In a candid conversation, USA Cricket Chairman Venu Pisike discusses the ICC’s notice of suspension, the approval of USOPC standards, the ACE-USAC impasse, internal board disputes, and claims of conflict of interest and corruption with the board with
When you attended the ICC AGM, USAC was given notice that it would be suspended. You lack “a fit for purpose detailed governance and administrative structure and systems in place,” according to the ICC’s press release. What is meant by that?
We are currently waiting since we anticipate receiving a formal notice from the CEO. But if I had to guess, I would say that around March they sent out a significant notice. Following that, there were a number of compliance problems along with some false information.
We thus dealt with that. And before to the AGM, we responded to ICC, answering some of the grievances that were brought up, elucidating the errors, and fulfilling certain deadlines. The 2023 audited financials, which we timely presented this year for the first time in the previous five years, were the most significant. Then, we provided updates on a few other items, such as the hiring of the CEO and the present state of USOPC. After reviewing, I believe the ICC Board is satisfied with the majority of the compliance issues that were previously brought up.
However, based on what I learnt from my unofficial conversations following the board meeting, they want to ensure that the CEO selection is completed. After that, the USOPC appears to be the main source of worry, which will take care of the majority of the issues connected to governance and operations that were brought up. To me, the phrase “fit for purpose” refers to nothing more than the presence of an operational framework. Naturally, for the past many months, we have been without a CEO.
And with the appointment this weekend, we’re quite close to announcing something that would resolve the operational structure and give the CEO instant control over the business. Indeed, there were some internal problems with the governance and organisation, as your earlier post indicated.
In one instance of board members not adhering to the procedure, the three USAC directors wrote to the ICC and USOPC, levelling accusations by failing to follow the procedure despite numerous reminders. attempting to convince the ICC that the board’s governance is flawed. We’ve taken action to address that. Thus, this is most likely the reason ICC responded, “All right, we’ll give you a year.” And ideally you demonstrate to us that you have a functioning framework and that your governance is in order. That’s what I understand, then. However, we have not yet received the letter from the ICC.
You brought up a few of the complaints that the ICC received. Could you please clarify those complaints?
Yes, some of them are erroneous, and some are quite small. For instance, the small one says, “We don’t have an accountant on staff.” Therefore, this is untrue—and incredibly minor—because in 2023 we did employ a part-time consultant. And this year, we gave them our whole attention. However, they simply assumed, so I questioned ICC about why they believed we were without an accountant.
The prior deal, they stated, ended in December. Thus, they presumed that we either didn’t have the contract or didn’t extend it. Consultant agreements are usually for a period of six months, right? We did, in fact, extend past December; nonetheless, the ICC believed that they had not verified before filing a complaint.
That, in my opinion, is one example among several about the independent director. Thus, the tenure of an independent director concluded in January. However, because we were in the middle of amending the constitution, we were unable to designate him until March. Therefore, ICC believed that our failure to designate the director on time constituted a violation. Therefore, despite USAC’s past, there were years without elections. ICC did not voice any concerns at that time, but regrettably, they believed that, despite the small delay of one or two months, we were not in compliance.
These next represent a few of the notice’s disappointing aspects. We then brought it to the board and gave them an explanation of the reasons. We were proactively implementing USOPC rules and regulations into the constitution as part of the USOPC NGB application process, which is why the constitution revisions took a little longer than expected. These are a few of the issues, and we naturally fired the CEO. That’s why they said, “You don’t have a CEO again,” even if we do.
Something other was the application process for the USOPC NGB. Because the USOPC application procedure takes two years, they were worried about our ability to complete it. The USA’s success in the Olympics can be attributed to their methodology, correct? We also saw it as a chance to transform into a functioning NGB and exercise professional self-governance. We now need to fulfil a few requirements in order to accomplish that. We are therefore in the process, but regrettably, it takes a while. The process takes more than a month or two.
What are a few of USOPC’s grievances with USA Cricket? In light of this, what does USA cricket need to do to satisfy USOPC’s requirements?
There are a few. As a result, you must modify a wide range of policies, from finance to governance to athlete safety. They therefore have their own policies, which we must modify. We may need to change some of the policies that we currently adhere to in order to comply with USOPC requirements. And a few of them are unfamiliar to us. We must thus draft utilising their templates and modify it. Athlete representation and a few governance adjustments are also necessary.
Athlete representation in everything, particularly in matters pertaining to the game or the board, must meet USOPC’s 33% requirement. We have thus already ratified it, as you can see from our modified constitution. Naturally, we haven’t put it into practice yet, but we have adopted it and will this year.
We presently have ten board members, but four player directors would be required if athlete representation were to reach 33%. We now have twelve members on the board, four of whom will serve as player directors. The Athlete Advisory Council should oversee the player appointments to committees and the board. Thus, as of right now, that council does not exist. That’s a process, and we’ll get started on it shortly. The elections for the player director posts, which allow players to represent themselves on the board, will then be held by the AAC.
Also Read: Johnathan Atkeison named new CEO of USA Cricket
Additionally, going ahead, the AAC will propose the players for nomination to the USA Cricket committees. Thus, all committees, including the board and future committees pertaining to operations and cricket, must satisfy the 33% requirement. These, then, are a few of the adjustments we need to make. However, things won’t occur right away. It takes time to put this into practice.
I have learnt that the USOPC is upset with USAC for enforcing a soft prohibition on selecting US nationals residing overseas for their national teams. What are your thoughts about that?
No, I’ve never heard of that, and USOPC never told us as much. That’s the first I’ve heard of this.
India
