Is CSA’s board afraid of exposing its incompetence to new members? Or are they waiting for incompetents to be nominated?
TELFORD VICE in Cape Town
CRICKET South Africa (CSA) have had at least 87 nominations for the three vacancies for independent directors on their board. Yet none of those openings has been filled despite existing for almost six months.
That failure alone rings alarm bells about the way the game is being administered in South Africa. But, added to the suspensions of senior CSA staff, most of them unresolved, and the dearth of leadership during the coronavirus pandemic, it only builds the widespread disbelief and disgust that the board members remain in office.
That might change at the annual meeting scheduled for September 5. But the damage has long since been done under this board’s watch, what with CSA estimated to lose more than R1-billion by the end of the 2022 rights cycle. At least, that was the projection before the pandemic plunged the world’s economy into chaos and uncertainty. Given those circumstances responsible administrators would see the value in shoring up the independent component of a derelict, destructive board. Responsible administrators are hard to find in South Africa.
How have board members clung to their positions in the throes of shambling mismanagement and unprecedented financial strife? CSA’s highest authority, the members council, which has the authority to dissolve the board, is dominated by board members: six of the current board of eight also sit on the members council. They are hardly going to vote themselves out of business — especially as a seat on CSA’s board can be worth R400,000 a year to incumbents.
Albeit after presiding over so much that had gone so wrong, Shirley Zinn, Mohamed Iqbal Khan and Dawn Mokhobo resigned as independent directors in the first week of December — which ended with the suspension of chief executive Thabang Moroe, whose ballooning, recklessly wielded power was a factor in their decision to walk away.
Moroe’s removal from the equation cleared the way for progress: it is understood Graeme Smith, CSA’s director of cricket, refused to accept that job while Moroe was part of CSA. But as disciplinary procedures against Moroe have yet to be completed he is still being paid his monthly salary, which is believed to be R350,000.
Moroe enjoys significant support on the board, where he previously served as vice-president under Chris Nenzani, who has been president since February 2013. Last year changes to CSA’s constitution were engineered to prop Nenzani up as he neared the end of his second term, which would otherwise have been his last.
Thus it isn’t surprising there are vacancies for independent directors on CSA’s board. But is the members council — more than a third of it made up of by board members — delaying the process for fear of exposing their own and the board’s incompetence to more able eyes? Or are they waiting for incompetents of their own ilk to be nominated, and so enable the shoddy show to go on?
One well regarded business figure with experience as a company director and in cricket administration said they had “put my name forward late last year but haven’t heard anything”. Maybe credible candidates should stop holding their breath. “They’re not keen to go out publicly,” a source with knowledge of CSA machinations told Cricbuzz. “Seems like they still want to hand pick independents instead of going for the best.”
The agenda for a members council teleconference on April 9 said “the list of previously shortlisted candidates does not fully encompass skills needed on the CSA board, which therefore necessitates the head-hunting of candidates with the requisite skills and experience outside of the shortlisted candidates”. If that wasn’t a big enough hint that the matter was to remain an inside job, it was proposed that, “[I]n the event that the interim selection panel [established on February 12 to find new independent directors] is authorised to extend the recruitment, the board members and members council be invited to nominate potential candidates they deem would add value to the CSA board and submit those nominations with their respective curriculum vitae to the secretariat”. More names? When there are already 29 times as many as there are positions available? At least the members council was reminded to “[keep] in mind that these nominations would be in addition to the current 87 candidates being considered”.
Asked to confirm that still more nominations had been demanded, and why that might have happened, CSA spokesperson Thamie Mthembu offered nothing illuminating or helpful. Instead he said that “the processes involving the nominations for the vacant positions of independent directors have not yet been concluded and as such, CSA is presently unable to share any new knowledge with members of the media”.
That’s as close to engaging with relevant issues as CSA’s elected echelons venture. Just how out-of-touch the board is was revealed in a release on March 25, which was issued in part to pay tribute to former Western Province player Noel Brache, who died the previous day. “Graham will be particularly remembered for his contribution to the development of youth cricket in the Western Province,” Beresford Williams, CSA’s vice-president and formerly Western Province’s president, was quoted as saying. “Graham” was corrected to “Noel” in an update. But that happened under cover of adding a quote from another administrator and without pointing out the original clanger, which could by then have been published.
Nenzani — CSA’s president, lest we have all forgotten — was last heard from in January. Not once since the coronavirus cast cricket deep into the unknown has he emerged to show anything like leadership. Instead it has been left to Jacques Faul, CSA’s acting chief executive, and Smith to explain how the game plans to survive the crisis. Happily for the cricketminded public, they are responsive to the press and have proved themselves as people for the trenches: Smith on the field, Faul as a fire fighter when pyromaniacs in suits burn down the game.
South African cricket can trust in them. In too many of the rest, not so much. Maybe three among the 87, or more, who are still in limbo after nearly six months will put a dent in the credibility deficit.
First published by Cricbuzz.
Bulletproof Truth 