January 11, 2008


US clubs approve new constitution

Martin Williamson

Cricinfo has learned that the new USA Cricket Association constitution has been approved by 74% of clubs which voted, although the turnout was disappointingly small.

Only 180 of the 677 clubs who could have voted did so, despite the deadline being extended. Of the votes received, more than a quarter, surprisingly high number, were rejected for a variety of technicalities. Of the ballots accepted, 97 voted yes and 34 no.

This now means that fresh elections have to be held within 30 days, although critics of the board are certain to be unhappy with way that the USACA has handled the process, especially the inordinate delay in announcing the results of a poll of less than 200 votes. Oddly, although Dehring released the results to the USACA, they were not immediately announced, as he requested, because Paul DaSilva, the secretary, wanted approval from his executive before he released them.

The news means that Chris Dehring, appointed by the ICC as an independent third party, has been able to hand over a democratically-approved constitution which will provide the basis of a new platform for the USACA to operate under. No more could have been asked of him.

It is, however, unlikely to be the end of the bitter rows which have blighted US cricket for several years. The low turnout will be used by critics of the current board to show the level of apathy among stakeholders and that, in effect, the approval came from less than 14% of the total clubs.


Martin Williamson is executive editor of ESPNcricinfo and managing editor of ESPN Digital Media in Europe, the Middle East and Africa

RSS Feeds: Martin Williamson

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Chris S on (January 12, 2008, 19:20 GMT)

That's asking for a bit much. What is the point of secret ballot in a supposedly democratic system if the results are laid out in detail afterward? May as well have open voting. A list of all clubs which could have voted and possibly a list of clubs that did actually vote and whose vote was rejected seems fair enough though. These results do show however that the clubs (and the club members) throughout America have nobody to really blame but themselves. If they really did want change and didn't like the new constitution then should have voted and voted "no". By doing nothing they have assented to whatever follows.

Posted by Some Old on (January 12, 2008, 19:14 GMT)

It takes 12 days to count 180 votes? I guess the USACA had to call round to get their mates to send in ballots to try and make the numbers look better. This is a joke and the elections that will follow are sure to be even more absurd and undemocratic.

Posted by John Gowan on (January 11, 2008, 23:27 GMT)

I would like USACA to release the following items: List of All Clubs who could have voted, List of Clubs that did Vote, List of Clubs whose vote was rejected, List of Clubs that voted for the "New" Constitution, and List of Clubs that voted against the "New" Constitution. Of course I do not believe USACA, Dainty, DaSilva or Dehring to do so. It would be out of character if they did.

Comments have now been closed for this article


Martin Williamson
Executive editor Martin Williamson joined the Wisden website in its planning stages in 2001 after failing to make his millions in the internet boom when managing editor of Sportal. Before that he was in charge of Sky Sports Online and helped launch and run Sky News Online. With a preference for all things old (except his wife and children), he has recently confounded colleagues by displaying an uncharacteristic fondness for Twenty20 cricket. His enthusiasm for the game is sadly not matched by his ability, but he remains convinced that he might be a late developer and perseveres in the hope of an England call-up with his middle-order batting and non-spinning offbreaks. He is now managing editor of ESPN EMEA Digital Group as well as his Cricinfo responsibilities.

All articles by this writer