Where is The WICB Headed? (Part 1)

Tue, Jul 8, '03 by KEN WALTERS

In the midst of its 75th year of Test Cricket and just four years before the ICC 2007 Cricket World Cup, the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) will hold its AGM in Dominica to decide whether the game will see a bright and sustainable future or whether it will plunge further into the abyss of disrepute.

As the stakeholders of West Indies cricket watch on with anxiety and concern, mindful of past glory and failure, it is important to take a step back and analyse the electoral process, which is usually contested in four stages.

This year is no different. This election, which pits the Chetram Singh/Val Banks ticket against one comprising Willie Rodriguez and Lennox John, will be contested along the following lines:

1. The Strategic Planning Stage
2. The Nomination Stage
3. The Lobbying and Promotion Stage
4. The Voting Stage

The Strategic Planning Stage

During this period, the competing forces, i.e. the stakeholders of West Indies Cricket who on the one part have burning concerns about the current state and future and want corporate change, herein after referred to as the "Revos"; and on the other part have vestige interests to maintain the status quo herein after referred to as the "Nananas or the We tings" engage in a series of meetings to decide:

(a) The future direction for the organisation.
(b) The interest that must be protected or destroyed
(c) The management profile of the nominees that will implement the opposing stakeholders strategic objectives.

The "Nananas or We Tings" have their base in conservatism and the former West Indies Cricket Board of Control (WICBC) paradigm. They relish the pre-incorporation approach where Directors were responsible for not only the Governance (policy making) but the day to day management of the organisation. They abhor the idea of professional managers and a one-day board meeting and greedily normalise a four day meeting and grab at the financial benefits.

Over time they have evolved from the paramountcy of the Territorial Boards (We Ting) through insular decision making , i.e the interest of the territories before that of the WICB, to a situation where they have established a two-tier Board, a power base (the Executive Committee or "EC") and the backbenchers.

This two-tier governance structure has resulted in about 40 EC meetings during the the two years of the Wes Hall/Val Banks administration. The significance of this propensity for EC meetings is seen in the terms of reference of the EC that is derived from the Articles of Incorporation of the WICB Inc. Article 73 reads: "The Executive Committee shall have authority to conduct the business of Board between Board Meetings, exercising the same powers and discretion except where restricted by statute, these articles or resolution of the Board."

How has this operated? For example, at the March 2003 Board Meeting, President Wes Hall proposed the appointment of Roger Brathwaite as CEO after singing praises regarding his efficiency and competence. When challenged and reminded that the Board had decided in the previous Board meeting (according to the confirmed minutes) that the position was to be advertised, the President explained that a decision was already taken by the EC to offer Brathwaite the position without advertising it.

In the vote that followed, in spite of many abstentions, the proposal was carried. The backbenchers should be comforted that they are not the exclusive recipients of this approach by the "Nananas or We Tings".

Let us look at the WICB's Cricket Committee (Playing and Development). The Committee comprises Mike Findlay, Andy Roberts, Everton Weeks, Brian Davis, Vivian Richards, Clyde Butts, Michael Holding, Ann Browne-John, Roland Holder and President Wes Hall. These members have a combined experience of 256 Tests and 382 ODI matches between them. The EC, by comparison, has only 48 Tests and zero ODI matches experience between them. All the Cricket Committee members have been coaches, managers and selectors at some time compared to only one member of the EC being a coach, selector and manager at some time.This committee with a wealth of experience in coaching, playing and development experience, regarded by the EC as the driving force behind cricket playing and development has seen, over the last two years, every recommendation they have submitted to the Board receive the "Nanana" response despite the fact that the President was supportive of the recommendations.

Their strategic future direction is to maintain the focus of power in themselves. They regard West Indies cricket as "We Ting " (their thing) and exercise direct power over the Board and Management. They show little regard for professional management and remove executives who they regard as not with them and hire others who they can treat as little boys to do their bidding. It is no wonder then that their tactics and strategies are based on deception, untruths and a lack of transparency even if they give lip service to the contrary.

What interests do they want to protect?

