On Saturday 31 August 2013, you were interviewed on the ABC’s, Grandstand, and made the following comments:

Item 1: “All I would say is that I know of no other business where – for want of a better term – a divisional chief executive is charged with those sorts of behaviour, suspended for a year and as part of that said ‘we’ll keep your job open for when you come back and we’ll extend your contract for another two years.” 

My Comment:

1. “Divisional chief executive”, you are joking. I can’t imagine anyone else in big business in Australia making such a ridiculous comparison.
   
   
2. Essendon’s organisation chart indicated it had a board of directors, a chief executive and a football manager above Hird. In the Occupational Health and Safety stakes (legal responsibilities), which at this point in time is all the attacks on Hird should be about, Hird is a lowly foreman or site manager.
   
   
3. “Charged with those sorts of behaviour”. Which charge sheet are you referring to? To my knowledge, four charge sheets were tabled against Essendon and the four officials, and varied (collectively) from 34 pages to two pages.
   
   
4. You wouldn’t have found a judge anywhere in Australia who would not have kicked out the vast majority of charges before the ‘trial’ started. They were vexatious and it’s hard not to conclude they were created for PR purposes.
   
   
5. What behaviour are you referring to? You can’t be talking about anything to do with illegal drugs because ASADA hasn’t delivered its report yet. You must be talking about poor governance. “Behaviour” has sinister connotations and I’d never use that word in that context, particularly as the board of Essendon and the AFL failed to provide a safe work place and Andrew Demetriou told us ad nauseam how respectable they were.
   
   
6. Even in LA Law, Boston Legal and Perry Mason charges don’t equate to guilt, albeit the AFL certainly gave that impression to the fawning media.
   
   
7. My lawyer informed me that Hird didn’t plead and the AFL withdrew all charges. Hird signed a Deed of Settlement in which he agreed to a 12-month suspension or more precisely, he agreed to sit out for 12 months in the interests of his club.
   
   
8. You have conveniently forgotten that Hird, at great relief to the AFL, withdrew his Supreme Court action at the request / demand of Essendon chairman, Paul Little. In so doing, Hird sacrificed his reputation for the sake of his club. If Hird had not accepted a deal, I suspect his reputation would have been salvaged and the reputations of the presidents / chairmen of the 17 clubs would have been tarnished. In those circumstances, you should be grateful that Essendon offered Hird a two-year extension. 
   
   
9. If you were consistent you would be demanding the entire Essendon Board be kicked out indefinitely for failing its OH&S responsibilities. And for good measure, you would also be demanding Andrew Demetriou, Mike Fitzpatrick, Gillon McLachlan, Andrew Dillon and Brett Clothier received the same treatment.

Item 2: “Suffice it to say it would not have happened at Port Adelaide.”

My Comment:

1. You have already proved you are not a do-gooder by signing the statement released by the 17 presidents / chairmen after the charade on 22 August 2013, so this chest-beating is meaningless. 
   
   
2. If you are talking about the coach receiving a two-year extension to his contract for withdrawing Supreme Court action, which would have blown your club and the AFL to pieces, you are talking nonsense. On the one hand Demetriou talked about wanting an open hearing and wanting transparency and on the other he was trying to do deals for months. Hird temporarily has saved Demetriou’s job. In the same circumstances, I suspect every club would have been grateful to give the coach a two-year extension for such a sacrifice.
   
   
3. If you are talking about Port Adelaide complying with every aspect of the OH&S Act, then you would be able to have a meeting in a telephone box with the other clubs that were as vigilant.

Item 3: “If we were in that position I would have stood down at the very beginning and the coach would never coach at Port Adelaide again.” 

My Comment:

1. I wish you would state what you are referring to. You could mean drug allegations or you could be referring to poor governance. Let’s take the drug allegations first. You claim the coach would have been stood down and would never have coached at Port Adelaide again. What would have happened if the coach had been found not guilty? Sorry, I forgot. You equate charges with guilt and obviously don’t believe in hearings where natural justice is guaranteed.
   
