For the past two weeks, the entire Caribbean has been rejoicing as one at the exploits of the phenomenal Usain Bolt, of golden boy Ryan Brathwaite, of the glittering girls in gold, black and green and of a host of others competing at the world track and field championships in Berlin under the multiple flags of the region, but all unmistakably West Indian.
At the same time, the one sport that, for a century, similarly brought these scattered territories together by its standards of excellence has remained embroiled in controversy.
Whether anyone noticed or, indeed, cared was open to question. A public once universally passionate over West Indies cricket has become increasingly disenchanted as much by the wrangling off the field as mediocrity on it. The two, of course, are closely linked.
As Shridath Ramphal reported gloomily on his lack of progress in his role as appointed mediator attempting to bridge the yawning divide between the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) and the West Indies Players Association (WICB), there continued to be internal disagreements on various issues.
The WICB president Julian Hunte has followed his strident criticism of those players who pulled out of the recent series against Bangladesh (their action “represented the highest form of disregard and disdain for West Indies cricket”) with strong censure of Deryck Murray, president of the Trinidad and Tobago Cricket Board (TTCB) for the decision of such a vital member to boycott the WICB’s annual general meeting two weeks ago as a mark of protest at the way it was being administered.
At the same time, P. J. Patterson, the retired Jamaica prime minister, issued a revealing statement on Friday on behalf of his committee which the WICB itself established to make recommendations to improve the governance of West Indies cricket.
It reiterated his frustration at the lack of action on the report and repudiated the claim by Hunte and others on the WICB directorate that most of its points had been implemented.
“I challenge anyone to point out a single iota or even the semblance of change which has been made to the composition and structure of the WICB as a result of our report,” Patterson proclaimed. He could not have been clearer.
Patterson also made some intriguing disclosures.
“Contrary to expectations, we were never afforded the courtesy or the opportunity to meet with the full board for a discussion of the report and to clarify or explain, if necessary, any portion of our report,” he stated.
According to him, he and his fellow committee members, Sir Alister McIntyre and Ian McDonald, learned for the first time last November, that the WICB had decided, as far back as the previous February, to “reject completely” their recommendation to alter the composition of the board and the method of its appointment.
It was this rejection that the TTCB offered as one of the reasons for its unprecedented decision to stay away from the WICB’s annual general meeting.
In spite of Murray’s assertion that the boycott was not in any way to be taken as a precursor to its eventual withdrawal from West Indies cricket, it created a predictable stir. Memories remain strong of the break-up of the West Indies Federation in 1962 and Eric Williams’ comment after Jamaica’s secession that one minus 10 equals nought.
Murray is up for reelection later this year and not all of his constituents were happy with the decision.
Still, in an article in these pages last week, Sir Hilary Beckles, principal of the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill campus and noted cricket historian who was brought on to the WICB by Hunte as a non-voting director two years ago, assured that “news out of Trinidad and Tobago has been misleading”.
While the two directors did not attend the meeting, he wrote, “both were reeelected to the WICB on their request to serve for another term and have since been active in the discharge of WICB duties”.
This interpretation did not seem to accord with either the TTCB’s letter of explanation to the WICB or with Hunte’s view.
The TTCB said that there was need for change within the WICB which, it charged, is “characterised by flawed relationships with sponsors and major partners, including the players, as well as an inability to attract sponsors for regional tournaments”.
It added: “In addition, directors interfering in the operations of the secretariat, an inability to implement decisions of the board in a timely manner (if at all) and a general lack of adequate communication with all stakeholders are among the factors which contribute to the decline of West Indies cricket.”
There were accusations that understandably rankled Hunte who was pointed in his response.
“I fail to understand how you expect transformation by boycotting the very forum that allows you as a shareholder to table a position or resolution of moving forward,” he wrote to Murray in correspondence carried in a Trinidad daily newspaper.
“There is no louder statement that could have been made but for the TTCB to come to the AGM and table a document outlining how we have failed in responding to our challenge and suggesting solutions,” he added. “Unless the TTCB can show conclusively that it has clear and practical solutions to resolve the challenge facing territorial boards and the WICB and a commitment to the effort to address these challenges then it will always appear that the boycott and letter do not tell the full story.”
The TTCB, like many others outside the WICB, raised the issue of the Patterson Report in its letter.
It stated that “the fact” that it had not been addressed in any “systematic way by WICB…lends itself to the public perception that WICB is simply seeking to maintain its own status quo”.
Not so said Hunte and Beckles.
“It is not true that the report was disregarded,” Beckles wrote, pointing out that he had been “closely associated with its preparation”. He was even part of the WICB meeting and on the Caricom cricket committee when it was received.
He noted that he had also helped prepare the WICB cricket strategic plan and said the “vast majority” of Patterson’s recommendations matched the plan’s objectives.
Indeed, Patterson disclosed that his committee’s proposal for two regional bodies to govern West Indies cricket – a general council made up of the stakeholders of the game and an executive board answerable to the general council – had initially come from Beckles.
Yet Patterson was adamant that “the inescapable conclusion (is) that the pith of our report, as to governance, has been totally rejected and leaves untouched the kernel of a structure which even the present board admits to be outdated, unwieldly and inadequate”.
And he was clearly shocked by Beckles’ assertion that “non-cricketing agenda” surround his committee’s report.
“Certainly in the report itself, and in our presentations thereafter, we have been careful to avoid personalising any issue or bringing cricket politics of any sort into consideration,” he stated.
The inclusion of any such issues in the debate, he noted. would diminish the report’s findings and reduce the potential impact of its recommendations.
Quite.
