Now, you can get all the USA Cricket updates via Facebook. Also follow us on Twitter via @dreamcricket
By Venu Palaparthi
On January 20, the American Cricket Federation (ACF) published a
draft constitution and invited comments from the various constituents.
With this, ACF took the first step into creating a role for itself. In
AGMs and among Executive Committees across the country, discussions have
begun on the draft constitution.
The initial reactions from most stakeholders are somewhat existential
and logical. Does USA really need another cricket organization? What
are the prospects of this organization? A range of questions fall out of
this, such as, what will the ICC do, what impact will it have on
players, and so on.
For those who have followed USA cricket over the last decade and have
seen several attempts to change the system fail, the response is a
somewhat cynical shrug. Depending on the level of cynicism and political
awareness, their questions range from “ACF is USACA in sheep's
clothing?" to "Aren't these the same people who ran the game at USACA?”
For the folks who have studied USACA's history, the questions are “How
can we be sure that ACF won’t meet with the same fate as the Council of
League Presidents and Major League Cricket?” And for the eternal
optimists, there is also, "with New Zealand Cricket and Cricket Holdings
America involved, USACA will change from within."
"Mere Paas Maa Hai"
I
also spoke to a couple of stakeholders who are more closely aligned
with USACA. Naturally, their reaction is based on political calculus: “I
expect the ACF leagues to abandon the mother ship at the sight of the
first USACA carrot.” The underlying assumption, and not entirely without
basis, is that at least some of the dissident leagues are driven by
short term goals. They also draw strength from the fact that a large
percentage of participants of many leagues are unconcerned about
anything beyond the weekend game. Long range planning and strategic
thinking take a backseat as a result.
USACA's confidence also arises from the fact that the ICC and CHA
continue to shower unconditional love on it. A friend and I were joking
that it was like the legendary "Mere Paas Maa Hai" dialogue from the
movie "Deewar." The joke goes like this:
ACF to USACA: "Mere paas cricketers ka trust hain, leagues ka support
hain, turf wickets hain, achcha constitution hain, tournaments hain.
Tere paas kya hain." [I have the trust of the cricket community, support
of the leagues, turf wickets, a great constitution and tournament
schedule. What do you have?]
USACA replies "Mere paas ICC ka mamta hai!" [I have ICC's love.]
A good start for a guiding document
In part one of this series, I will explore whether ACF's constitution
provides the right starting point. In part two, I will attempt to
analyze areas of the ACF constitution that are completely new territory
and in part three, I will dwell on the philosophical aspect of whether
ACF has a chance at all.
In order for the ACF to win the support of the cricket community, it
must first be reviewed through the prism of recent impasses and issues
that USA cricket has faced. Incidents from 2011 and 2012 have left deep
wounds and if ACF cannot address these issues meaningfully, it won't get
the traction it seeks.
The issues are well documented - the controversial handling of the
last election, the heartless disqualification of two-thirds of USA’s
leagues from voting, the organization’s insistence on recognizing a
national board member as the vote-carrying representative of a league
despite the league’s public disavowal of the said person, and the manner
in which appeals and complaints were dealt with before, during and
after the election.
ACF must convince cricketers that it has the answers on matters of
election timelines, voting eligibility and dispute resolution. That is
the first litmus test for ACF.
Election Timeline: Let’s take the issue of a timeline for elections, an area where history has repeated itself with amazing irregularity, if you will forgive the pun. USACA is no stranger to elections controversies - elections were delayed in 2002 (eventually held in 2003), in 2007 (eventually held in 2008) and in 2011 (eventually held in 2012).
ACF does not leave any room for maneuvering on the topic of
elections. By stating that the terms of directors begin on January 1 of
the year following an election and that elections shall be held before
the first Saturday of December, the ACF constitution eliminates the
election cycle vagueness that has enveloped USA elections. It also
prevents any meddlesome interference in the conduct of elections - the
kind witnessed in 2011.
In fact, the ACF goes one step further and enhances accountability
for the conduct of elections. Section 7.10 stipulates that each director
pay ACF an non-compliance penalty of $50 per day when a deadline is
missed. In my estimate, USACA would be richer by a six-figure amount if
it had such a provision. [If such a penalty was also imposed for missed
tournaments, USACA would probably have a high seven-figure bank
balance.]
