SECTION 1 ~ INTRODUCTION
1.
This is the report of an investigation of circumstances
surrounding the 2006 Battle of Flowers and of governance
arrangements within the Jersey Battle of Flowers Association
(‘the Association’). The terms of reference for this
investigation are set out in Appendix 1.
2.
For many people, the 2006 Battle of Flowers
was a success. Many have told me that the floats were
remarkable. Others have told me that the carnival atmosphere
was as good if not better than Battle has achieved before.
Unfortunately, the Battle also gave rise to public
concern.
3.
Firstly, after several years when no celebrities
were invited to attend Battle, it was decided for the
2006 Battle that a celebrity should be invited in the
hope that this would attract a larger audience. In the
event, the invited celebrities were regarded by many
commentators as inappropriate to the true character
of the parade. Secondly, an attempt was made to sell
corporate hospitality tickets and thus to increase the
Battle’s income. In the event, this attempt led to embarrassment
for the Association as many tickets were not sold, the
stand and marquee were half-empty, and it is likely
that a serious loss has been suffered. Concern over
these two matters has led to concern over the way in
which Battle is managed.
4.
This is a serious matter for a number of reasons.
For many people throughout the world, the name of the
Island is inextricably linked with Battle. In part,
this is a result of the way in which the Island has
marketed itself as a tourist destination. But it is
also a result of the close link between the Island’s
community and Battle. The floats which are the focus
of Battle are the product of many hours of voluntary
community activity. They are therefore not simply splendid
spectacles but also symbols of the importance of community
action for the Island. Questions about the competence
of the Association to manage Battle successfully and
to assure its future are bound to be taken seriously.
5.
My investigation began with a close examination
of all of the documents relevant to this year’s Battle
and an examination of records of the management of Battle
in recent years. I have also undertaken a series of
interviews with those who have been involved in the
2006 Battle in some capacity or other. The names of
the interviewees with whom I have spoken are listed
in Appendix 2. I am grateful to all of the people who
have assisted me in this investigation: particularly
those involved as float builders who have helped me
to understand something of the importance of Battle
to the Island’s community.
6.
This report sets out the outcome of my investigation
in the following sections:
(1) a chronology of the events within the Association leading
to this year’s Battle (section 3 of the report). The
purpose of preparing this material was to provide a
basis for an analysis of the factors which led to disappointment
and embarrassment.
(2) an analysis of the factors which contributed to failure (section
4 of the report).
(3) an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of corporate
practices within the Association (section 5 of the report).
(4) an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the internal
financial controls within the Association (section 6
of the report).
(5) an examination of certain aspects of the relationship between
the Association and the Economic Development Department
(‘the Department’) (section 7 of the report).
7.
But first, I will set out in section 2 a summary
of my findings and recommendations.
SECTION
2 ~ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings
8.
As I have already indicated, many people have
told me that the 2006 Battle was a success in terms
of the quality of the floats and the atmosphere that
was created. These achievements are the result of the
committed work of the volunteers who build the floats
and of the members of the Association’s Council who
plan and manage the parade itself.
9.
However, from the chronology in section 3 of
this report it is clear that in some respects the outcome
of the Association’s work in preparing for the 2006
Battle was indeed a disappointment:
(1) in the eyes of some members of Council, the initiative
to improve the marketing of the Battle did not achieve
the desired results;
(2) the choice of a celebrity to attend the parade was made notwithstanding
the misgivings of some members of Council and has led
to criticism and complaint,
(3) the attempt to make corporate hospitality facilities available
led to embarrassment for the Council and a material
loss for the Association rather than the surplus that
was anticipated; and
(4) the Association may have suffered a material loss partly through
the failure of corporate hospitality income to materialise
and partly through carelessly incurred liabilities.
This loss will have been incurred notwithstanding the
increased grant made available by the Department.
10. In my view, these disappointments can be attributed
to a number of factors:
(1) Factor 1: For some tasks, the Association relied inappropriately
upon people who did not have the necessary skills and
experience.
(2) Factor 2: The Council and its Officers continued to
rely upon individuals even when there was evidence that
their reliance may have been misplaced.
(3) Factor 3: Weaknesses in the Association’s corporate
governance practices and its internal financial controls
magnified the effects of these misjudgements.
(4) Factor 4: These weaknesses were in turn exacerbated
by personal animosity between some members of the Council.
(5) Factor 5: The Minister for Economic Development (‘the
Minister’) failed to ensure that the terms on which
he offered further grants had been discussed with the
Department’s officials and were then properly recorded,
defined and, most importantly, applied. In addition,
the Department did not make good this failure to record
and define the terms of the Minister’s offers. This
contributed to the Council’s understanding that by accepting
the grants it was obliged to take certain initiatives.
Recommendations
11. On the basis of my investigation, it seems
possible a number of changes to the structure and management
of the Association would limit the risk of a recurrence
of this year’s problems and thus of further detraction
from the achievements of the many volunteers who contribute
to the event. In this spirit, I make the following recommendations:
(1) Recommendation 1: As soon as possible, the business
of organising and managing the parade should be transferred
to The Jersey Battle of Flowers Limited, the company
owned by the Association.
(2) Recommendation 2: The board of the limited company
should be small and consist of people with the skills
necessary to manage the parade’s business affairs.
