I find it pretty amazing that they respond with a social media policy that was apparently promulgated after the fact. Where was the Board or the Committee of Management before?
This probably should probably not be a witch hunt but rather might be a chance for a minority to make a point to several levels of management at JFA.
The JFA Code of Conduct https://assets.imgstg.com/assets/console/document/documents/JFA%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf
address the responsibilities of the Board:
"2. The Primary Role of the Board and Directors (Committee of Management – CoM)
The primary function of the CoM (in accordance with the JFA Constitution) is to manage the
business of JFA. 'The Board is ultimately accountable for the performance of the
organisation’ (p8 ASC – Governing Sport – the role of the Board, 2005).'
6. Organisational Risk Responsibilities
Risk management is the means by which the CoM and management ensure that the risks faced do
not result in significant loss or harm to the organisation.
Risk is an inevitable and unavoidable component in organisational growth and development,
providing both opportunities and potential threats to the health of the organisation.
CoM members should have a broad appreciation of the risks facing the organisation and the
likelihood of occurrence together with the potential impact of these should they occur.
The CoM will ensure that a risk management plan for the organisation is developed, implemented-
The risk management plan will include as a minimum, identification, assessment and a plan of
action for risks in the following areas:
─ human resources
─ client/athlete/coach/officials/volunteers harm (member protection)
─ stakeholder relations
─ occupational health and safety
─ harm or loss of physical assets
8. Stakeholder Responsibility
Stakeholders are those groups and individuals who benefit in some material way from the
existence of the organisation.
CoM members will operate on the principle that the information and wisdom of stakeholders in
and around the organisation is a valuable commodity which CoM members need to appreciate
CoM members acknowledge that there are three key groups of stakeholders:
─ Stakeholders who are legal owners – ie members as identified in the constitution;
─ Stakeholders who are moral owners – ie those people for whom the organisation exists
but who cannot exercise the same rights as members. This may include athletes, coaches,
officials and others involved with, or with an interest in, the sport;
─ Stakeholders with whom the organisation has a business relationship – ie those
individuals, companies or entities with whom the organisation establishes a contractual
9. Moral Responsibilities
CoM members, as trustees of the organisation, have a moral duty to the sport. This involves
presenting their organisation and the sport it represents in a positive and ethical manner.
The CoM has a moral obligation to consider matters on the basis of equity and transparency and
in the interests of the sport as a whole and not in preference to any one or more classes of
(a) CoM members are required to exercise a reasonable degree of care and diligence in the
exercise of their powers and discharge of their duties. In addition, they are expected to
exhibit honesty, loyalty and candour in their relationships with JFA and with each
(b) A CoM member has an obligation to be independent in judgement and actions and
take all reasonable steps to be satisfied as to the soundness of all decisions taken by the
(c) CoM members are required to observe and comply with the relevant laws of the
Commonwealth of Australia and each if its State and Territories (where applicable)
and, whilst travelling elsewhere in the performance of their functions of office, the relevant
laws of the country in which they are travelling.
(d) CoM members have a duty to behave in such a manner that they do not bring JFA’s
or the sport of judo in Australia’s reputation into disrepute. This duty involves
adherence to JFA’s own Complaints Tribunal requirements for good conduct and
the Australian Sports Commission Codes for Good Sportsmanship for players,
coaches, parents and spectators.
The solution may lie in the Compliants Tribunal:
14. COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal shall, in conformity with any rules of procedure that may be
prescribed in these By-laws, be responsible for investigating all matters provided
for in clause 13 of the constitution and 14.1 of these By-laws and hearing and
adjudicating upon all appeals against the decisions of the management committee
of a member organisation or officials thereof.
The Tribunal shall act according to equity and good conscience without regard to
technicalities or legal forms and is not bound by the rules of evidence but may
inform itself on any matter as it sees fit.
14.1. Matters which may be referred for determination by the Complaints Tribunal.
14.1.1. An allegation (not being vexatious, trifling, frivolous or a member
protection matter) by a complainant that a member organisation, an
officer of the Federation, an affiliate, individual member, life
member or any other person has:
a) Breached, failed, refused or neglected to comply with a provision
of the Constitution, the By-laws or any resolution or
determination of the Board or entity exercising delegated
b) Acted in a manner unbecoming a member organisation or
prejudicial to the objects and interests of the Federation and/or
c) Brought the Federation or Judo into disrepute.
So, the Board or the Committee of Management punished Mr. Underpants, but whoever made the decisions to engage the specific entertainment that seems to have folks upset, seemingly bringing the 'Federation or Judo into disrepute' have not been disciplined. Also, who on the site allowed Mr. Underpants to carry on like that for 3-5min? He should have been disciplined on the spot for simply prancing about half naked, much less roaming the edges of the competition area. That official failed his responsibility, too.
It seems that someone, either the CoM or someone accountable to the CoM, failed to take into account adequately risk and stakeholder relations. The risk was to reputation, which all are specifically enjoined to take into account. The stakeholder relations issue comes up when the entertainment and lots of alcohol was offensive to a number of primary and secondary stakeholders.
Note that the Federation recognizes three classes of stockholders: legal owners (i.e., members), moral owners (e.g., associated people like coaches, families, etc.), and business partners, importance in that sequence.
So, if you can organize some 'legal owners' and 'moral owners' to make a formal complaint, according to the bylaws etc, you must get their attention. The charges might be failing to recognize the risk involved in risqué entertainment, alcohol at a public family event, bringing the sport and Federation into disrepute, etc.
The decision of the Board or CoM was to punish Mr Underwear and call it over; that decision could seemingly be challenged through the Compliants Tribunal to make the point that the entire situation should never have been allowed to happen, was handled incorrectly on the spot, and the cover-up and social media policy both inadequate responses.
If they fail to adhere to their own by-laws and code of conduct then I'm sure there is another legal recourse if someone has the time and money to pursue.