SAJC--report of inquiry into suitability of close associates - Portellos ...

Inquiry into the suitability of certain close associates of the
South Australian Jockey Club
Report
The Authority responded that it regarded the proposed resolution as an acceptable
way of dealing with the close associate issues earlier identified by TRSA, and that the
Authority would give TRSA time to implement the proposed resolution.
Following that briefing, and extensive discussions between TRSA and the SAJC, the
SAJC board determined to terminate Mr Ploubidis’s employment as the CEO and to
“spill” the SAJC board.
The Lipman Karas report is itself a document of 170-odd pages (including
annexures). It was the result of investigations carried out by a principal and staff of
the firm into a range of matters concerning how the SAJC had been conducted in
recent years, with a particular focus on a young SAJC member recruitment drive in
2008 and how that might relate to the possible outcomes of the 2008 election.
While the SAJC itself was bound by the terms of its arrangements with TRSA for the
settlement of the litigation to cooperate, the investigators had no coercive evidencegathering
powers and so, in some respects, the scope of the investigation is
incomplete. Nonetheless, the Lipman Karas report provides a very detailed survey of
the issues within its terms of reference.
While all of the matters in the Lipman Karas report are of importance and relevance
to the SAJC, only a limited number are properly of regulatory relevance to the
Authority.
TRSA, by commissioning the report, and the SAJC, by implementing its
recommendations, have acquitted their corporate reputations in terms of the necessary
level of suitability to be the holder of an on-course totalisator betting licence. (The
Authority had made it clear to the SAJC that, unless the SAJC implemented TRSA’s
proposed resolution, the Authority would need to hold its own inquiry into the same
matters to satisfy itself as to the SAJC’s suitability.)
The positive action taken by TRSA, and implemented by the SAJC, avoided the need
for the Authority to exercise its own regulatory powers in respect of the matters
arising from Mr Spear’s litigation. The remaining issue then related to the new
elections and the Authority’s need to be satisfied as to the individual suitability of the
board members-elect.
3.3 The new election
Noting that the new election had been brought about as the result of court proceedings
which had included an “11th-hour injunction”, it is unsurprising that the new elections
generated a high level of public curiosity.
It was apparent from media reporting that the potential to elect 9 new board members
had attracted a bigger than usual field of candidates, including two tickets aligned
with particular groups in the SAJC. One group, sometimes referred as the Group of 9
or the “Let’s Give Racing a Fresh Start” group appeared to be aligned with the
hitherto dominant faction on the SAJC board.
9