Cricket Canada on 20 March published on its web site news of a decision of an arbitration hearing conducted by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) in the matter pertaining to the election of their Board of Directors last May 2016.

The arbitration panel has ordered Cricket Canada to hold new elections as soon as possible for all Board positions. Elections must be held by June 30, with the present board remaining in place until elections take place.

The entire transcript of the hearing is likely to be made public on the SDRCC web site in the future, but Canadacricket.com has seen a copy of the decision and can provide some insight into the dispute. The complaint was brought forward by Mr. Bilal Syed, an unsuccessful candidate in the May 2016 elections, and amongst other allegations, questioned the validity of those elections on a number of grounds. A hearing was held in January and a decision issued on on March 15th. The arbitrator heard testimony from a number of those involved, including Bilal Syed, Ranjit Saini (Cricket Canada president), Dave Liverman (member of the nominating committee), Ingleton Liburd (Cricket Canada GM), and Zafar Khan (secretary, Cricket Canada).

The panel concluded that “in some respects, the Cricket Canada elections held on May 19, 2016 were improperly conducted. In other respects, the elections were conducted in a proper manner.”

My Syed alleged that the election was illegal and unfair, a compromised committee oversaw the election, proper process was not followed, an unauthorized voter was allowed to participate, and that discrimination and deliberate concealment took place.

The Cricket Canada board is elected by the Provincial Directors, each holding votes based on the number of clubs within each province. The issue with unauthorised voters related to a dispute within the Saskatchewan Cricket Association, where an arbitration hearing was required to determine who the president should be; Prakhar Shrivastava was elected president in 2015, but a hearing overturned the election and in January 2016 Azhar Khan was elected president. It was clear from testimony presented at the hearing that Cricket Canada continued to treat Mr Shrivastava as the Saskatchewan Provincial Director, despite being made aware of the results of the January election, and it appears he voted in the Cricket Canada election.

A further concern related to the selection of the nomination committee. The members of the committee were selected by Mr Amit Joshi, who was also running for president. This in the panel’s view created a potential conflict of interest, although it concluded the nomination committee had performed its task as required by the by-laws.

A further issue covered in the hearing was in regard to provincial directors standing for board positions, without resigning from their provincial positions, thereby allowing them to vote for themselves in board elections. The directors involved were Manzoor Chaudhary, the Provincial Director for Alberta, who ran for Director-at-Large; Rashpal Bajwa, the Provincial Director for British Columbia, who ran for Vice President ; and Mohammed Shaikh, Provincial Director for Ontario, who ran for Director- at-Large. All three were elected. Resignation is not required by the Cricket Canada by-laws, but the arbitration panel concluded that “The fact that the three successful Provincial Directors continued to hold their positions after the elections means they could then potentially abuse their position and power as elected officials for Cricket Canada by advancing their own provincial agendas and interests. This created at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.” These three directors control 12 of the 21 votes available to be cast in the elections.

The final issue of concern related to the testimony of Ranjit Saini who stated that he had discussed the election with three provincial directors, seeking mutual support in return for responsibilities in the board if elected. The panel’s view of these discussions was that “this arrangement goes far beyond mere lobbying and amounts to an improper fixing of the election for the position of President”.

Commentary:
Cricket Canada state on their web site that they  “are surprised by the SDRCC decision as we can see no legal evidence for the panel’s decision”.

The panel’s orders will at least ensure Cricket Canada elections are held in an open and transparent manner going forward, and hopefully will serve as a potent reminder to ensure that the by-laws are current, and properly define the election process. Given the panel’s decision in regard to provincial directors maintaining their position while running for office, it is clear the by-laws need to be revised to avoid further challenges of this nature. Similarly the role and means of assembling a nomination committee needs to be better defined.

The insistence of Cricket Canada in allowing the previous Saskatchewan president to vote in the election is puzzling, especially as it is unlikely that Saskatchewan’s vote alone would have any influence of the result.

The final area of concern- that of candidates discussing mutual support in return for favours is in this author’s view only surprising in that Mr Saini testified to this effect- his honesty is commendable. Without knowing the inside workings of previous Cricket Canada elections, we suggest that such lobbying and discussion is the rule rather than the exception, and while it should not be condoned, is typical of the election of many non-profit boards, where a slate of candidates with a mutual agenda is presented.

There’s no doubt the election was poorly handled throughout (it was postponed from a planned March election as it was clear at that point that proper process had not been followed), but it seems more like a lack of competence, rather than any form of systematic discrimination, or deliberate manipulation. The hearing and order is a wake up call for the organization to take governance seriously, and to ensure that a more open and transparent process, free of perception of conflict of interest, is followed in the future.

Dave Liverman
Disclosure: I was a member of the nominating committee for the elections and testified at the arbitration hearings.