Dear Editor,
I have been following with interest the recent letters to the Editor regarding Mr. Harper’s flouting of the GCA constitution.
My interest resulted in me procuring a copy of the GCA Constitution that now seems to have provided the smoking gun for a new controversy.
I observed from cursory perusal of the GCA Constitution that the “President, Secretary, and Treasurer can only serve five consecutive terms of Office”, this provision being so when the term of Office was one year. It appears as though Mr. Harper and his Executives in their haste to extend their term in 2012 failed to address the issue of “Statue of Limitation” and the corresponding changes, if the term of office in extended or doubled, as in this case.
Editor, it cannot be that Mr. Roger Harper intentionally left that clause as it was since that could mean that he will be in Office for 10 years. Is this what the GCA members wanted? If not, then how can Mr. Harper run for the GCA Presidency again after serving four years and the Constitution limits him to a maximum of five year, when the term of Office is now two years. Would Mr. Harper, if elected, resign next year? This is a constitutional crisis because of the negligence of Mr. Harper. Or, was it intentional?
Mr. Harper may very well do as he did before and adjust the Constitution accordingly on the 19th February 2014. What hypocrisy!
The cricket knowledgeables of the GCA must respond in whatever way, and not be sidelined by the diversions of the puppet masters.
If any other Cricket Association had done this, Mr. Roger Harper would have gone to Court. Trevor Singh