Even though the board decided to convene its AGM on September 21, the panel has asked it to 'be limited only to routine business concerning the past year (2015-16)' and not for 2016-17. Once the committee's recommendations are implemented, the board will have to convene another meeting by December 15, which is also the deadline for elections to the apex council. The current working committee will be replaced by the new nine-member apex council. Also, the state associations have been asked to conduct their elections by November 15.
"The First Compliance Report submitted by the BCCI Secretary on 25.08.2016 was considered, and it was decided to direct the BCCI that the AGM to be called on 21.9.2016 be limited only to routine business concerning the past year (2015-16), and deal with any business or matters relating to the next year (2016-2017) only after the adoption of the MoA and Rules as per the recommendations of the Committee in accordance with the same," the panel said.
"The directive means, the BCCI cannot setup new committees, or do anything related to the period 2016-17 during its September 21 AGM."
A panel official also made it clear that it will be 'practically impossible' for the board to implement all reforms before September 21. "First, state associations have to amend their by-laws in accordance with the recommendations of the committee," he noted. "Then, their elections have to be held. Then, the state bodies will send their representatives to the BCCI AGM. More importantly, the Committee has given the BCCI a timeline which has to be followed."
The panel, in addition, decided to withdraw one of their recommendations - to have two representatives of the IPL franchises on a rotational basis on the governing council. Even though the Supreme Court asked the BCCI to implement all recommendations, they did concede that there was a possibility of conflict of interest that could arise because of the presence of representatives from two franchises.
"The Committee was initially of the view that if a question arose that were to be determined by the IPL Governing Council where the presence of a franchisee nominee would lead to a potential conflict of interest, then a reference could be made under Rule 38 (3) to determine whether the conflict was tractable, in which situation the conflict could be resolved by the recusal of the person concerned," the Committee said.
"However, when the question of the autonomy and independence within the Governing Council was considered, it was noted that apart from the CEO who is an ex-officio member, the presence of the Players' representative and the nominee of the Comptroller & Auditor General would more than satisfy the requirement of the 'independent oversight within the Governing Council. Therefore, to avoid any complaint or doubt about the presence of franchisees' representatives leading to conflict of interest situations, this Committee is of the view that: the recommendation to have Franchisee representatives on the IPL Governing Council be treated as withdrawn."
No comments:
Post a Comment