Voting Eligibility: On
suspensions of rights including voting privileges, the ACF constitution
states that a member shall be suspended if they fail to submit
membership dues as required for membership or for not meeting the terms
of any agreement with the ACF.
While I agree that non-payment of dues before a record date should be
the basis, there are two sides to that coin. We have also seen how
holding off indefinitely on processing membership applications has
impacted leagues desiring to become members. We have also seen issues
like lost mail, delayed deposits or late payments leading to confusion
surrounding voting eligibility.
We have also seen how the national body can lose the plot entirely
when exercising its powers. As an example, my own league (CLNJ) paid
$4300 for 43 clubs during 2010. But USACA's compliance consultant
contended that the league should have paid for 44 clubs since it had
identified 44 clubs on its website. Our explanation that the 44th club
was inactive throughout the season fell on deaf ears ("In 2010 , one of
the teams dropped out at the start of the season and hence dues were
paid for 43 teams," our league pleaded). In 2011, we added a team and
paid for 44 clubs. In any event, CLNJ was disqualified and among the
reasons given was non-payment of dues. We paid $4300 for 2010 and $4400
in 2011. Another $100 was not going to break the bank, but our genuine
reasoning was not accepted.
The ACF constitution attempts to solve these types of issues by
making several provisions. First, the ACF constitution vests voting
privileges in the hands of a broad membership, which includes players,
clubs and leagues. In this manner, voting is not an exclusive privilege
of leagues. And disqualifying leagues or pronouncing bogus leagues as
vote-eligible does not affect electoral outcomes as it has with the
national board.
Secondly, suspension of a member cannot be arbitrary. Under 3.9(b),
the process of suspending a member must be conducted according to the
Dispute Resolution Process.
Thirdly, the ACF constitution lays out a clear timeline for
elections. The election deadline, election process and the appeals
process, each have built-in notification periods and provide reasonable
times for suspended members to take steps to restore their privileges.
In my view, a few additional provisions could further enhance the
organization's reputation and allay fears of potential members. As an
example, ACF could make reasonable attempts to notify a member
approaching their membership anniversary date that the membership would
be suspended unless payment is received by a certain deadline. If the
fees are not received after a second reminder or after the anniversary
date, suspension should be triggered. Suspension for non-payment should
be lifted if payment is received (together with a penalty) within 30
days of the anniversary date. If not, membership should be cancelled.
Also, new members accepted within eight weeks of an election should
not be allowed to vote. That will prevent gaming of the voting process
by candidates. The ACF constitution already requires that eligibility
lists be produced no later than eight weeks before an election and
appeals by ineligible voters must occur no later than 6 weeks before the
election. These eligibility related appeals must be heard in an
expedited manner because the 45-day window under the Judicial
Proceedings section may place the member at risk of being pronounced
denied a vote just a tad later than needed if his appeal is upheld.
In summary, on the subject of voting eligibility, the ACF
constitution gets a passing grade but should include some additional
safeguards either within the constitution or through membership
agreements. It should also take a more service-oriented approach by
sending out reminders.
Term Limits: Term limits are not exactly a novel
concept but not all organizations embrace limits with equal enthusiasm.
After all, it wasn't until the 22nd amendment was ratified in 1951 that a
two-term limit was placed for election to the office of the US
president. Generally speaking, an organization's embrace of term limits
reflects the importance the organization places on fresh ideas.
The ACF constitution stipulates a two term-limit for members of the Advisory and Judicial Committee. This is adequate.
For the Directors, it sets a 8-year cap since a length of a term may
vary from one year to four years. This is a great start. In order to
fully capture the spirit of term-limits, ACF should consider limiting
candidates from contesting in an election if winning the election would
lead to three successive terms or 8 years. In fact, ACF should consider
going one step further. The maximum length of time a person should be
allowed to serve in any capacity at the national level should be 8 years
in any 16-year period.
USACA has no limits whatsoever - 2013 marks Gladstone Dainty's 10th year as President.
Judicial process: This area is well thought
out and ACF's adoption of checks and balances through the proposed
Advisory and Judicial Committee is remarkable. This committee is a good
mix of representatives with no one category of members being
disproportionately represented.