(3) Recommendation 3: The Chairman of the limited company
should be responsible for ensuring that the board’s
membership includes all of the key skills necessary
for effective management.
(4) Recommendation 4: The Chairman of the Association should
be responsible for ensuring that the key offices of
the Association are filled and that necessary skills
are represented on the Council.
(5) Recommendation 5: Wherever possible, the Battle of
Flowers organisation (whether in the form of the Association
or of the limited company) should use sub-contracted
services.
(6) Recommendation 6: In principle, the States should not
make further grants available to the Association until
the Association has implemented reforms intended to
achieve the recommendations set out in this report.
(7) Recommendation 7: The normal arrangements concerning
offering and making grants should apply to Ministers
as well as departmental officials.
SECTION
3 ~ 2006 BATTLE OF FLOWERS
Introduction
12. In the first section of this report, I have
listed the concerns which have arisen concerning the
management of the 2006 Battle. To analyse the circumstances
which gave rise to these concerns, I started by trying
to establish what took place within the Association.
In this section of the report, I will set out a chronology
of the Association’s preparation of the 2006 Battle.
13. The chronology set out below is based upon
my interviews with those people who were most closely
involved and an examination of the relevant documents.
It concentrates on exchanges that are relevant to the
issues with which this report is concerned and thus,
for example, does not mention all Council meetings or
all of the matters discussed at a meeting. In a number
of cases, there are conflicts between people’s memories
and documents. I have indicated the existence and nature
of any conflicts.
Chronology
9
November 2005: Annual General Meeting
14. At the Association’s Annual General Meeting,
Mr Gavin Roberts was elected Treasurer. Mr Bob Pallot remained in office as Chairman
as did Mr John Farley as President. Mr Mark Leonard,
Mrs F Roberts and Mrs M Fitzgerald were elected to serve
as members of Council. In addition, the Council for
the following year included: Dr Steve Cooke, Mr Martyn
Farley (co-opted), and Mrs Donna Le Marrec (co-opted).
5
January 2006: Council meeting
15. At this meeting, the Council agreed that the
Treasurer should be added to the bank mandate as a cheque
signatory.
19
January 2006: Council meeting
16. Following the practice of previous years, the
Treasurer presented to the Council a budget for the
2006 Battle. The budget showed a deficit of £21,150
(as the balance of estimated expenditure amounting to
£361,150 less estimated income of £340,000) which continued
the trend of declining surpluses. It was agreed that an approach should be
made to the Economic Development Department (‘the Department’)
for further financial assistance.
2
February 2006(afternoon): Meeting with Senator Ozouf
17. This meeting was attended by Mr Pallot, Mr
Avery, Mr M Farley and Mrs Fitzgerald on behalf of the
Association. Senator Ozouf, Economic Development Minister,
Mr de Carteret, the Department’s Director of Tourism
and Marketing, and Mrs Le Marrec, the Department’s Business
Development Manager, attended on behalf of the Department.
A number of other parties were also represented (eg
Jersey Arts Centre). After the Association’s financial
position has been explained, Senator Ozouf made it clear
that additional funds might be made available and invited
the Association to put forward its proposals.
2
February 2006 (evening): Council meeting
18. The Council discussed a number of ideas for
improvement of the 2006 Battle including the acquisition
of new arches at each end of the Battle arena, inclusion
of more carnival features in the parade and the possibility
of a move towards a ‘free’ parade.
16
February 2006 (afternoon at 1600 hours): Meeting with
Senator Ozouf
19. This meeting was attended by substantially
the same group of people as had attended the meeting
on 2 February 2006. Senator Ozouf asked the Association’s
representatives whether attendance at Battle could be
increased if more money was available to the Association.
Mr Pallot and Mrs Fitzgerald said that this should be
possible. They suggested that a sum of £50,000 would
be valuable to which Senator Ozouf responded by tabling
an offer of a further grant of £50,000 in addition to
the ‘normal’ grant of £95,000. Senator Ozouf also suggested that a further
amount (up to £45,000 to match commercial sponsorship
on a pound for pound basis) might be made available
although he asked that this offer should not be made
public. He also suggested that the Association should
consider establishing a committee to manage the expenditure
of the additional funds and that it should consider
including external members in this committee.
20. At the end of this meeting, the Association
was invited to put forward its proposals for the use
to which these additional funds would be put.
16
February 2006 (evening): Council meeting
21. Mr Pallot and Mr Avery reported the substance
of their meeting with Senator Ozouf and the Council
then discussed how the further funds might be applied.
It was estimated that the additional grant of £50,000
could be applied to:
(1) Improvements to the carnival aspects of the parade:
£25,000.
(2) New arena arches and decorations: £10,000.
(3) Improvements to the pyrotechnic display: £5,000.
(4) Additional marketing assistance: £10,000.
22. As for the further sum of £45,000, the following
possible uses were canvassed: the creation of a new website; further enhancements to the arena; the re-introduction
of a town parade; the re-introduction of Miss Battle’s
travel to twinned events; increases in the guaranteed
payments to exhibitors; and undertaking a feasibility
study for a free parade.
23. It was agreed that these thoughts would be
put to Senator Ozouf and that a further meeting would
be sought for 24 February 2006.
