The Bermuda Cricket Board moved swiftly to defend themselves last night against accusations that they are operating like a “dictatorship” by alienating their affiliates and flaunting their constitution.

The Royal Gazette has obtained a copy of the long list of issues sent to the Board on June 25 by a group of disaffected clubs — led by Devonshire Rec’s Ellsworth Christopher — who have forced the BCB to call a special general meeting next Tuesday evening where a vote of no confidence in the current administration will be conducted.

While the document contains a long list of grievances (published in full below), the main bones of contention highlighted by Christopher and his supporters include:

A variety of allegedly unconstitutional policy decisions on the part of the BCB, including: the hiring of non-Bermudian Neil Speight as the chief executive, the changing of the constitutional term of office for an executive from 12 months to five years (the new term is actually four years according to the BCB) and the removal of the former right of the Cup Match clubs to have two votes at Board meetings.

An alleged lack of transparency with regards to the publication and circulation of audited accounts and minutes of meetings.

The allegedly poor treatment of Bermuda’s World Cup cricketers when negotiating their contracts and wages last year.

Pressed on the issue list yesterday, BCB secretary Marc Wetherhill offered a detailed defence of the current administration’s performance.

And while he conceded that improvements were needed in terms of communication, he launched an attack on those at the forefront of the rebellion — arguing that a victory for Christopher, former BCB president Ed Bailey and Rudolph (Mutt) Lawrence would “set the development of cricket back considerably”.

“If the affiliates decide to vote against us, we will hold up our hands and wish the next administration the best of luck. We have always done our very best to act in the best interests of Bermuda cricket and I believe we have a strong track record in this regard.

“Three of the main leaders of this group have all served on the Board before. Mr. Lawrence was kicked off the executive committee for disclosing confidential information to the media without informing the other executives while Mr. Bailey and Mr. Christopher were forced out by the affiliates (in 1997) because of a variety of events that transpired before my time.

“And it will be for the affiliates to decide whether these men are capable of doing a better job than us, though I note with interest that they have not yet named a shadow executive and it is still unclear who exactly they intend to replace us with should the vote go against us.

“But regardless of that, it’s probably true that at times we have not been as pro-active as we should have been (in terms of communication) and we did not hold an AGM in 2006. In the meetings we have held with certain clubs this week, we have been prepared to concede that there needs to be improvements in the area of communication and we will endeavour to ensure this happens in the future, if we are still in office after Tuesday night’s vote.

“In mitigation, however, an AGM was not held last year because the accounts that we sent to be audited by the Auditor General’s office in March, 2006 were not returned to us until January of this year. There were no positions up for re-election last year, and so without the audited accounts, there was little point in holding an AGM as there would have been very little to be discussed.“We now have our audited accounts from 2005 and 2006 and hopefully we will be in a position to present them to the affiliates at an AGM, the date of which we will announce after Tuesday night’s vote — again, if we are still in office.”

On the issue of a non-Bermudian serving as the Board’s chief executive and the change in the term of office for each executive Wetherhill said: “A non-Bermudian serving on the Board is permissible both under our current constitution — which was successfully amended at the beginning of last year — and the previous constitution that I first encountered when I began serving on the Board in 2003.

“This issue was raised by another group with former Sports Minister Dale Butler 18 months ago, and we sent all the relevant documentation to him and his permanent secretary Derrick Binns. We received their approval, together with the backing of the then Attorney General Larry Mussenden. So there’s simply no issue there — a non-Bermudian can serve on the Board.

“The change in the term of office from 12 months to four years was passed at the AGM in 2003. It should be pointed out that El Christopher accepted the position of first vice-president at that point, but simply stopped turning up to meetings before his term had expired.

“Having accepted a position on the Board under the new terms of office, I find it curious he is now claiming that the change was somehow unconstitutional.

“On the issue of altering the way we vote at meetings, it was our feeling that a one-club, one vote system was a much more democratic and transparent way of getting things done, as was our insistence that clubs designate one person, and an alternate, to represent them at all Board meetings, rather than having different people turn up on each occasion.

“All of those changes were approved by a two-thirds majority at a special general meeting in March last year, so once again, the entire process was conducted in the appropriate manner.

“Furthermore, claims in the issue list that we were required to consult affiliates when hiring Board staff are unfounded because the Board’s bye laws delegate responsibility to appoint, dismiss and remunerate staff to the executive committee.”

And on the claim that the contract negotiated with Bermuda’s World Cup bound players was “disgraceful” Wetherhill said: “The players formed their own association to represent them during the negotiations, which were conducted by a mediator paid for by the Board.

“The Board had to balance the financial needs of the players with the need to fund a wide range of other initiatives out of the Government grant, including youth cricket, women’s cricket, infrastructure development, educational scholarships and a host of other things.

“No national team cricketer was financially worse off as a result of representing their country. We deliberately did not publicly disclose how much we paid them because we viewed it as confidential.

“But the amount of money paid to the players was substantial and I think the affiliates will agree with that once they have had a chance to see the figures at the next AGM.”

The Royal Gazette reported soon after the contract negotiations were complete in February that the Bermuda players had become the best paid cricketers out of all the Associate nations competing at the World Cup.