The judicial process is described in detail and sets timelines for
submission, response, rebuttal response, and the meeting of the judicial
committee. The only recommendation I can think of in this area is to
set a similar timeline when additional questions or clarifications arise
and when reconsideration is sought.
Duty to Recuse: ACF's draft constitution also
clearly spells out the duty to recuse, something that USACA's
constitution does not when it comes to the Appeal Committee. In fact,
USACA's constitution empowers the Board to establish an Appeal Committee
whose job is to consider appeals to final decisions by the Board. In
and of itself, that presents a conflict. Without the expectation of
recusal, it is up to the board to ensure that the committee that they
appoint is impartial.
Proof is in the pudding, because when the board's decision to
disqualify several leagues was appealed, USACA's Appeal Committee
consisted of several league presidents, some of whom had a direct
interest in the eventual outcome of the appeals in question.
Membership: Article 3 titled "Membership" in the
ACF constitution is by far the most elegant and simple. Section 3.2
clearly defines the eligibility requirements for the various classes of
members. Section 3.5 lays out when membership takes effect: "Any person,
natural or juridical, satisfying the eligibility requirements of any of
the classes of membership defined in this article shall be immediately
considered a member of the Federation."
In comparison, the USACA constitution has sowed distrust as the
membership process is viewed as a tool for the board to pick and
choose its members. Section 12 of Article III of the USACA constitution
says that Membership "Applications shall be approved by a majority vote
of the Board." Elsewhere, the constitution says that a member is not
entitled to vote "until the Board is satisfied that the member has met
the definition of good standing." These two sections give the incumbent
USACA board members control over when membership is granted and when a
member may vote.
You will also notice that there is nothing in the USACA constitution
that requires the board to review an application for membership within a
finite amount of time. Over the last several years, I
received numerous emails from league administrators awaiting the fate of
their membership applications. Even this website's affiliate,
the DreamCricket Academy's bid to renew its existing associate membership hit a roadblock in July 2012 and the matter is still with the board with no timeline for resolution.
Broad Participation: As previously noted, this is
another area where ACF sets the right tone. With several classes of
voting members, membership and participation are not the privilege of a
handful of large leagues. The ACF constitution provides a voice and a
vote to every individual, club, league or organization. It is also
refreshing to see that ACF is keen on extending a warm welcome to
softball and indoor leagues. US Soccer has similar categorization and this is exactly what you would expect from a world class sports organization.
To its credit, ACF gives itself room for expanding the number of
categories. I can already think of a few, such as umpires, coaches and
statisticians. The constitution committee should consider including them
in the final constitution.
The ACF constitution should clearly define privileges that are
granted to members who straddle multiple categories. As an
example, a 17-year old college level women's player should not be forced
to choose between the rights of a Women's Player and Development
Player. Instead, she must have the rights associated with both
categories. This is largely a feature that can be explored through the
membership form.
Ultimately, in order to build goodwill, ACF will need to design and
provide services applicable to each category. ACF has said that it
expects to release FAQs and a bill of rights. The sooner it releases
these documents, the better its chances of signing up members.
Delegates/Agents: This is another area where cricket has not been served too well in recent times. In one instance,
a league publicly disavowed an individual who continued to be
recognized by the national board as that league's representative. The
league's wishes were completely ignored. Instead, the league was
notified that the USACA president would take the "matter to the
[national] board for resolution."
In other words, the USACA board was going to rule on who would
represent a league. This is akin to the US Congress determining who
should serve as the representative of a New Jersey district. To make
matters more interesting, the league representative who was questioned
now sits on the USACA board.
The ACF constitution avoids such conflicts by placing the
responsibility squarely in the league's hands - "In the case of League
and Club Members, the individual registered as the member's agent shall
vote on the member's behalf."
[Disclaimer: The author is a co-founder of DreamCricket Academy,
which is a former associate member of USACA (now a USACA
member-in-waiting for over six months); a former representative of CLNJ
on USACA's Atlantic Region board (CLNJ, which is NJ's largest league,
was disqualified by USACA in 2012); and an administrator of CLNJ-Youth,
the largest youth cricket program in the state of New Jersey. He also
served as CLNJ's delegate to the ACF when ACF was not yet incorporated.
However, the opinions expressed and the inputs on ACF constitution are
his own and should not be viewed as CLNJ's or DreamCricket Academy's
inputs.]