24
February 2006: Letter to the Association from Mr de
Carteret
24. Following a letter from the Association setting
out proposals for use of the proposed additional funds,
The Economic Development Department cancelled the planned
meeting apparently because of disappointment at the
quality of the Association’s response. A letter was
sent to the Association regretting that the positive
tone of the two recent meetings did not appear to be
reflected in the Association’s presentation and clarifying
the Department’s expectations and suggesting that the
Department would welcome proposals for development of
the carnival aspects of Battle and improvement of the
marketing of Battle. The letter also suggested that
it might be helpful to establish a small group to take
further these issues.
2
March 2006: Council meeting
25. The minutes record that Mr John Farley, the
Association’s President, asked what was the state of
conversations with the Department. It was reported that
there had been no movement.
23
March 2006: Council meeting
26. By this meeting, agreement appears to have
been reached with the Department. It is agreed by all
of the parties that the further funds were for certain
purposes: the arrangement of marketing assistance for
the Association, improvement of the carnival aspects
of the 2006 Battle and the attendance of a celebrity
at the Battle (to be an attraction to the public to
attend). It is also apparent that, as proposed in
Mr de Carteret’s letter, a small group had been formed
to deal with these matters.
27. The minutes record that the Council discussed
the steps that had been taken to deal with these three
matters:
(1) Marketing/public relations assistance: It was reported that
bids had been invited from four companies with a view
to the appointment of consultants to the Association.
(2)Corporate sponsorship: Mr Martyn Farley, a co-opted member
of Council, reported that there had been contact with
at least one potential corporate sponsor for Battle.
Mr Farley suggested that it would be helpful if the
Department could announce its decision to provide additional
financial support to Battle as this would encourage
commercial interest in Battle.
(3) Celebrities: Council discussed the names of celebrities at
some length. It was reported that Mr Avery had spoken
to an island impresario who had suggested that Bradley
Walsh might be available at a fee of the order of £25,000
per day. Mr Roberts said that he had spoken to his
contacts in London who had suggested names that would
be as attractive as those suggested by Mr Avery and
possibly less expensive as it was proposed to invite
them in return for an ‘expenses paid holiday’ in the
Island.
4
May 2006: Council meeting
28. The following reports were made at this meeting
of Council:
(1) Marketing consultants: Orchid Communications had been appointed
to provide marketing consultancy support to the Association. Contracts were being agreed. It was also
agreed that all members of Council should have access
to Orchid.
(2) Corporate sponsors: Negotiations with possible corporate sponsors
were continuing.
(3) Corporate hospitality: Estimates were awaited for a 300 seat
covered grandstand for corporate hospitality purposes.
(4) Celebrities: Mr Roberts reported that discussions were continuing
and mentioned one more possible name.
18
May 2006: Council meeting
29. The following reports were made to this meeting
of Council:
(1) Celebrities: No celebrity had been booked. The names of a
number of sportsmen were discussed in addition to those
mentioned at previous meetings.
(2) Corporate sponsors: Three possible sponsors were discussed
with a view to raising the amount of £45,000 needed
to match the funds offered by the Department.
(3) Corporate hospitality: A quotation had been received from
the Association’s normal supplier for a stand which
would not be covered since the request had been made
too late. It was proposed that there should be three
‘grades’ of corporate hospitality offered: ‘Gold’, ‘Silver’
and ‘Bronze’. The names of possible caterers were canvassed.
It was reported that 85 tickets had been sold.
30
May 2006: Council meeting
30. At this meeting of Council the following reports
were made:
(1) Celebrities: No appointment had been made. More names of
possible celebrities were canvassed with Council.
(2) Mr Martyn Farley had met a prospective corporate sponsor and
was putting together a presentation.
(3) Corporate hospitality: Meetings had been held with the two
possible caterers and a choice had been made between
them. Mr Roberts reported that it was proposed to increase
the seating to 450 (from 300) as there was confidence
that all of the tickets could be sold.
15
June 2006: Council meeting
31. At this meeting of Council the following reports
were received:
(1) Corporate hospitality: The larger stand for corporate hospitality
purposes had been arranged. Mr Martyn Farley had spoken
to representatives of the Chamber of Commerce about
further corporate support for the corporate hospitality
arrangements.
(2) Corporate sponsors: Mr Martyn Farley reported that presentations
had been made to two possible sponsors.
(3) Carnival: A number of local acts had been hired to improve
the carnival atmosphere of the parade.
29
June 2006: Council meeting
32. The following reports were made:
(1) Corporate sponsors: One of the possible sponsors to which
presentations had been made had decided not to become
involved but was thought to be interested in supporting
the 2007 Battle. There had been no reaction from the
other possible sponsor.
(2) Celebrities: Names of celebrities who might be available to
be present at Battle were discussed.
33. It was reported that the Association would
send invoices to the Department for the further amounts
that had been agreed.
6
July 2006: Department’s purchase orders
34. The Department created two purchase orders
for the additional payments to the Association. They
were endorsed in manuscript by Mr de Carteret as follows:
“Order 31255-OP: £50,000: Agreed funding for
Carnival (30,000) & outsourced on-island marketing
support (Orchid £12k) + Battle Bee initiative &
‘Goody bag’ (£8k).
