Geoff Stoddart prepared the following feature in response to the CISNOC saga that is currently unfolding. He has a vested interest in the sporting federation and says he wants to see the board step up to the plate and make a change for the benefit of sportspeople in the Cook Islands. Stoddart is a chartered accountant and a sportsman with international connections in triathlon and the IOC.

Everyone with even a passing interest knows that I have taken an interest in the affairs of CISNOC in recent years. I have stood up and asked questions at the last two annual general meetings only to get criticised, interrupted and cut off by chairman Sir Geoffrey Henry.

I knew throughout that there was financial trouble looming and of course the time has arrived for all to see and hear about it.

I spoke up at the August 2011 family meeting when the South Pacific Games funding crisis was added to the woes. Sadly those at the head table of CISNOC have not been able to accept that the questioning and observations I put forward were designed to help.

I explicitly said so at the 2010 AGM of CISNOC.

It takes recognition and acceptance of problems before solutions can occur. To claim otherwise is a head in the sand mentality.

CISNOC describes the calling of the meeting as a serious attack, which is symptomatic of the board not facing reality. Rather than an attack, it was a justified call for a review of the performance of the board and an examination of its financial position.

Naming people who have been involved in calling the meeting was the usual going personal. Its not a secret, but going personal tarnishes all board members.

My style has been to write feature articles for CI News with my name attached and there is a record of me writing half- to full-page features on topics such as the economy, superannuation and withholding tax.

I have also openly given commentary and quotes to CI News after the last two CISNOC AGMs.

So there is no secret about my endeavours. My commentaries have been well-received by the readership and those listening at the meetings but not by some of the board.

Here follows my historical recount of the troubles afflicting CISNOC at the present time.

The accounts were presented at short notice to those attending the meeting. In fact they were only placed on the desks for representatives as they arrived and therefore no one had time to study and digest them except I had gone in to the office and demanded a copy seven hours before the meeting. The non-production of accounts 7 seven days before did not meet By Law 2(7) of the CISNOC constitution which requires that the Board shall circulate all reportsfor consideration.not less than 7 seven days prior to the date of the meeting. Was this good governance? Certainly not. Of course the accounts showed a deteriorating state of affairs and I saw it as an attempt to brush over it.

No budget for 2010 was presented for consideration at the AGM. It took me to point this out but it should have been something the board had under control. With half the year already over and no budget, it was obvious there was no control on spending. The minutes which were only reluctantly issued months later from that meeting read: The Financial Controller confirmed that no budget was in place however a draft budget is yet to be approved by the EB.

I warned that the position with insufficient income and/or growing expenditure on travel, wages, staff per diems and other increasing items in the P& L Account was indicative of trouble. I warned there would be an SPG windfall in 2010 because in 2009 over $300,000 extra had been tipped into operations by diversion of the SPG per diems.

The audit report by Garry Smith, chartered accountant, read:

The draft 2011 budget adopted by the Executive shows an operating deficit of $86,200. In view of the deficit in current assets, the uncertainty of the amount and timing of the Pacific Mini Games debt and the quantum of the budgeted deficit, I express my reservation that the committee may not be able to fund its financial obligations on a timely basis over the coming year.

As a result of the warning by the auditor, a revised downward spending budget was tabled at the AGM for acceptance. The biggest cost reduction item was a $73k reduction in payroll, however questions to CISNOC throughout this year have failed to get an answer as to whether the amended budget was implemented.

Earlier this year I was invited to speak at the 24th birthday lunch for CISNOC. I was invited to speak on behalf of codes. I described the ideal relationship between CISNOC and the sports codes as a two way one which needed communication and servicing from both sides.

I was thanked sincerely afterwards by the secretary-general Rosie Blake but I see CISNOC has not fulfilled its part. There has been no information emanating from CISNOC in respect of finance, adding of advisers, debt servicing or plans for the future. Questions by email or in person at the office have mostly been met with silence or criticism.

In spite of repeated requests in writing to the CISNOC office it has not been possible to get confirmation of what the current policies, eg for allsports funding, are.

This is unsatisfactory servicing of sports codes. Silence breeds suspicion and it is interesting to note that, Mr Baudinet the code representative on Allsports, was not consulted when the last round of funding was channelled to the Manea Games instead (to Air Raro mostly).

For the round before that one code got $15,000 out of the $29,000 distributed and to most people this appears inequitable. Certainly when the policy cant be explained there is no accountability.

Hence Miss Drollet being ordered onto the board by cabinet.

Written financial questions to the adviser to the board have also gone unanswered.

For the purposes of this article I refer to a document put together in November 2010 by CISNOC .

CISNOC names as the foundation of its philosophy strong leadership with effective, accountable and transparent means for governance and management and A financially strong and independent organisation with lucrative and marketable brand value. Note the word independent.

Next, in that same document, CISNOC promises Economic independence and sustainability and Financial transparency and accountability and Financial investment in and overall support for the growth of CI as a sporting nation and a Government which is engaged with the sports community.

I suggest CISNOC has been big on planning but very short on delivery. Lets have a look at how happenings in the year 2011 have met or not met these goals.

