Allegations surfaced yesterday that Bermuda Cricket Board officials made unconstitutional changes to Board policy during last April's annual general meeting held at Warwick Workmen's Club.

According to one source, who was present during the AGM, several irregularities occurred during the two and a half hour long meeting.

And amendments were wrongly passed.

Affiliates voted on several changes including those that saw the period of time that both the president and treasurer could sit in office extended from one year to four. The Board's official name was also altered.

However, according to three sources contacted by The Royal Gazette this week, such changes should have never occurred. Those claims are further substantiated by the existing BCB constitution, a copy of which The Royal Gazette has obtained.

Instead, a separate meeting should have been called to consider the changes and to allow affiliates ample time to review and relay the information back to their respective clubs.

Section ten of the BCB constitution clearly states any amendment or addition to the constitution requires an initial recommendation from the Board and the subsequent assent of not less than two-thirds of the voting members present at a properly constituted general meeting of the council with notice of such changes having been clearly stated on the agenda.

According to the February 25 BCB AGM agenda, only the roll call of officers, the president's notices, business arising from the minutes, the yearly financial statement, president's report, secretary's report, review of constitutional and bye-law changes and finally the election of officers were clearly outlined on the cover of the official document. The proposed changes were suspiciously concealed on the back of the meeting's agenda.

"How can they (BCB) do something like that in front of us and then think that they are going to get away with it? There were a lot of things that went down during that meeting that I've researched and found to be unconstitutional," said a source, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

"I came across four or five irregularities that were contrary to the constitution.

"Basically it was the constitutional change. The constitution clearly states that you must give notice to the clubs and then a subsequent meeting called to vote on the issues. That was not done and that involved the changing of the name and secondly to the terms of the executive officers. That was not complied with."

According to bye-law 21 in the constitution, amendments can only be made to the by-laws on the condition that they are included on the agenda during an earlier meeting and subsequently approved at a regular meeting - not an AGM.

There have also been reports suggesting that the actual voting process at April's meeting was flawed. The Royal Gazette learned yesterday that BCB officials Gary Fray, president Reggie Pearman, treasurer Neil Speight and secretary Charlotte Simons all took part in the voting process as `vacated officers' - in direct violation of the constitution.

Questions have been asked over who the vacated officers represented.

Pearman and Simons have traditionally represented Somerset Cricket Club. However, Somerset officials Dwayne Simmons and Anthony Bailey represented the club this year.

As for Fray and Speight, the latter isn't known to be a member of any cricket club while Fray is the current president of Warwick Workmen's Club. According to one source, Webster Tucker and Mike Watson were present at the meeting on Warwick's behalf.

It is alleged that there were an additional five votes in the ballot that were cast illegally.

"When offices were vacated, some clubs that should have had two representatives had four and in my humble interpretation they should have not been in the voting pool. In other words, somebody in the voting pool should have come out," he added. "Who were they really representing when they voted if their club already had two representatives. So substantially, some clubs had four representatives. So I also question that."

And the changes that were made to the Board's official name (from BCBC to BCB) were also allegedly illegal as the former name had been incorporated on August 25, 1995.

According to the source it would take a bill to pass in parliament to make any alterations to the governing body's title.

"They (BCB) are so far wrong that they didn't even realise that the BCBC was incorporated years ago," added the source. "Before you can even change the name you have to go back to the source that incorporated it and it would take a bill through parliament to change the name - even if you are only dropping the word `Board'. It is a registered name through an act of parliament."

Pearman's name appears on the official Bermuda Cricket Board of Control act 1995.

Meanwhile, allegations also surfaced yesterday that current BCB treasurer Speight is serving in an administrative capacity on the Board as a non-Bermudian which, if confirmed, is in direct violation of the BCB constitution which clearly states that all serving executives must be Bermudian.

Section Six C of the constitution reads: "Only representatives from member organisations affiliated with the BCB are eligible for election as officers and such persons must also be Bermudian."

"The constitution clearly states that a non-Bermudian cannot serve as a executive officer of the Bermuda Cricket Board," he added.

"When they said Neil (Speight) was being paid in an administrative capacity what I questioned was whether or not his job was ever advertised? How does he get into the position as an administrative assistant if he is an expatriate? Secondly, if he is employed in that capacity why was it that that position was never advertised? And did they have a work permit for him to serve in that capacity?"

Yesterday, Bermuda Immigration officials would neither confirm nor deny Speight's status.

According to the source who holds close ties with the Board, the entire AGM was well `rehearsed'.

"When I walked away from that meeting I just saw local cricket get buried by ignorance. A lot of representatives came there with a conspiracy in mind that they were going to do whatever they wanted to do in spite of the constitution," he said.

"They (BCB) conspired what was going to happen in that meeting. They had rehearsed what was going to happen that night. It was so manufactured that I saw right through it. And never in my life have I seen a meeting run in such a dogmatic and dictatorial way. This is supposed to be a civilised community. Where's the democracy?

"No organisation can be run willy-nilly with the goalposts being moved every time someone wants to move them in order to protect their own personal interests. Who's interests are they serving . . . theirs or the sport's? I think that they have got it all wrong and all of this could be subject to a judicial review in the courts.

"There are several irregularities that are likely to be challenged in due course and these matters must be addressed because there are a lot of rumblings amongst the organisations (affiliates) whereby a meeting may be called to address these matters. These people who are so-called officers have got to be held accountable for all of these irregularities."

When contacted yesterday, Pearman said: "Everything that was voted on was voted on by the clubs and they agreed. But I am not going to make any further comment until I see the changes in writing. We can't just make sudden changes. It was first put to the clubs and everything was then voted on. And no one else can change the constitution but the club members who were there present at the meeting (AGM)."

Recently disgruntled Camel representative Joanne McPhee stated there was more politics in local cricket than in the House of Assembly on any Friday. Camel have since severed their 20-year relationship with the BCB in which they had donated over $750,000 to local cricket.