Order 31256-OP: £45,000: Additional increase
agreed by Senator Ozouf for a Celebrity + new arches
to arena.”
6
July 2006: Council meeting
35. This meeting received a number of reports:
(1) Celebrities: The minutes record that another conversation
took place concerning various celebrities who might
be invited. These included the names of various sportsmen
including that of Mr Ian Wright. No decision was made.
(2) Arena: Mrs Le Marrec reported on arrangements for painting
and improving the arena arches.
(3) Corporate hospitality: Mr Roberts reported that he believed
that 175 corporate hospitality tickets had been sold
and that some companies would be distributing gifts
at the lunch. He expected that a substantial number
of additional tickets would be sold by the end of the
following week (i.e. by 15 July).
(4) Public relations: Mr Pallot had met Senator Ozouf to report
on the current situation and the unhappiness within
the Council at the service being provided to the Association.
Senator Ozouf had told Mr Pallot that he would judge
the success of the Battle of Flowers parade by the numbers
who turn out to watch the parade. Mr Pallot had subsequently
met Orchid Communications to ask them to redirect their
efforts towards encouraging ticket sales.
(7) Exhibits Committee: There was no report from Mrs Roberts and
it was agreed that the Executive Officer would meet
Kathy Gill, the secretary of the sub-committee, to ensure
that appropriate progress was being made.
(7) Programmes: The results of tendering for the production of
programmes for the parade were reported.
Thursday,
13 July 2006: Council meeting
36. The following reports were made:
(1) Celebrities: Mr Roberts reported that he had made an offer
for Mr Wright to attend the parade at a fee of approximately
£45,000. It was agreed that this proposal together
with other quotes would be passed to Senator Ozouf for
his comment and advice. No decision on accepting the
Mr Wright proposal was made: the decision was deferred
until the next meeting of the Council to be held on
20 July, 2006. It was also mentioned that another celebrity
was also being canvassed at a possible cost of £30,000.
(2) Exhibits Committee: There was no report from Mrs Roberts.
13
– 20 July 2006
37. Following the Council meeting on 13 July, Mr
Roberts continued his e-mail exchanges with Upfront.
On 18 July 2006, Upfront sent a draft contract to Mr
Roberts as a confirmation of the oral arrangement that
had been agreed. This draft had already been reviewed
by Mr Wright’s agent who had also confirmed the proposed
air flight arrangements for Mr Wright’s visit. Mr Roberts
made some amendments to the draft and on 20 July 2006
returned it to Upfront. These amendments included details
of the Battle-related events that it was expected that
Mr Wright would attend. On the same day, Upfront replied
with detailed questions concerning arrangements for
Mr Wright’s attendance (eg who might accompany Mr Wright,
what he would be expected to say in speeches at events
and so on).
Thursday,
20 July 2006: Council meeting
38. Mr Roberts did not attend this meeting of Council.
The following matters were discussed among others:
(1) Celebrities: The Council decided that it would not accept
the proposal that Mr Ian Wright should attend the parade.
(2) Corporate hospitality: It was reported that tickets amounting
to approximately £50,000 in value had been sold.
(3) Corporate sponsor: It was reported that a sponsor had indicated
interest in the 2007 Battle.
(4) Exhibits committee: It was reported that Mrs Roberts would
stand back from the Chairmanship of this Committee which
would be run by Kathy Gill with the assistance of Lynne
Hind and Lyn Latham.
(5) Carnival: Mrs Le Marrec reported on the arrangements that
had been made. It had been decided that the proposal
to insert a leaflet in the Jersey Evening Post would
not be followed up. Arrangements for handing out flowers
and tags to tourists arriving at the Airport had been
made. The design for new banners at the Harbour and
the Airport had also been approved.
Monday,
24 July 2006
39. Mr Roberts sent an e-mail to Upfront answering
the questions that had been raised in the 20 July e-mail
concerning arrangements for Mr Wright’s visit to Battle.
In particular, Mr Roberts said that it was acceptable
for Mr Wright’s party (of four people) to sit at the
same table for lunch and dinner, and that Mr Wright’s
agent could accompany him in the open top car in the
parade. He also made suggestions for the content of
Mr Wright’s speeches.
Tuesday,
25 July 2006
40. Mr Roberts sent an e-mail to Upfront which reads as follows:
“With reference to my last e-mail, could you
please give me a call to discuss as the Council [were]
not keen on spending £45k on a star.”
Thursday,
27 July 2006:
41. At this meeting of Council the following issues
were discussed:-
(1) Celebrities: A number of new names for celebrity invitations
were discussed including Chico and Nikki, Ms Jodie Marsh
and Grace Adams Short. It was reported that any three of the names
mentioned could be hired at an approximate cost of £26,000.
(i.e. £22,000 fee plus expenses). It was agreed by
Council that Chico and Nikki “would give to Battle what
was needed” (ie they would attract a larger audience)
and Mr Roberts was asked and authorised to make the
appropriate arrangements.
The Minutes record that Mr Martyn Farley
enquired as to the relationship between the final tranche
of additional funds made available by the Department
and the appointment of a celebrity.
