By Charles Wilkin
The most recent evidence of turmoil at the governance level of West Indies Cricket – the controversy over the rental of offices for the President, the threatened resignation of the Captain, the purported suspension of the CEO, and the dismissal of the Corporate Services Manager- should remind us that the region is still awaiting the decision of the Board on its corporate restructuring.
To this end, more than a year ago, the WICB appointed a high powered Governance Review Committee headed by former Jamaica Prime Minister P.J. Patterson and including former Caricom Secretary-General Sir Alister McIntyre and noted historian and writer Dr Ian McDonald, to report and advise.
That Committee travelled the entire region, consulted widely and at great expense, and submitted in October 2007 a 139-page report. That report was duly published on the WICB website and considered by the Board in February 2008. While some recommendations of the Governance Committee have been already implemented and a new draft strategic plan has been published since, the most significant recommendations of the Governance Committee seem to have been ignored by the Board.
For example, the Governance Committee recommended radical changes to the structure and composition of WIBC with a Council of 23 members drawn from all stakeholders including only 6 from the Territorial Boards (who now exclusively run the WICB); and a Board of 15, with only six nominees of the Territorial Boards. Under this proposed new structure the people who now control the WICB – the six Territorial Boards- would lose absolute executive control of the organization. This recommendation was definitely not one of those which the Board said in February that it had already implemented and it is not incorporated into the Draft Strategic Plan. The plan shows recognition by the WICB of its governance deficiencies and a commitment to rectify them but there are no specific proposals for the future structure and composition of the Board.
The first 4 major weaknesses of the WICB as accepted by the Plan are:-
1. Outdated governance structure
2. Slow and sometimes ineffectual decision making process
3. Perception of precedence to parochial as opposed to regional interests
4. More directors than staff
The Plan recognizes that ‘the Board has operated in a largely executive capacity although the Articles of Association does not give that power’. A goal is set that by 2009 the Board and its Committees must reduce by 90 per cent their attempts to interfere in operational matters. That in itself is a startling admission of ongoing conflict between the Board and management, and poor governance.
The Plan pledges “to develop an effective governance and administrative system that will allow the territorial Boards more meaningful participation and decision-making in the activities of the Board.” It pledges also “to review the current governance structure and implement a structure that is effective, functional, policy-driven and transparent.” It speaks elsewhere of “rationalizing the composition and structure of its Board to include both Territorial Representatives and functional specialists.”
It is noteworthy that the Governance Committee called for the restructuring of WICB to begin in November 2007 and to be completed by May 2008. The Board has not announced its response to the Governance Committee restructuring proposals nor an indication as to whether and/ or when it will respond.
Instead it has decided to convene in October what it calls a Stakeholders Conference to review the Draft Strategic Plan. No mention is made in the Press Release of July 26, 2008, by which it announced the conference, of Governance Committee restructuring proposals. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the board does not accept the Governance Committee’s restructuring proposals for the Board, although it will not openly admit this. Instead it is taking a new course towards a decision on restructuring by the way of stakeholder’s conferences. And there is no guarantee that they will listen to the recommendations of that conference if and when it does happen.
The simple reality is that ordinary men do not relinquish power easily and often have to be pushed to do so. In my humble opinion it is time for the people of the region (and their representative governments) who are the biggest investors in W.I. Cricket by way of ownership of most of the stadia in the region (and having spent hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrading them or in new stadia) and to whom West Indies Cricket belongs, to pressure the WICB to take radical decisions needed to transform the WICB from a business run as an amateur club by a voluntary Board, to a globally competitive business run as a successful enterprise by professional management.
Many people (and I dare say that includes many Board members) feel that the Governance Committee restructuring proposals will make the organs of the Board too large and unwieldy. A board of 15 is really very large. If, however, the WICB disagrees with these recommendations it should say so and propose alternatives. To say nothing is to insult Mr. Patterson and the other wise Caribbean men who gave of their time, prestige and expertise in compiling their report. It also suggests that the Board does not really wish or intend to take hard decisions required. I hope that I am wrong and will be very pleasantly surprised if that is the case.
The recent turmoil at WICB and developing trends in the game internationally demonstrate the need for urgent and radical action in our region. World Cricket is changing rapidly. We now literally face the risk of the West Indies being marginalized into a second class cricketing nation consigned to playing against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Ireland.
The growing dominance of the 20/20 version of the game and the huge sums of money which that entertainment is attracting means that the Test calendar will inevitably be reduced to provide more time for 20/20 tournaments. The proposed 20/20 Champions League shows that India (as the major power in world cricket), England, South Africa and Australia are more interested in playing each other than our weak West Indies team. That is why West Indies has not been invited to send a team to that tournament. If we are likewise marginalized as a Test Playing country no amount of Stanford sponsorship or other money will help us to regain the lost status. We must recognize that it is the longer version of the game and not 20/20 entertainment which moulds the basic cricket skills and produce true professionalism in cricket.
Without participation at the top level of Test cricket we will become, in all forms of the game, an insignificant cricketing nation and the demand for all versions of our cricket could disappear completely at the international level.
It is therefore imperative that we improve our standing in the ICC Test and ODI rankings over the next 2-3 years or we may be left behind forever. The Draft Strategic Plan of WICB recognizes that improved governance is a vital factor in ensuring improved performance of our team. No matter how upsetting it may be for those Board members who want to maintain the status quo, we simply cannot delay any longer in making the required governance changes at the highest level of the West Indies Cricket Board, which are critical to the future survival of our cricket.
About the writer
Charles Wilkin, Q.C. is the Senior Partner of the leading St. Kitts-Nevis law firm of Kelsick, Wilkin & Ferdinand. He has practised law for 37 years.
He also has a cricket background having played first class cricket for Cambridge University in England and the Combined Islands in the West Indies. He captained St. Kitts and the Leeward Islands. He also represented St.Kitts at soccer. In his late 20’s he retired from playing both games to concentrate on his law practice but continued to serve as a cricket administrator in St. Kitts, most recently as Chairman of the St. Kitts-Nevis LOC for the 2007 ICC Cricket World Cup. Mr. Wilkin currently serves on the Marketing Committee of WICB.
