By Tony Becca - From The Boundary 
THE WEST Indies Cricket Board is without a chief executive officer. On Tuesday, two years after taking up the post, Gregory Shillingford was fired.
According to the Board's release, Shillingford, a Dominican, was dismissed following a report conducted by its review and assessment committee, a review of the evaluation process, comments from each Board member and a unanimous decision by Board members.
As far as the release is concerned, that was it. There was no explanation as to what led to the marching orders.
In the best interest of West Indies cricket, however, there should be one, and although it probably is under no obligation to give one, although it is a group that believes everything should be a secret, based on the events last year the Board is obliged to say what has led to the dismissal of Shillingford.
For those who do not remember, in May last year president Pat Rousseau, vice president Clarvis Joseph and CEO Shillingford fired team manager Ricky Skerritt, a few days later the Board re-instated Skerritt, and Rousseau and Joseph resigned immediately.
According to whispers coming out of the Board's headquarters in Antigua, Shillingford did not meet targets set by the Board and that is the reason for his dismissal.
If that is so, then so be it.
There are also other whispers, however. There are whispers that the targets were unrealistic, that they were designed to get rid of Shillingford and if it is not true then the Board and its executive should tell the cricket fans around the region - the people who they love to describe as stake-holders - what were the targets set and where he failed to deliver.
In fact, if indeed the fans, and the sponsors, are stake-holders in West Indies cricket they should know. It should not be a secret.
The Board needs to explain the firing of Shillingford, and if it does not do so, the people - the fans and sponsors - will only come to their own conclusions.
Based on the fact that those who fired Skerritt were Rousseau, Joseph and Shillingford, that they were accused of high-handed behaviour, that unlike Rousseau and Joseph, Shillingford did not resign, that it is no secret that he has been labelled as "one of Rousseau's men" since that time, and that immediately afterwards there were reports, from good sources, that he was about to be fired, there may be one conclusion.
Unless the Board explains it action, the conclusion may well be that Shillingford was enemy number one, that he was lined up to be cut down from then, and that it did not happen at that time because it would have been too obvious.