(2) Corporate hospitality: Mr Roberts reported that all invitations
for hospitality tickets had been sent out and that if
all of the tickets were taken up, then the space in
the marquee would have been over-sold.
Friday
28 July 2006
42. Mr Roberts contacted Eminence to check the
availability of Chico and Nikki to discover that they
would not be available. The celebrities who might be
available were Grace Adams Short and William Murray.
As Mr Roberts understood that he had been authorised
by Council to settle the celebrity issue, he was minded
to go ahead with this proposal but Eminence wanted a
deposit of £15,000 to confirm the arrangement.
Monday
31 July 2006
43. Mr Roberts spoke to Mr Avery to arrange for
the necessary deposit to be paid. However, Mr Avery
was not prepared to draw a cheque without first having
seen the contract.
Tuesday
1 August 2006
44. A meeting was held at Meadow Bank attended
by Mr Pallot, the Executive Officer, the Treasurer and
Mr Mark Leonard. Mr Roberts reported that payment of
a deposit of £15,000 was necessary to secure the booking
of two celebrities. As no contract was available, the
Executive Officer was not happy to release any money
at this stage.
Wednesday
2 August 2006
45. Mr Tracey of Upfront (who had been involved
in the discussions concerning Mr Wright) telephoned
the Association’s office and spoke to Mr Avery. Later
that day he sent an e-mail to Mr Avery in which he claimed
payment from the Association of a fee in respect of
the abortive negotiations concerning Mr Wright. With
his e-mail to Mr Avery, he enclosed:
(1) a letter to Mr Pallot which described the various exchanges
that had taken place between Upfront and Mr Roberts
which, as far as I am aware, had previously been unknown
to Mr Avery and Mr Pallot. In this letter, Mr Tracey
complained that he had not been able to contact Mr Roberts
by telephone.
(2) a copy of the e-mail dated 11 July 2006 in which Mr Roberts
made the offer in respect of Mr Wright’s proposed attendance
at Battle;
(3) a copy of the agreed contract ;
(4) an invoice from Upfront for its fee of £6,000.
46. Separately, Mr Roberts sent an e-mail to the
Association’s office enclosing a draft contract for
the appointment of celebrities. He also advised again
that a deposit of £15,000 had to be paid immediately
to secure success. The celebrities named in the contract
were Grace Adams Short and Andy Abraham. The Executive
Officer refused to sign the contract (or to pay the
necessary deposit) as the names mentioned in the contract
were not those agreed by the Council.
47. Later that day Mr Roberts returned to the Association’s
office with another contract which included the names
of Grace Adams Short and William Murray. Mr Roberts
recalls that the Executive Officer refused to pay the
deposit unless instructed to do so by the Chairman.
The Executive Officer telephoned Mr Pallot to obtain
his authority to proceed; and wrote a cheque which he
asked the Treasurer to counter-sign before it was sent
to the agency.
Thursday,
3 August 2006
48. Mr Roberts received a telephone call from Eminence
to say that payment was still awaited and that unless
payment was made by the close of business on that day,
then the Association’s first option on the chosen celebrities
would be cancelled.
49. Mr Roberts then went to NatWest Bank, the Association’s
bankers, to facilitate the necessary payment. The Bank
was helpful and prepared to make the necessary payment
by way of CHAPS provided that authority was given by the approved
signatories. However, the Bank could not accept the
Treasurer’s signature as his name had not been added
properly to the bank mandate.
Thursday,
3 August 2006: Council meeting
50. The following reports were made to this meeting:
(1) Matters arising: Mrs Le Marrec reported that the third tranche
of money paid by the Department was intended to meet
the cost of hiring a celebrity but was also intended
to assist with the other developments that had been
agreed between the Association and the Department.
(2) Treasurer: The Treasurer submitted a letter of complaint concerning
the failure to make appropriate arrangements for him
to sign cheques drawn on the Association’s bank account.
The complaint centred on the difficulty surrounding
the addition of his name to the bank mandate that had
come to light on 2 August 2006.
(3) Celebrities: Mr Roberts reported that Mr William Murray was
no longer available but that Andy Abraham was available.
The Council agreed that Grace Adams Short and Andy Abraham
should be invited to attend.
Friday,
4 August 2006:
51. On the morning of 4 August 2006, at 0937 hours,
Mr Roberts sent an e-mail to Mr Pallot and to the Association’s
office confirming that he had spoken to the agents and
that Grace Adams Short, Andy Abraham and Jodie Marsh
were available. He also confirmed that William Murray
was not available. He reported that the cheque that
had been sent had not arrived and gave the bank details
that were necessary for a CHAPS payment to be made in
accordance with the Council’s decision on the previous
evening.
52. Overnight Mr Pallot had become uneasy about
the Council’s decision concerning the celebrity contract.
Mr Pallot telephoned the Executive Officer to discuss
the matter and to ask if the Chairman of the Council
“could pull the plug” on the decision that had been
made on the previous evening.
53. Mr Pallot decided that he must first speak
to Mr Roberts to say that he was not happy to go ahead. In a telephone conversation Mr Roberts said
to Mr Pallot that it might be possible to cancel but
suggested that legal advice should first be taken.
Mr Pallot then apologised to Mr Roberts because he felt
guilty that this was the unsatisfactory conclusion to
all of the work that Mr Roberts had invested in the
event.
