Playing by whose rules?

The dispute between different groups over the governance of the USA Cricket Association (USACA) has turned up an interesting problem. In resolving the issues, whose rules are to be followed: the USACA's own constitution, or that of the legal jurisdiction under which a lawsuit is filed ?

The suspension of Bobby Refaie as secretary of the USACA is a case in point. Refaie argues that there is no provision in the constitution for the suspension of an officer. An official can only be dismissed by a two-thirds majority of the board. And since it seems that no such majority existed, Refaie claims that he is still secretary of the USACA and will continue to perform his constitutional duties.

Not so, claim the supporters of Dainty. They argue that the USACA is registered as a non-profit corporation under the laws of New York State, which is where a lawsuit was filed to uphold, among other things, Refaie's suspension. New York State law, as applied to non-profit corporations, allows for the dismissal of any officer, at any time, by a simple majority of the board. Therefore, under New York law, Refaie's suspension should stand.

The ICC made it clear in its letter to the attorneys of the contending parties that it considers Refaie to be the secretary, and it dismissed without comment any statements or representations to the contrary. In so doing, it upheld the USACA constitution and rejected the argument that state law should be allowed to override its provisions.

This makes sense as a simple matter of logic. If ICC were to allow the laws of local jurisdictions to take precedence over national boards' constitutions, it could result in utter confusion. National boards would then be in the control of the local judiciary, and often indirectly the ruling political party of the day, and constitutions in many member countries would be almost irrelevant. As an extreme case, what if, as a matter of religious law, Islamic countries were to exclude women from participating in any form of cricket? Should ICC then suspend its policy of promoting women's cricket from all countries in abeyance, because those are the local laws in those countries?

In each of the above examples, some major national and cultural issues are involved. Not so in the case of the USA. In this country, it boils down to a simple point - who will benefit and who will lose as a result of invoking local jurisdiction over the national constitution of the country.

The ICC has to insist that the USACA constitution be the standard for resolving all issues, and disputes be resolved not in courts, which would apply their local tests, but by ICC-mediated arbitration which all parties should abide by. That, after all, would be in the true spirit of cricket.