they might be.
<< FYI, the USACA constitution clearly states that NONE of the Executives can take a decision without consulting with the Board of Directors (Article 4.1) and getting their approval. Once again, please refer to the email attached. As mentioned earlier, this email that was SENT TO the Executives and copied to the rest, also shows the direction and intent of the Directors. >>
I was told there were several versions of the USACA Constitution. If you have a copy with the referenced article 4.1 in it, I would like to see it.
Deb K. Das, USA Coordinator, CRICINFO