54. Mr Roberts then spoke to Eminence and suggested
that they should speak to Mr Pallot. Later, Mr Roberts
met Mr Leonard, explained what had happened and said
that he intended to resign.
55. Mr Pallot received a telephone call from Eminence
during which Mr Pallot was informed that one of the
celebrities under consideration was Ms Jodie Marsh.
Mr Pallot recalls that this was the first occasion on
which he had appreciated that she was expected to attend
Battle.
56. The Executive Officer (at the same time or
subsequently) sought advice from the Association’s lawyers
who said that it would be difficult to get out of the
oral arrangements that Mr Roberts had made whose existence
was confirmed in the first line of the proposed contract.
57. Meanwhile, a journalist contacted Mr Pallot
to enquire into the circumstances surrounding the celebrity
issue and mentioned that Mr Roberts had resigned as
Treasurer of the Association. That evening, Mr Pallot
spoke to Mr Roberts and asked him not to resign in view
of the fact that the day of the parade was so close
and he had so many responsibilities (eg for arranging
the corporate hospitality facilities).
58. Also on that evening, Mr Roberts watched the
‘Big Brother’ programme and became aware of speculation
that Grace Adams Short might re-enter the Big Brother
house and thus, whatever the Council decided, she would
not be available to attend Battle.
Saturday,
5 August 2006
59. An article appeared in the Jersey Evening Post
which referred to the complaint which Mr Roberts had
made at the 3 August Council meeting and the amounts
of money which were involved in the negotiations over
appointment of a celebrity.
Monday,
7 August 2006
60. Mr Roberts recalls that he called Eminence
and confirmed that Grace Adams Short was to re-enter
the Big Brother house. At this point, it was clear that the only
celebrities available to attend the parade were Ms Jodie
Marsh and Andy Abraham.
61. During the day, Mr Avery and Mr Pallot again
talked to Council members and a number met at the Association’s
offices during that evening. Those present agreed that
Ms Jodie Marsh was not an ideal choice but that cancellation
at that stage would attract adverse publicity. They
were also concerned that the Association would be liable
for the full amount due under the proposed contract
and so would have to make a payment whether a celebrity
attended or not. Consequently, the people present agreed
that the proposed contract should proceed.
62. Following this meeting, Mrs Roberts resigned.
Tuesday,
8 August 2006
63. Mr Avery went to the Association’s bank to
arrange for the necessary payment under the contract.
He was told that he needed a second signature on the
payment authority. As Mr Pallot was not readily available,
Mr Avery arranged for the payment of £15,000 to be made
from his private bank account.
64. As I have reported above, at successive Council
meetings, Mr Roberts had reported that sales of corporate
hospitality tickets had been satisfactory. Later this
day, Mr Roberts reported that there had been a few cancellations
because of the public reaction to the celebrity chosen
to attend the Battle.
Wednesday,
9 August 2006
65. Mr Avery and Mr Pallot have told me that on
this day, Mr Roberts again confirmed that he expected
that more than 350 people would be present in the corporate
hospitality stand.
Thursday,
10 August 2006: Battle of Flowers
66. Mr Avery and Mr Pallot recall that about one
hour before the parade commenced, Mr Roberts said that
only 200 people would be present in the corporate hospitality
stand including the invited guests of the Association. At this point, there was little that could
be done. Tables were re-arranged in the marquee but,
when the parade took place, the stand was half-empty.
67. In the event, Ms Jodie Marsh and Andy Abraham
attended the parade as agreed on 7 August, but the audience’s
reaction was not consistently positive.
SECTION
4 ~ OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS
Introduction
68. From the chronology in section 3 of this report
it is clear that in some respects the outcome of the
Association’s work in preparing for the 2006 Battle
was a disappointment:
(1) in the eyes of some members of Council, the initiative
to improve the marketing of the Battle did not achieve
the desired results;
(2) the choice of a celebrity to attend the parade was made notwithstanding
the misgivings of some members of Council and has led
to criticism and complaint,
(3 the attempt to make corporate hospitality facilities available
led to embarrassment for the Council and a material
loss for the Association rather than the surplus that
was anticipated; and
(4) the Association may have suffered a material loss partly through
the failure of corporate hospitality income to materialise
and partly through carelessly incurred liabilities. This loss will have been incurred notwithstanding
the increased grant made available by the Department.
69. However, whilst recognising that some disappointments
have occurred, it is worthwhile to recognise that some
things went well:
(1) many have commented that the parade was an impressive
spectacle and that the atmosphere was excellent;
(2) the carnival improvements arranged with the assistance of
Jersey Arts Centre and funded by the Department’s grant
appear to have been a widely appreciated success;
(3) the re-decoration of the arena arches and the arena banners
appear to have been appreciated; and
(4) although the final results are not yet available, the sampling
of the audience’s reactions appears to suggest that
the parade was well-received.
70. Against this background, I will now turn to
my analysis of factors which led to disappointment.
Factor
1: For some tasks, the Association relied inappropriately
upon people who did not have the necessary skills and
experience
71. I believe that this is evident in three areas:
(1) the appointment of marketing consultants;
(2) the invitation of a celebrity; and
(3) the organisation of corporate hospitality facilities.