The power to make the decision on the appointment to every staff position if necessary. From CEO, executives and even personal and executive assistants.
The power to make the decision on the appointments of Senior Team, West Indies "A", West Indies "B", West Indies under 19 and 15, Shell Cricket Academy Captains, Managers, Coaches, Trainers, Physiotherapists, Analysts, Doctors and any other team personnel.
The power to decide where tests and ODI are played in the Caribbean.
The power to decide who will be awarded World Cup 2007 matches rather than make the process competitive.
The power to decide who can travel on Board business.
The power to decide what is communicated to the public.
The power to decide who will be President and Vice President
The Power to decide who will be on the next EC
The power to conceal their failures and misdemeanours in high office.

The WICB's Articles and Memorandum provides for an Executive Committee in Article 70 which states that the committee consists of:

The President and Vice President
Three directors each of whom shall be from a different Territorial Board appointed by the Board of Directors from amongst the directors; and
Two officers of the Board both of whom shall be ex-officio, non-voting members

The current EC consists of:

Reverend Wes Hall - President (Barbados)
Val Banks - Vice President (Leeward Islands)
Stephen Alleyne - Member (Barbados)
Richard DeSouza - Member (Trinidad & Tobago)
Chetram Singh - Member (Guyana)

Notwithstanding Article 70 above, Stephen Alleyne should not have been a member of the EC because the Board of Directors had in earlier years passed a resolution which provided for the three Directors on the EC to be from Territories other that of the President and Vice President.

The record shows that, at the July 21st 2001 meeting, Alleyne offered to resign from the EC but after his EC colleagues spoke on his behalf, the Board refused to accept his resignation. It was a very slick move but, in reality, It was not Alleyne's prerogative to resign. His tenure as an EC member terminated with Wes Hall's election to President. Alleyne has therefore served on the EC contrary to the provision of the WICB policy, but to the benefit of the EC's narrow objectives.

It is incidents like the foregoing that has motivated backbenchers and the West Indian public to put the above members of the EC under intense scrutiny. The backbenchers of the WICB must however take shared responsibility for allowing such tremendous power to be exercised by the EC. Backbenchers believe that they are being taken for a ride and have concerns regarding a number of issues that have not been effective resolved in their minds since the departure of Rousseau and Joseph, the former President and Vice President.

They refer to the alleged statements by Rousseau that Sealey and Jodhan, former Executives at the WICB, allegedly falsified Board minutes to reflect that failed stock market investments were approved the Board. They recall a Board Committee (under Enoch Lewis's Chairmanship) reporting in July 2001 that there was no evidence of falsification, but also recall the report of the then legal advisor of the Board, Justin Simon indicating that on further review there was evidence of falsification of the minutes.

The record further shows that, at the May 2002 meeting which considered Simon's report, the Board appointed Richard DeSouza (an EC stalwart) to lead a team of Board members to meet with Simon. As of today's date, no such report on the matter has been tendered to the Board and there is tremendous doubt that any meeting was even held with Simon. What is the role of the outgoing President in all this?

Even though he won control of the media by spoonfeeding them fluffy soundbites, Wes Hall's leadership and transparency have been disappointing. Those on the inside view the EC like a Government Cabinet of Ministers and wonder if Wes Hall made the transformation from the halls of government to the corporate boardrooms.

Concerns are speedily arising as to how truthful the EC and more so the President has been with the rest of the Board and the West Indian people. The members cannot come to terms with Hall's recent statements in an interview with Cozier published in the Trinidad Express of June 18 that he could not "say much about the details of the chief executive's dismissal because they are sub judice". The term sub-judice means 'before a judge or court of law' or 'under judicial consideration'.

The facts, of course, are that Shillingford signed an agreement with the WICB to accept an "ex-gratia" payment on condition that he would not challenge the fairness of his dismissal in any court of law. It is therefore surprising and comical to hear Hall conclude that any comment on Shillingford's dismissal is "sub-judice". Did Shillingford breach the agreement or is Hall guilty of the mistaken use of a word in place of another or is Hall deceiving the public and more particularly Cozier?

Readers of the WICB's WindiesCricket.com site will recall that Hall was part of a committee including the then Management Committee of DeSouza, Singh and Alleyne who allegedly constructively dismissed Shillingford on July 5th 2001. The July 9th Accross the Board Column of the WICB promised that the alleged incident would investigated. Was Shillinford ever treated fairly? The review of Board minutes over the last two years is casting serious doubt on the truthfulness of reports to the Board by the EC and EC appointed committees.

