Council of League Presidents fails to deliver

More then three months after receiving an overwhelming mandate from USA Cricket Association's member clubs for a drastic reform of US cricket's system of governance, the Council of League Presidents (CLP) has failed to show any signs of progress towards the goals it had affirmed for US cricket.

The CLP's troubles began soon after June 4, when the seven newly-appointed members of its interim council were added to USACA's list of defendants for its lawsuit against its opponents. This unexpected move on the part of Gladstone Dainty's attorneys seemed to have frozen the CLP's leadership in its tracks, and there is no record of any policy statements made, or actions taken, by the CLP since that date.

In August, Cricinfo asked the CLP interim council to answer several questions about what it was proposing to do regarding immediate issues that were facing it--and therefore US cricket--at the time. We received no official response from the CLP, but were informed by their attorney that they were unable to make any comments because of the legal proceedings between USACA and CLP and a "gag order" that had been placed on all parties. This argument did not seem particularly persuasive to us, since our questions covered many topics that (in our opinion) could have been addressed without prejudicing the legal processes. So we are providing the best information available to us at the time of writing, always mindful of the fact that the answers could change if and when official statements from the CLP or any other sources become available.

One of our questions concerned the CLP's attitudes towards Major League Cricket's (MLC) Interstate Tournament in Florida in November. It is probably safe to assume that CLP will not take any official position on this at this late date, and the USACA has not done so either. The national championships called by the USACA would also appear to be a non-starter because of the defection of Western Conference regions, and CLP has not proposed any alternative version as of the time of writing. So, by default, MLC's Interstate tournament is the only national cricketing event on the horizon, and this should end any debate on its legitimacy and status.

Two of our questions concerned promises that were made by CLP but in which little has been heard since June 4. One was a vow to hold immediate elections to replace the current USACA executive by September, on the strength of the mandate provided by the USACA Extraordinary General Meeting of June 4. The other was to undertake a complete redrafting of the USACA constitution to remove the errors and inconsistencies that had been found during the 2005 USACA elections, and place the governance of US cricket on a sound footing.

We saw no reason why CLP could not have showed some progress on these issues in the past few months. Drafts of proposed changes in the USACA constitution could have been circulated to member leagues and clubs for comments and suggestions without violating any requirements of the legal process; equally, job descriptions and org charts for a revamped USACA executive (everybody seems to agree that the present set-up is highly dysfunctional) could have been circulated, modified and approved, to be put into effect as soon as circumstances permitted.

To argue that none of these steps could be taken unless all legal issues were fully resolved is begging the question - CLP's mandate was derived from a challenge to the nimble legal footwork employed by USACA's lawyers to thwart democratic processes, so for CLP to succumb to the same game would constitute, at least in part, a betrayal of its populist mandate.

Where things will go for the CLP is not clear at this point. There is talk of a joint statement of agreement between USACA and CLP to be issued in the next few days. For CLP, the terms of such an agreement will have to be tested against the promises it has made to US cricket for the past few months, and any compromise of the fundamental principles set out for it by the USACA meeting of June 4 will be seen as a giveaway, and a betrayal. CLP needs to return to its grass roots and to the pro-active posture that it displayed in its earliest days, or its future is an uncertain one.