New Delhi: The Indian Olympic Association’s Executive Council meeting on Thursday is expected to be a stormy affair with the rift between IOA president PT Usha and EC members becoming even clearer.

Usha and EC members have been at loggerheads since the appointment of CEO Raghuram Iyer in January. The decision is yet to be ratified by the executive board and the EC meeting on Wednesday was called for the purpose.

However, 12 of the 14 EC members sent a signed letter to Usha on Tuesday, asking her to include 14 additional points to the agenda for the meeting, “to discuss and decide on the need for reporting the conduct of the IOA President to the Ethics Commission of IOA.”

The EC members also want a discussion on the “scope of the powers of the President under IOA Constitution,” and “selection process adopted for selecting Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit (SOM) and their participation in the election of the IOA.”

Usha was among the eight SOMs selected by the Athletes Commission as voting members of IOA General Assembly as per the new amended IOA constitution drafted under the supervision of the Supreme Court and approved by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

“We would like to emphasize that the points mentioned above are important and it is necessary to have deliberation on these,” wrote Sr Vice president Ajay Patel, vice presidents Rajlaxmi Deo and Gagan Narang, treasurer Sahdev Yadav, jt secretary Kalyan Chaubey and Alaknanda Ashok and members Amitabh Sharma, Bhupender Singh Bajwa, Harpal Singh, Rohit Rajpal, Dola Banerjee and Yogeshwar Dutt.

The appointment of CEO, who as per the constitution is “an ex-officio member of the Executive Council with no voting rights”, has become a major bone of contention between Usha and the board. The EC has raised objections to Iyer’s whopping pay package of ₹20 lakh per month along with other perks and allowances.

This month, Usha and EC members have levelled charges against each other. The IOA President has served notices to five EC members, accusing them of occupying their positions in violation of the Sports Code, marking a copy to IOC and Sports Minister Manshukh Mandaviya.

These members have, in turn, questioned Usha’s election as IOA president citing provisions in the IOA constitution. They have also accused the president of taking “unilateral decisions bypassing the EC and constant violations of the constitution.”

“I strongly object to your attempts to pressure me into approving unauthorised expenses that have not been sanctioned by EC/GB which is unconstitutional, unacceptable and unethical,” wrote senior vice president Ajay Patel in his response to Usha’s notice to him on Sports Code violation on tenure.

The functioning of IOA has suffered due to the infighting even as IOC has given several reminders to IOA to put its house in order. IOC has also pointed out that a strong National Olympic Committee is needed in India to bid for the 2036 Olympics.

“The IOC has this month asked IOA to get the appointment of CEO ratified by the executive committee and that’s why the meeting was called,” informed an official aware of the development. “A CEO is mandated as per the IOA constitution and it has to be fulfilled. Now if the EC members want to discuss an additional agenda in the meeting what can you say?”

After the IOA elections were held in December 2022 and a new body took over, the appointment of CEO was dragged for a year. As per the constitution the CEO should be a person who is a management professional with management experience of at least 10 years as the CEO of a company/entity with a turnover of at least RS 25 crores.

Though a CEO is in charge of day-to-day administration of IOA, he should transact all office business in accordance with the decisions of the President, General Assembly and Executive Council. After Iyer’s appointment, EC members had sent a letter to Usha, saying the decision was taken without the consent of EC and there was no consensus on the remuneration fixed for the CEO which is exorbitant. Usha, on the other hand, claimed that he had got the nod of EC members before finalising the appointment.

“The EC meeting she is referring to we had raised the issue on the salary part and we were told that she will negotiate. EC never gave a clearance to hire him,” said an EC member on condition of anonymity.

Asked whether the CEO’s appointment will be ratified on Thursday, the member said, “Who pays such a salary to the IOA CEO. Where will IOA get the finances from?”

However, Usha sending notices to EC members has not gone down well with them. The member said that if Usha refuses to discuss the agenda, they can have the sr vice president chair the meeting.

“First she has sent notices on the basis of an anonymous letter and marked it to the IOC and Sports Ministry. It is clearly to defame the members. She has been acting against the IOA constitution and it will be discussed. If she refuses to chair the meeting, the sr vice president can take over,” the member said.

“Except for the two members from the Athletes Commission, the entire Executive Council is on one side and the president on the other side. There were never two camps.”