   
2. If you are referring to poor governance and failure to provide a safe work place, given your self-righteousness, you and your fellow directors would have been out the door forever because the OH&S Act says the board is responsible for providing a safe work place, not the coach.

Item 4: “But a footy organisation has a real responsibility to the wider community to set a standard in leadership and integrity.”

My Comment:

1. The first responsibility a footy organisation (the AFL) has is to ensure its clubs provide a safe work place. It failed to do so at Essendon. The AFL met with Hird, instead of the chief executive, on 5 August 2011, and told him to stay away from a peptides program.  In a belated confession, AFL deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, told SEN Radio on 28 August that “The AFL dropped the ball by not monitoring the Essendon supplement program after advising coach James Hird to steer clear of using peptides in August 2011… The fact potentially though that we weren’t out there regularly monitoring is potentially a failing of the AFL.I don’t think that we can shirk it in every instance, I’m happy to take that on the chin in the sense that if we had gone out there every month and monitored it, then maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation.”
   
   
2. The first responsibility of a footy organisation (Essendon) is to ensure it provides a safe work place. I don’t think I have enough fingers and toes to count how many times the Essendon board breached the OH&S Act.
   
   
3. The second responsibility of a footy organisation (the AFL & Essendon) is to set a standard in leadership. Both organisations failed with respect to OH&S.
   
   
4. Both failed the leadership test in how to conduct a fair investigation.
   
   
5. The AFL failed to set a good example in how to lay charges; and how to conduct a fair hearing where the defendants were guaranteed natural justice.
   
   
6. Claims about providing integrity are laughable. Demetriou, the AFL Commissioners, the 17 presidents / chairmen; and the craven media are surely the only people who think Demetriou could be objective in judging Hird, and therefore was entitled to be on the jury and decide the punishment.
   
   
7. The 17 presidents / chairmen decided on the guilt without hearing Hird’s side of the story. Where is the justice or integrity in that?
   
   
8. Your comment in item 2 above, implies you were able to decide Hird’s ‘guilt’ back in February, where is the integrity in that?
   
   
9. Although a number of people may have broken the law with respect to leaking confidential information from the ASADA investigation, Mike Fitzpatrick wasn’t interested in enquiring into the leaks. Where is the integrity in that decision?

tem 5: “I don’t think its resentment (towards Essendon), I think we were shocked when we looked at some of the behaviours outlined,” he said, citing Essendon’s independent report into its own governance conducted by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski. You read that and you think, ‘goodness, it’s a club that got a bit out of control’.”

My Comment:

1. The Ziggy Switkowski Report was commissioned by Essendon for internal purposes. It should not have been used by the AFL to ‘hang’ Hird or Essendon. I hope the AFL contributed to the cost of the report!
   
   
2. The Executive Summary did not mention the AFL’s, OH&S responsibilities to ensure Essendon provided a safe work place. Consequently, it is not worth the paper it is written on.
   
   
3. The report did not identify that by law the ultimate responsibility for poor governance rested with the board, and is further reason why it should be thrown in the bin.
   
   
4. The report did not identify how many times the board breached the OH&S Act.
   
   
5. By my reading of the OH&S Act, and by my interpretation of my recent written communications with WorkSafe Victoria, the report didn’t recommend that Essendon should have self-reported to WorkSafe Victoria. It should have.
   
   
6. Essendon wasn’t out of control. It had no controls and that’s the fault of the Essendon board and the AFL, not James Hird.

Item 6: “(I asked him [Port Adelaide high performance manager Darren Burgess]) have you ever come across anything like this, (in) any sports organisation in the world?’ and he said ‘not even close’” 

My Comment:

1. Why was Darren Burgess shown the report?
   
   
2. It would help judge the veracity of these comments if you had told us how many sports organisations had given Burgess access to their OH&S compliance reports.
   
   
3. If we are talking about Switkowski’s apparent failure to address the AFL’s responsibilities, I too have never seen such a report. 
   
   
4. I have seen many organisations without OH&S manuals, which is why I have been paid to write them.
   
   

Bruce Francis