Marketing
consultants
72. It is evident from the Association’s management
of the search for marketing consultants that the Council
did not have a clear view of the marketing services
which it needed or of the difference between marketing
and public relations advice. Nor did the Association
demonstrate that it knew how best to manage consultants
once they had been appointed.
Celebrity
73. In a number of respects, Mr Roberts’ handling
of the celebrity initiative was unsatisfactory.
74. For example, before the Council meeting on
13 July 2006 at which consideration was given to the
proposal to invite Mr Wright to attend Battle, Mr Roberts
had issued an invitation and proposal to Mr Wright’s
agent. Although Council then deferred its decision for
a week, Mister Roberts failed to alert the agent to
the delay. Mr Roberts even failed to react when the
invitation and offer were accepted on 18 July 2006,
two days before the meeting to which Council had deferred
its decision. Mr Roberts was not at the Council meeting
at which the proposal to invite Mr Wright was turned
down but he failed to take the elementary precaution
of checking the outcome: he continued to discuss detailed
arrangements with Mr Wright’s agent. Only when he received
the minutes of the meeting on 25 July 2006, did he warn
the agent that there was a problem. He then appears
to have ignored telephone calls from Mr Wright’s agent
and began discussion of alternative celebrities with
other agencies (who shared this news with Mr Wright’s
agent thus compounding the growing difficulty of the
relationship between Upfront and Mr Roberts).
75. In these circumstances, it may not be surprising
that Mr Wright’s agent has claimed a fee from the Association.
76. This problem arose because of Mr Roberts’ poor
business practice. Mr Roberts’ answer to this, as I
have shown in section 3, is that he thought it was inconceivable
that Council would turn down his proposal. That was
an error of judgement.
77. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that
Council’s reliance upon Mr Roberts in this area of responsibility
was misplaced.
Corporate
hospitality
78. As far as I can discover, all of the responsibility
for organisation of corporate hospitality facilities
was left with Mr Roberts once he had taken responsibility
for it. This included responsibility for the sale of
tickets and for the administrative work that accompanied
the sale of tickets. It even extended to the organisation
of the marquee and planning seating in the marquee.
79. In the event, it became clear that by his reports
to Council meetings, Mr Roberts had encouraged expectations
of sale of corporate hospitality tickets and of his
capability to organise an event on the scale which he
had led people to expect which were simply not realised.
Factor
2: The Council and its Officers continued to rely upon
individuals even when there was evidence that their
reliance may have been misplaced.
80. As I have explained above, Mr Roberts was allowed
to take responsibility for the whole of the organisation
of the corporate hospitality facilities including such
detailed matters as the administration of ticket sales
and marquee seating plans. I am clear that Mr Roberts
would readily have said that he would undertake this
work. However, the volume of work that would have been
involved would have been substantial in view of the
number of people whom Mr Roberts had led the Council
to believe had bought tickets. On its own, this should
have led the Council to question whether it was wise
to allow a single person to take on this burden. In
view of the risk to the Association’s reputation and
its finances if there had been a major failure, it would
have been wise to insist that the administration of
ticket sales and the marquee should have been a task
for the Association’s office staff.
81. I realise that Mr Roberts may have resisted
this; but in my view the Council and its Officers have
an obligation to ensure that preparation for Battle
is properly managed and that the good name of Battle
is not endangered by volunteers who over-extend themselves.
Factor
3: Weaknesses in the Association’s corporate governance
practices and its internal financial controls magnified
the effects of these misjudgements.
82. The willingness to rely upon individuals to
an unreasonable extent and the unwillingness to intervene
when it appears that reliance may be unwise, were in
my view compounded by weaknesses in the corporate governance
practices within the Council.
83. In sections 5 and 6 of this report I will set
out the results of my detailed analysis of the strengths
and weaknesses of the Association’s corporate governance
practices and internal financial controls. In my view,
the preparation for the 2006 Battle was made more difficult
by the effect a number of key weaknesses:
(1) a failure by the Officers to ensure that key posts are filled
effectively. Most importantly, the failure to appoint
a Treasurer for the three years before 2005/2006 coupled
with an acceptance that the Executive Officer should
also discharge the responsibilities of a Treasurer was
unfortunate.
(2) a failure by the Council and the Officers to ensure that the
Executive Officer was held properly accountable for
his actions. The fact that for some years the Executive
Officer also discharged the functions of a Treasurer
was a serious weakness in arrangements for the Council’s
supervision of the office’s activities. It also created
the possibility that the eventual appointment of a Treasurer
might be contentious.
(4) an acceptance that all spending decisions are subject to the
veto of the Executive Officer (he signs all cheques:
even those drawn in favour of himself, although a counter
signature is required for certain payments) whilst not
all spending decisions appear to be the subject of review
by Council.
(5) the use of sub-committees (which in some cases consisted of
a single person) to undertake particular functions with
a considerable degree of freedom and autonomy. No minutes
are kept of sub-committee meetings although reports
are expected at each Council meeting.
Factor
4: These weaknesses were in turn exacerbated by personal
animosity between some members of the Council.
84. In the chronology in section 3 I have indicated
instances in which the orderly conduct of the Association’s
business was hampered by unsatisfactory relationships.
I will not repeat them here.
