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 Mrs Forrester-Jones indicated that she was not, at the time it was being conducted, aware of a recruitment drive in September and October 2008. She recalled that, when she queried the significant numbers of persons being proposed for membership at those meetings, the chairman said that he had instructed the marketing department to aggressively seek young SAJC members and to use whatever means needed. Mrs Forrester-Jones was asked about meetings with Mr John Naffine, as SAJC chairman, outside of board meetings. She indicated that she had met him at a coffee shop in Rose Park at about the time she had taken over the chair of the marketing committee and another meeting with Mr Naffine at his home. She had sought the first meeting to raise concerns that she was not being provided with information and, therefore, unable to make a meaningful contribution. Mrs Forrester-Jones was specifically asked whether the marketing committee had operated in the way Mrs Forrester-Jones would expect a committee or board to operate. She answered that it did not. Mrs Forrester-Jones was asked whether there was ever discussion at the board about the quality of the board minutes. She indicated that she and Mr Spear often raised concerns about the minutes. She believed that both the chairman and the CEO were happy for the minutes to be getting less and less detailed. Mrs Forrester-Jones was asked whether the board had ever approved a payment to the CEO in lieu of his accumulated long service leave entitlement. She responded that the matter was never discussed by the board although the chairman had, in response to a question at the annual meeting, asserted that it had been, and sought to poll the board members in the meeting. Other members of the board had affirmed Mr Naffine’s assertion that the matter had been approved by the board. This caused Mrs Forrester-Jones, that night, to go to her own copy of the minutes which she found had no record of the decision. Mrs Forrester-Jones was asked questions about the board’s deliberations concerning the CEO’s ownership of shares in The Rewards Factory Limited. She recalled that Mr Ploubidis had remarked that the shares were now worthless and, on that account, that he regretted acquiring them. She also recalled that their discussion was a short one, with Mr Spear, Mr Le Poidevin and herself asking questions. Mrs Forrester-Jones told the Authority that, following that March 2008 board meeting, the board members retired to Morphettville Junction for pizza. She observed Mr Ploubidis, in what she described as a furious state, engaged in conversation with Mr Le Poidevin. This concerned her, although she was unable to hear the conversation. She telephoned Mr Le Poidevin the next day and he told her that Mr Ploubidis had threatened him. He also told her that he had spent the night in his office rather than going to his home. Following that telephone conversation, she telephoned Mr Naffine to raise her concern. So far as Mrs Forrester-Jones understood, Mr Naffine intended to sort the 28
Inquiry into the suitability of certain close associates of the South Australian Jockey Club Report matter out with Mr Le Poidevin but not with Mr Ploubidis. About a week later, Mr Naffine reported to Mrs Forrester-Jones that the matter was not significant. Mrs Forrester-Jones was asked about the process by which certain persons’ membership was validated for the purposes of voting in the 2009 election. She told the Authority that she had had no involvement in the delivery of any of the validation forms to the SAJC office. Her involvement was limited to voting on the validations at the board meeting. Mrs Forrester-Jones was asked about the Rob Gerard letter. Mrs Forrester-Jones told the Authority that the chairman proposed at the 6 April 2009 board meeting that the letter be distributed to the membership generally. The matter was put to a vote and she was the only member to vote against it. Mrs Forrester-Jones regarded the letter as being partisan in that it could be seen as favouring one group of candidates over others. Mrs Forrester-Jones stated that she had made contact with the Electoral Commission expressing her concern about the Rob Gerard letter. She was told that the Electoral Commissioner could make recommendations to the club but that it was ultimately the club’s decision to send the letter. Mrs Forrester-Jones was asked about the Hi Maddie email. She told the Authority that she had never seen the email, had not sent the email to anyone and had not asked anyone else to send the email to anyone. Mrs Forrester-Jones told the Authority that the board had not discussed a policy on giving candidates access to the membership list for sending electoral material, other than the official election booklet prepared and distributed by the Electoral Commission. Mrs Forrester-Jones was asked about her involvements in the racing and related industries. She told the Authority that she owned shares in a number of horses and that she had a “racing group”, a group of friends who go to the races on a monthly basis. In addition, she conducts a monthly luncheon, which is held at the racecourse and catered for by the SAJC on the same terms as any other private client would receive. At these lunches, there will be a raffle with the profit going to a charity. The charity changes from time to time. Mrs Forrester-Jones donates the prizes for these raffles. Mrs Forrester-Jones assured the Authority that she keeps full records of all of the transactions for the lunches and the raffles. In addition, Mrs Forrester-Jones’ husband and her brother-in-law are the principals of a small engineering company which has occasionally done work for the SAJC. Mrs Forrester-Jones was asked about the process by which transactions with this company came to be reported in the related party transactions note to the SAJC’s annual accounts. It was not clear to Mrs Forrester-Jones how this occurred, as she had not been asked to make any disclosures to the SAJC’s chief financial officer or other executives. When she had queried this with an executive of the club, she was advised that the CEO had decided to include it. 29
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 84 and 85:
Inquiry into the suitability of cer
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?