At the August family meeting (ie the special meeting cancelled when the troubles looked too big to handle) I asked the financial secretary what ability he thought CISNOC had to repay the $126k loan and he advised he did not know.

Sadly that reflected other pressures on the new financial secretary but it remains clear to me that there is no ability to repay it unless either a change in the operating system at CISNOC occurs or the monies which are intended for pay-out to sports are diverted back to government.

On lucrative and marketable brand value

I cant help but compare back to the massive failure of the marketing and sponsorship plans (these were documented) of the people who were employed in Rarotonga to get in money for the 2009 SPG. There should have been accountability for those in charge of that back in 2009 or at least an acceptance later that raising millions in sponsorship was unrealistic. Board member trips to New Zealand under the guise of NZ fundraising anyone? I suggest a realistic approach to CISNOC raising money in its own right needs to be taken in future.

Sir Geoffrey said this week that the CISNOC (Board) has nothing to hide. Whilst that is very debateable (they have been hiding the SPG per diem spending for over two years), I suggest it translates just as well to Board has nothing to be proud of.

The CISNOC President advised the financial secretary straight after the August SPG funding crisis meeting (where everyone was asked to sell more raffle tickets) that Stoddart is seldom wrong in reference to my advice of the inability to appoint Neves and Drollet to the board as cabinet wanted.

But it should not have required the likes of me to point that out. Not a single board member or adviser knew there was no room on the board. Clearly more knowledgeable people should be on the board when you see bungling moves like this.

Legal advice was taken which confirmed that yes, Stoddarts view was correct, so instead they switched to appointing Neves and Drollet as advisers.

There has been no announcement about this to codes. Again information flow has been non-existent. But I think there is still a surprise in store for the board in respect of the changed plan to appoint them as advisers.

When a financial crisis was clearly imminent at the time of the April 2011 AGM, the matter was discussed at the next board meetings.

However, the minutes show that important people were regularly absent from those meetings. Was that good governance?

On engaging government as described in their own goals did CISNOC get in a realistic budget bid for 2011 2012 to government for disaster relief or development? And on time? I suggest the answer was no. Was that good governance?

I saw another governance mistake mentioned in the local newspaper just yesterday. CISNOC reported that other agenda items may be added for the meeting. Its too late. Again, lack of familiarity with the rules is evident. The agenda for the meeting has been issued and no other items can be added. Meeting agendas require seven days notice (rule 3(2) of the constitution) so a point of order about that will be raised at the beginning.

The government has indicated it has no confidence in the executive by requiring its two nominees on the board (Cabinet minute 16 August # 11(0320) and Central Agencies Committee advice 15 August) for Cabinet to consider restructuring CISNOC.

I suggest there was doubt the current board would be committed to repaying the $126,000 loan without the financial secretarys pressure to do so. And government is not confident the Allsports money which is appropriated through Ministry of Internal Affairs can be paid to sports codes fairly without Miss Drollet overseeing it.

I say the executive of CISNOC have not met their own goals as shown above.

On October 7 Lydia Sijp, a CISNOC employee, told me this place needs help. That has been known for a while but what has been done about it?

On October 21 CI News reported that On behalf of government, (Richard) Neves has been tasked with leading an investigation into CISNOCs accounts.

With the pressure on through the calling of a members special meeting, Rosie Blake was quoted in CI News as saying Its been on our minds a lot. Well, what has been done about it? One report had it that the Minister of Finance was approached with the following plea: We will have to close the doors if we dont get some money.

What has happened to the promised allocation of US$500 per sports code for equipment from Olympic Solidarity on a four-year rotation basis? Has any one received the US$500 this year and if not why not? If the policy changed was there any advice to all sports codes about it? Transparency? Communication lacking?

CISNOC failed to apply for what is known as Continental Funding from the IOC in 2009 and this short-changed sports codes who might have benefited. Only enquiries by myself brought this to light for codes. It is ironic that with many board members having served for a long time, important tasks like this were overlooked. The Cook Islands was declined altogether in 2010.

Come on guys and girls on the board do some self assessment and think about the request in item number three on the meeting agenda and move to step down and retain some credibility. The Minister of Finance is hoping the sporting codes who have called the meeting can effect change and relieve him of the pain in doing so himself.

If the members calling for voluntary change in the management get swept aside or are not supported at voting, then the money troubles at CISNOC are back on the ministers plate for what is virtually a government organisation receivership.

I reiterate: the CAC recommended cabinet restructure CISNOC itself. There is more than one way of doing that but I will not expand here.

If change does not occur codes will only have themselves to blame for getting little or no money for their sporting associations and having continuing poor service, because the next few years will be mostly taken up repaying debt incurred in 2011.

The debt is made up of a $126k government loan, a $98k loan from the Trust Fund and at least a $50k overdraft at BCI which was the 1 January OD.

If change does not occur I will have discharged my duty as a concerned sports code representative and can carry on my running, cycling and swimming with a clear conscience.

I dont want a position on the board myself, but sporting codes should nominate any new people from within their ranks to give the new direction and responsible budgeting which is desperately needed. Again, the existing board should graciously concede that they have failed and offer to resign because they have run out if ideas if they ever had any.

Those who are to vote at the meeting need to do so with a clear conscience knowing that voting for what is right is more important than old friendships.