85. Inevitably, current personal relationships
are affected by memories of past exchanges. I am aware
that some members of Council recalled that Mr Roberts
had been a member of council on a previous occasion.
They also remembered the unsatisfactory circumstances
which led him to feel obliged to resign. These memories
undoubtedly affected Mr Roberts’ relationship with some
other members of the Council.
Factor
5: A failure by the Minister to ensure that the terms
on which he offered further grants had been discussed
with the Department’s officials and that they were then
properly recorded, defined and applied. In addition,
the Department did not make good this failure to record
and define the terms of the Minister’s offers. This
contributed to the Council’s understanding that by accepting
the grants it was obliged to take certain initiatives.
86. As I have indicated in section 3, the terms
on which the additional amounts of £50,000 and £45,000
were offered by the Minister were not defined in writing
(other than in the somewhat unsatisfactory form of Mr
de Carteret’s letter dated 25 February 2006 which did
not deal with the invitation to a celebrity which was
linked to the offer of £45,000). The Council and its
Officers understood that in return for funds being made
available, they were being asked to take a number of
steps which they would not have taken on their own.
In particular, they understood that in return for the
advance of the final amount of £45,000 they were expected
to invite a celebrity to attend the parade.
87. Senator Ozouf has told me that it was not his
intention that inviting a celebrity should be a condition
of accepting this sum although it was certainly envisaged
that an attempt would be made to find a suitable person.
88. Unfortunately, the lack of clarity left room
for the Council to misunderstand what was intended.
This contributed to the Council’s persistence in seeking
a celebrity at a very late stage when the effect of
a celebrity’s attendance upon the potential audience
could not have been other than negligible.
89. I also note that the payments were made in
spite of the fact that the Association had not complied
with the undertakings it had given to implement proper
corporate governance arrangements and to raise money
by way of corporate sponsorship.
Mr
Roberts’ complaints
90. In discussing these issues with me, Mr Roberts
made a number of criticisms of the Council’s conduct
which I presume were intended in part as answers to
the criticisms which others had made of him. They concerned:
(1) Mr Roberts’ status as a cheque signatory;
(2) Mr Roberts’ access to the financial records of the Association;
(3) Mr Roberts’ proposals for the improvement of the association’s
financial controls;
(4) corporate hospitality tickets; and
(5) communication of the outcome of the Council meeting on 20
July 2006 (ie the decision concerning Mr Wright).
91. I have considered all of these matters.
Cheque
signatory
92. Mr Roberts’ complaint is that he was not added
to the Association’s bank mandate to become a cheque
signatory as was proper.
93. I agree with Mr Roberts that he should have
been recognised as a cheque signatory in accordance
with the Association’s constitution. I also agree that
his name was not added and that this was unsatisfactory.
I note that the omission to correct the bank mandate
does not appear to have caused practical difficulties
until mid-August. I also note that the failure to amend
the bank mandate meant that the deposit to confirm the
celebrities’ contract was eventually paid from Mr Avery’s
personal bank account because a necessary second signatory
could not be found.
Access
to the Association’s financial records
94. Mr Roberts has told me that Mr Avery did not
allow him to have access to the Association’s financial
records which were maintained on a computer using a
Sage accounting software package. This is not to say
that Mr Avery provided Mr Roberts with no financial
information at all. Mr Roberts has told me that on the
day of each Council meeting, Mr Avery would send him
a copy of a print out of accounts balances in the Association’s
ledger so that Mr Roberts could prepare a report and
financial summary for the Council meeting. Mr Roberts
has told me that this inconvenienced him as he had little
time in which to prepare his report and no chance of
asking questions of Mr Avery when he needed explanations
of the balances.
95. Mr Avery tells me that he provided accounting
information to Mr Roberts in the manner chosen by Mr
Roberts and that Mr Roberts did not express any dissatisfaction.
I have searched the Council’s minutes and can find no
suggestion that Mr Roberts reported any dissatisfaction
about this matter to any meeting of the Council.
96. At least one other member of Council has told
me that Mr Roberts’ financial reports were not entirely
helpful and discussed the issue with him. In that conversation,
Mr Roberts made no reference to any problems he may
have experienced in obtaining accounting information
from Mr Avery.
97. If Mr Roberts considered that he was being
hampered in his proper duties as Treasurer by a failure
on Mr Avery’s part to make available necessary information
or to provide necessary access to records, Mr Roberts
should have raised this matter firstly with his fellow
Officers (ie Mr Pallot and Mr John Farley) and secondly
with Council.
Improvements
to the Association’s financial controls
98. Mr Roberts has told me that when he became
Treasurer, he visited the Association’s auditors and
its bankers. As a result of his conversations with them,
Mr Roberts told me that he made various suggestions
to Mr Pallot and Mr Avery for improvements in the Association’s
financial controls (eg a change in the value of cheques
for which a single signatory would be required) which
they dismissed.
99. I have asked Mr Pallot and Mr Avery for their
recollection of this conversation. They both separately
denied that such a conversation took place.
100.
I
have asked the Association’s auditors for their recollection
of Mr Roberts’ visit. They recall that the conversation
did not cover control issues. I have made a similar
enquiry of the Association’s bankers who recall that
the conversation in quest
