Bermuda Cricket Board have agreed to call what promises to be a dramatic special general meeting with their affiliates next Tuesday — a gathering at which the current executive committee will face a vote of no confidence.

Secretary Marc Wetherhill said yesterday that the group of disaffected clubs — led by Devonshire Rec’s Ellsworth Christopher — had still not submitted the request for a special meeting in the legally required way, but the Board had decided none the less to proceed “in order to bring this crisis to as swift a conclusion as possible”.

“We have received a document from Ellsworth Christopher requesting a special general meeting on the 24th,” he said. “We have decided to accede to that request and have officially called one for that date.

“It should be pointed out that under our constitution, any request for a special general meeting must be signed by five affiliates. In this case, the letter handed to us was only signed by Mr. Christopher and was therefore not submitted in the proper way.

“But we took the initiative and called the meeting ourselves so as to bring this matter to a swift conclusion and also so the business of governing cricket in Bermuda can become the primary focus once again.

“We have written to all the clubs inviting them to meetings with us, and for the next week we will do our utmost to meet with as many different clubs as possible, to listen to their concerns and, where necessary, defend ourselves against some of the accusations which have been levelled against us by Mr. Christopher and those that support him.”

A total of 13 out of the 16 affiliate clubs signed the original letter sent to the Board on June 25 — a letter which stated they were unhappy with the “unsatisfactory and undemocratic manner” in which the Board was managed.

Since that time two clubs, Western Stars and Police, have both distanced themselves from Christopher’s group, claiming they were misled.

Meanwhile, Wetherhill insisted yesterday on trying to further quash accusations from Christopher that the BCB constitution — which underwent several amendments in the early part of last year — had not been properly ratified. I and the rest of the executive are at somewhat of a loss to explain Mr. Christopher’s suggestion that we did not amend the constitution in the correct way,” he said.

“When we were given the $11 million back in 2005, we agreed with Government that there needed to be a comprehensive review of how the Board operated, including a review of the constitution and the bye laws to ensure that they were in line with best practice for all not-for-profit organisations.

“We brought in an expert who specialises in those types of reviews, Geoff Bormaster from the US, who ultimately recommended a variety of changes.

“All clubs were then invited to attend three separate education sessions with the Board and Mr. Bormaster at which the proposed constitutional amendments were discussed and input from the clubs sought.

“We then called a special general meeting in March and circulated a draft of the amended constitution together with an agenda beforehand to all the clubs.

“The meeting took place, two more amendments were added after suggestions from the floor, and then the amended constitution was passed with the required two-thirds majority.

“We then left that meeting and the new constitution was then circulated to all the clubs together with a separate document detailing the changes that were made and the minutes of the meeting.

“The constitution was therefore duly approved following the letter of the law and requires no further ratification. Mr. Christopher’s suggestion that the constitution was not ratified is simply not true, as are a number of the other allegations which stem from that.”

When contacted yesterday, Christopher insisted that in order for the new constitution to have been properly ratified the affiliates should have been presented with a final copy at a second special general meeting once the relevant amendments had been formally added.

Affiliates should then have been allowed to vote, with the outcome determining whether the amendments passed or not.

“Their approach was indicative of the disdain they have shown to the affiliates,” he said.