in Search

USA Cricketer

Atlantic Region's leagues attempt to resolve stalemate following stalled election

Now, you can get all the USA Cricket updates via Facebook.   Also follow us on Twitter via @dreamcricket

Comments

On August 14, 2011, an emergency meeting was held to address the impasse in the Atlantic Region.  Representatives of five of the Atlantic Region's seven leagues - Garden State Cricket League, Cricket League of NJ, ICUSA, Washington Cricket League and Millennium Cricket League - attended the meeting. Two leagues - the NJCA and WMCB - abstained.

The five leagues that were present in the meeting were united in their call for restoration of democratic governance in the Atlantic Region.  The leagues resolved through a 5-0 vote that an "Interim Board comprising the league presidents or their delegates will manage the region's affairs until a new regional administration is seated."

The five leagues reiterated their demand for the immediate release of the election results.  The leagues also vowed to consider other steps as may be necessary for democratic functioning of the region and democratic representation of the region's leagues at the regional and national level.

Blockage of Election Results

The Atlantic Region held its elections on July 26, 2011, but in a shocking turn of events, Sheldon Mollineau, the former Secretary who was a transitional overseer of the Atlantic Region Cricket Board, blocked the release of results in an act of non-conformance with the democratic election guideline adopted by the region.  This blockage by Mr. Mollineau, at the behest of USACA President Gladstone Dainty, was in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the leagues that comprise the region.

As part of the election process, the regional administration was dissolved effective midnight on July 25th, twenty four hours preceding the election. Once the regional administration was dissolved, Sheldon Mollineau (erstwhile Secretary) and Shelton Glasgow (erstwhile Interim Chairman), as per the election guideline, became the transitional overseers with 'no decision making authority' as their role was 'to simply maintain an office until the newly elected board is seated.' 

After the completion of voting, in an email communication received on July 27th, Sheldon Ellis (Esq.), who served as the Returning Officer, noted that he had 'tallied the results and compiled a spreadsheet with the results/winners.' However, Mr. Ellis wrote that the President of USACA, Mr. Gladstone Dainty, had called him and instructed him not to disseminate the results.

Terming it an 'obfuscation', Mr. Ellis wrote: "If this matter is not resolved within the next few days, I will send the ballots/results of the elections to the Secretary of the Region."

Following this incident, on July 29th, five of the region's seven leagues wrote to Mr. Ellis requesting him to release the results to the transitional secretary as per the regional election guideline so that the results can be immediately disseminated to the leagues. Upon receiving the emails from the leagues, Mr. Ellis released the results to Mr. Mollineau on August 3rd.  However, the results were not disseminated to the leagues by Mr. Mollineau as required by the election guideline.

A meeting was held on August 4th in which four league representatives requested Mr. Mollineau to immediately release the results.  In the meeting, Mr. Mollineau declined to release the results, referring to Mr. Dainty's ambiguous letter of July 28th.  In the letter, Mr. Dainty wrote: "Within the next few days an independent accounting or law firm will be engaged with the expectation that all USACA leagues and officials will cooperate to the fullest including a stay of all elections until this process is completed."   It is ironic that voting in the region had already been completed and the election results were about to be released when Mr. Dainty intervened personally. 

In effect, Mr. Dainty's call of July 27th and his letter of July 28th insisted on applying an unspecified future league eligibility requirement to an already completed election. This is akin to a president of a country redrawing an electoral constituency after an election is held and the counting of the ballots is complete.

Consequently, the new Regional Administration could not be seated as envisioned by the election guideline leaving the region in the hands of the transitional overseers devoid of decision making authority. 

According to the election guideline, 'within seven (7) days of being elected as officers of the Regional Administration, the Regional Administration shall vote to elect a Regional Representative to sit on the USACA Board.'  As a further consequence of this stalemate, a new Regional Representative could not be elected to represent the region's interests nationally.  

Curiously, Mr. Glasgow was a candidate for Regional Representative and Mr. Mollineau was a candidate for the role of Regional Chairman.  It was widely expected that both Mr. Glasgow and Mr. Mollineau were going to be ousted in this election. 

Voter Eligibility Process

Since 'league compliance' was the stated reason for the blockage of the results, here are the facts surrounding the voter eligibility process for the regional election.

The region followed the 'USACA Elections Guideline and Process' which was drafted by Shelton Glasgow, who was the USACA Compliance Officer at the time of the election. This process was approved by the leagues comprising the region on June 6, 2011 and again on June 28, 2011.

In accordance with this process, the leagues completed a survey and submitted the required verifiable information to the Secretary. Upon review of submissions, Mr. Glasgow affirmed on July 12th in a meeting of the region that all seven leagues were eligible to vote.  This was a matter of record.