What should really be the role of the EC of the WICB? Should the EC be deciding who should be the next President or should the concern be what criteria or what skills and qualifications should a President and Vice President possess? Does the Board need an Executive President? At the July 2001 board meeting, a paper entitled "WICB Committees" was tabled proposing Terms of Reference for all the Board Committees. The paper proposed a new approach for the EC that reduces or eliminates the usurpation of the powers of the Board. The EC was never expected to have more meetings than the full Board and was first envisaged as an emergency committee between Board meetings.

The word from within is that the EC members skillfully deferred consideration of the paper at Board meetings by referring it back to the EC.

It's instructive to look at how the EC operated according to Alloy Lequay, in his interview with Guy Wattley of the Trinidad Express: "Lequay explained that the local Board had backed a collective decision of the current WICB executive committee to support Singh.

According to Lequay, the decision was made at the WICB meeting on June 6 in Barbados at which Trinidad and Tobago were represented by Richard de Souza. "The executive committee of the WICB, on being advised of Rev Hall's unavailability due to medical problems, discussed among themselves a suitable candidate...We were advised that their prime consideration was to ensure continuity of the plans and programmes which they had put in place under Rev Hall's leadership," Lequay explained.

In their collective judgement, they agreed that it would be in the best interest of the WICB at this point in time to nominate a successor who was on the Board. "The executive considered at least three candidates and agreed among themselves that Mr Chetram Singh was the most suitable nominee in the circumstances. Mr Singh, a member of the WICB executive and a longstanding member of the WICB, agreed to serve...The information was conveyed to me and Ellis Lewis, one of T&T's representatives on the WICB, by our Richard de Souza, who is a member of the WICB executive. These discussions were finalised at a WICB executive meeting in Barbados on Friday June 6."

Lequay's release also disclosed he had been made aware of Rodriguez's possible candidacy the day before a final consensus to support Singh was arrived at. A day earlier, on June 5, Lequay stated that he received a telephone call from Jackie Hendricks, president of the Jamaica Cricket Association, who advised that the JCA were considering nominating Rodriguez. "I informed Mr Hendricks of the process that was taking place and promised to convey his request for support for Mr Rodriguez to Mr de Souza on his return from Barbados on June 7, where he was attending a WICB executive meeting."

Lequay said he replied to Hendricks on Monday June 9 outlining the position of the T&T Board. "On Monday 9th, I advised Mr Hendricks that Mr de Souza had made a commitment to the WICB executive members to support Messrs Singh and Banks for the offices of president and vice-president, respectively, and our Board therefore had a moral commitment to honour this agreement." Lequay's statement also pointed out that the TTCBC had made no contact with Rodriguez.

So, what really went on behind the scenes when Reverend Hall announced that he was stepping aside? Confronted with this finality in Hall's position, the members of the EC considered three names for President from within the EC:

1. Val Banks
2. Stephen Alleyne
3. Richard De Souza

Banks declined on the grounds that if he did not have time for Vice President, he would not have time for the demands of the Presidency. Like Banks De Souza passed on the offer and suggested that Alleyne was the ideal replacement. Meanwhile, Alleyne's position is well-known. He wants to be a paid President, an Executive President.

This is where the conspiracy theorists take over. The thinking is that Alleyne declined to run and be put in the conflicting position of having to recommend an executive presidency for himself. This is where Chetram Singh joins the picture. Within the board, it's known that Singh's bookmaking businessis frowned upon by the ICC but he is the logical candidate to take over, even if it's just temporary while he gets a constitutional amendment to install an executive president.

It's a slick plan. Singh, in all likelihood, won't attend ICC meetings (Alleyne and Banks will fill in there while Singh's pleads to being "busy" back home. With the plan in place and with Banks in place to ensure "continuity", the negotiation for the Singh/Banks ticket was sealed and the member boards were instructed on how to vote.

Part two of this examination of the past, present and future of West Indies cricket will deal with the emasculation of Val Banks, Chetram Singh's threat to quit the board and the story behind the lottery project..

0 comments