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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Inquiry into the suitability of certain close associates of the South Australian Jockey Club Report regarded it as his duty to raise concerns if the interests of the SAJC were not being protected by CEO. Mr Spear was asked whether he accepted that his actions in 2008 in commencing litigation against the SAJC might have damaged its reputation. He denied this proposition. He explained that he genuinely believed an injunction was necessary to prevent the announcement of the outcome of an election, which he believed to have been impaired. He indicated that he took significant personal financial risk in doing so. He indicated that, prior to taking court action, he had, first, asked Mr Naffine for records and then, second, instructed solicitors to formally request access to information. All of these requests were denied. Mr Spear was asked whether, on the basis of his professional training, he thought Mr Naffine was correct in denying access to those records. He responded: No, of course not. No. I’m a member of the board... I should not have been denied that access, because if that had have happened and I’d have viewed the accounts and whatever from there, it could well have been that I would have said, “O.K. Well, we don’t need an injunction.” But... the solicitor acting for me wrote three emails to the solicitor acting for the Jockey Club saying, “Can I see them?” and all of them came back saying, “No, you’re not going to see anything. We’re not going to give you a thing.” Mr Spear was asked about the process for validation of memberships for the purposes of the elections conducted in 2009. He recited some irregularities he believed existed with respect to two sets of validation forms for which the nominees were ultimately not admitted to membership. However, he had no involvement with the returning of any validation forms to the SAJC office and his role in the decision making was limited to attending the board meeting and voting. Mr Spear was asked about the Rob Gerard letter. He confirmed that the circulation of that letter was approved by the board, on the motion of Mr Naffine and Mr McLeay. Mr Spear stated that he was unconcerned about the circulation of the letter from Mr Gerard because he felt that Mr Gerard was promoting a thought which he was in favour of. He explained: I was being a little bit, as I thought, cunning and saying, “Well, if that letter goes out and it goes out to members, most members will look at that and say, ‘Look, you know, this is a supporter of Mr Ploubidis’”, and, as such, I thought it was going to be in my way. Mr Spear was asked to comment about the Hi Maddie email. He did not know who originated it but he did associate one of the names in the email with Mr Ploubidis. He told the Authority that he was not the person who had asked for the email to be circulated. Mr Spear also indicated that he was not engaged in the sending of text messages to members of the Jockey Club encouraging them to vote. Mr Spear was asked about access to membership lists and the circulation of election material. He indicated that, once permission to circulate an invitation to an election cocktail party had been refused by SAJC management, he and the members of the Transparency Plus team resorted to word of mouth, working the racecourse on race days. 26
Inquiry into the suitability of certain close associates of the South Australian Jockey Club Report Mr Spear was asked about an article appearing in the Advertiser on 9 May 2009 suggesting that certain of his associates had access to leaked SAJC membership forms. Mr Spear confirmed that certain individuals did have the forms, and that he was not the source of them. He denied suggesting to the person who had obtained the forms that the forms be obtained and he did not facilitate it in any way. Mr Spear was asked whether he had any current business involvements in the racing industry. He answered that he had owned horses in the past; he had given that pastime away as it had been uneconomic. Mr Spear was asked questions concerning the structure of the racing industry and the relative roles of the SAJC and TRSA. He demonstrated a clear understanding of these. Mr Spear was asked about an article appearing in the Sunday Mail (11 October 2008) revealing a master plan for the redevelopment of Morphettville Racecourse. He was asked when the board considered those plans. He responded that the board did not consider those plans until after they had been revealed in the Sunday Mail. Mr Spear was asked about the proceedings of the finance committee with respect to the annual accounts. The annual accounts would be considered by the finance committee and referred to the board for an approval. Mr Spear stated that in the three years in which Mr Spear had been a member of the finance committee the SAJC’s external auditors had not attended. Mr Spear told the Authority that he had sought an appointment with the external auditor and that, prior to that appointment being met, he was told that if he attended the appointment he would be charged with misconduct under the board’s code of conduct. On that basis, Mr Spear declined to proceed with the appointment. 4.2.5 Sharon Forrester-Jones Mrs Sharon Kay Forrester-Jones told the Authority that she had been a member of the SAJC board since 1999. She was one of the recently re-elected board members. When asked about how the SAJC board had functioned, Mrs Forrester-Jones indicated that, in her time, the board had slowly declined into what was effectively a three person board. She stated that she had found herself excluded from many private meetings and many conversations where real decision making took place. This was particularly so following the election of one particular board member, four years earlier, who had a particularly strong social connection with the former CEO. Mrs Forrester-Jones was asked to give her own impression of how requests for information made by Mr Spear had been handled. She indicated that Mr Naffine had denied both Mr Spear and herself access to information on the basis of confidentiality. These requests were made both within board meetings and outside board meetings. With respect to requests made in meetings, Mr Naffine would deny the request without putting it to a vote. With particular respect to the CEO’s employment, Mrs Forrester-Jones was never provided with the remuneration particulars. 27
Page 1 and 2: Independent Gambling Authority Inqu
Page 3 and 4: Inquiry into the suitability of cer
Page 5: Inquiry into the suitability of cer
Page 82 and 83:
Inquiry into the suitability of cer
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92:
Independent Gambling Authority Leve
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?