Nominations were accepted from the leagues that were deemed to be eligible to vote. A list of nominations was reviewed and circulated by Mr. Glasgow and Mr. Mollineau in draft form. On July 19, the final list of nominations and voting delegates was circulated by Mr. Mollineau in his role as Secretary.

Following that, in accordance with the election guideline, Mr. Ellis was appointed as the Returning Officer for the election. In an email dated July 24, 2011, Mr. Ellis informed the leagues of the official voting leagues and official voting delegates in his cover letter accompanying the ballots.  The ballots, one for each voting league, contained the list of candidates.   Completed ballots were sent to the Returning Officer and the election was completed on July 26th and the announcement of results was awaited with great anticipation when Mr. Dainty interfered.

[Disclosure: Venu Palaparthi, co-founder of DreamCricket.com, was CLNJ's representative in the ARCB before it was dissolved.  Mr. Palaparthi was also CLNJ's candidate for Regional Representative.]

 

Comments

 

robinu said:

The stupidity continues. Saddam Hossien, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad, Dainty, Glasgow, Mollineu, the list goes on. The last three are the worst as they are pulling this crap in the free society of USA. These idiots should be sent to Afghanistan

August 16, 2011 9:13 PM
 

Goldenduck74 said:

you couldn't script this if you tried.

How many more examples do the cricketing public in the USA need that Dainty has to go.  Be it through constituional means through the ballotbox (although that is no guarantee) or by setting up a rival organisation - change needs to come now.

I often find the best way to get someone's attention is through the wallet - if people withhold any fees/invoices/payments etc to the USACA, that might get their attention... as would alerting ICC to what's going on.

August 17, 2011 2:06 AM
 

Goldenduck74 said:

This should really be going to Lorgat and co in Dubai.

This mis-management hasn't just happened overnight, this has been happening for some time and, with respect to Martin Viera, the fact that this has gone uninvestigated for so long reflects poorly on the ICCs regional staff.

I live in Europe, but I know from a work colleague who was in Hong Kong last year with one of the other teams of many of the antics of the USA team.  If they were in my team, they wouldn't playing for their country ever again.  If that information can find it's way to me, why has it not found its way to ICC?

For me, the most viable option is to set up a rival organisation and encourage existing USACA members to leave and join the new organisation - it might be perceived as "rebel" cricket, but ultimately will get Dainty and ICC's attention very quickly.  With the above article in mind, you won't beat Dainty at the ballot box when he wields enough power to be able to change the rules as he goes along.

August 17, 2011 6:53 AM
 

cricketfan1 said:

The ICC is a bunch of pussies, they should grow some balls and put an end to this crap.

August 17, 2011 12:22 PM
 

basil butcher said:

@ Mark Demos

As a student of history I see you characterize Dainty as Mugabe. I find that interesting in that you are from a country that was formerly called Rhodesia and we know the barbarism that was inflicted on the indigenous population by the white settlers. Mugabe by no means is a saint, but despite the barbarism of Ian Smith he was allowed to live in prosperity by Mugabe et al when in my opinion he and his cronies should have been told to leave at the least or strung up on a rope as they did to many.  I think rather than be personal in your characterization let us just stick to the discussion of cricket and administration thereof. Dainty is a most convenient target and rightly so he is the head of USACA, however what seem to be lost in this entire cricket debate is that we have the majority of people involved in administration of cricket from league level up may like/love the game but have no clue about cricket development. There is probably not a single league in the USA that is involved in cricket development so the expectations of cricket development at the National level is folly because from where do you think the people that ascend to those posts come. In my opinion for most in cricket administration from league level up are not able to deal with the new criteria of being a ICC associate member. Let us have a real discussion about cricket development in the USA and the steps that need to be taken and then find the people capable of doing the job, rather than this continued name calling which seems to be the theme of US cricket. @ Orville so everytime one does not get satisfaction you run to the I.C.C. are we children that cannot take care of our affairs that is why we have elections. I heard about the Dainty letter and if memory serves me correct were there not allegations that "phantom leagues" help to vote Dainty into office and now that the process is taken over by an independent auditor to determine league eligibility to vote it is characterized as a ploy. To be frank I am glad we have an independent auditor so all the leagues that have not been above board in their operations will be deemed ineligible, thus allowing  for a transparent election. I will end with this my loyalty is to cricket and nothing else.

August 24, 2011 11:01 AM

DreamCricket strongly disapproves of spam and we appreciate your taking the time to report this abuse to us so we can remove it accordingly. If you find any content or comments to be inappropriate, abusive or infringing other people's copyright please report it. To report abuse, please email us at content@dreamcricket.com.

This Blog

Syndication

Tags