Fletcher Building kicks off board changes, seeks construction experience

Kathryn Spargo and John Judge are departing Fletcher's board

Fletcher Building has started to refresh its boardroom with the departure of two directors and says it wants their replacements to have construction and contracting experience.

Director John Judge, who is chair of the board's audit & risk committee, will end a nine-year tenure at the company's annual meeting next month and Kathryn Spargo, who joined in 2012, will retire immediately, the Auckland-based company said in a statement. That leaves the Fletcher board with six directors, and it has started a process "to extend its skills and experience, particularly in the area of construction and contracting," the company said.

Last month, Fletcher chairman Ralph Norris said the board would be refreshed as part of a normal rotation when fronting the company's annual results after chief executive Mark Adamson was dumped. Profit slumped after two major construction projects blew out, although the rest of Fletcher's workbook is seen having positive margins.

Norris today said Mr Judge made a "significant contribution" during his time, while Spargo had particular input in the company's health and safety governance.

Bruce Hassall will assume the chair of the audit and risk committee while Cecilia Tarrant will take over the chair of the safety, health and environment & sustainability committee.

Fletcher shares last traded at $8.17 and have dropped 23% so far this year, compared with a 13% gain for the benchmark S&P/NZX 50 Index.

(BusinessDesk)


19 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.


This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

19 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Looks like more bad news coming
Article headline a Tui Billboard

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

About time Fletchers shareholders John Judge has created a train wreck wherever he's gone. ACC being an example of this.

As for Kathryn Spargo, there doesn't seem to have been limited governance at Fletchers, which apparently was her specialty.

Directors, for the most part, seem to be littered with mates and so called expert consultants who have no hands on experience.

The best advice I could give potential shareholders is do due diligence on the board members before you invest. It seems that a lot are there that shouldn't be.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Should the refresh start at the top?

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

I agree with the previous comments.
Fletcher needs to learn names mean nothing it is the experience and commitment that counts.
Most of the fletcher board have been there to eat there lunch and a bloody expensive one at that.
Fletcher have got a long long way to go before they could even begin to show their face around the place.
Norris needs to step down or get pushed.
He is grossly over paid....under worked and over estimated in his skills.
This outfit has cost investors millions that will never been clawed back and it has all happened on Norris's watch.
The total hands on experience is nil.
As for Judge, I would say as above his history is creating train wrecks wherever he can and the hanging around to watch the carnage.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

It just further proves that the current governance model of relying on people who are Institute of Directors trained and groomed does not work - you end up with excellent process but limited skills

Boards should be a blend of IOD members and actual experience with experience in the sector being more important. Currently most directors are IOD academics/professionals

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Your ignorance has no bounds. I think you should direct your comments to The Socialist Worker.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

I agree scribe. Too often over many years I have seen proffesional directors choosing direction for businesses without having any idea of the impact it will have on the companies market, customers or the staff.

Industry experience is under rated at a directors level but then why would you want someone who knows what they are talking about on the board who could potentially see a lot of pitfalls in your ideas.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Too little too late. Last two CEOs appointments have been a disaster. Lack of oversight by Board and Audit and Risk Committee due to lack of internal controls processes and procedures led to the construction debacles.

I have seen better governance at the local tennis club than at FBU. This Board is a legend in its own lunch time.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

The continued arrogance of the Chair Mr Norris is plain for all to see, he should have been first to go and hopefully will be helped on his way at the AGM

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Wanted.... New snouts for the trough. Old ones full now.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 1

They need a new CEO by the name of Stanley....and appoint Directors whose skill-sets are learnt from De Walt.

Just saying.........

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Two comments re FC, firstly in answer to Scribe (above), to suggest that membership of any organisation (IOD, etc.) is an identifier of ones, either tacit, or explicit knowledge and experience, being sufficient so as to add value on a board such as FC's is misguided.

Secondly, in all the discussion of performance, I note that no mention of a review of the boards performance has been mentioned. The last two years annual reports say, that a review was carried out, great. But no indication of the findings or follow-up actions were identified. Incidentally, the differences between the two annual report statements, consisted of; "..in mid-2016" being changed to "..during the year," and "...packs" being changed to "...papers." Other than that it was a cut and paste!

Clearly since they have now recognised that "skills and experience" are important and they need them. One would think, that this would have been identified in their previously carried our reviews. Obviously it wasn't, or the changes in board composition would have occurred.

This leads to the next natural conclusion, that the review brief was either too narrow, or the review was poorly structured and carried out.

Furthermore given the surprises regarding the culture of FC that have surfaced. It can only be surmised that the review was heavy biased on compliance and weak on behavioural governance, e.g. how the board and executive collaborate as a team, displaying synergy, trust and confidence in one another. The Dutch corp-governance code has recently been updated to include the need to have behavioural governance elements as a core component of their board reviews.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Comment by all means, but is the FCIS, and FGNZ really needed? Don't you think that you may be seen as coming across as a bit too full of yourself. After all your not the only person in the world that has a degree or two.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

actually they need to draw on the within as therein is a whole lot of intelligencein that Co thats never been tapped properly.The answer is so close they cant see it and thats why they are overlooking that resource.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Norris HAS TO GO !!! The guy is a lame duck. The latest issues at Sky City, and the hidden issues on the Kapiti HWay. Norris has had massive losses in the Courts at the hands of an ex son in law who took him on and won - he's been under a cloud for a long time.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

What is the process to enable me to apply for a board postion?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Written and verified proof of incompetence for a start.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

A fondness for High Tea?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Being a top bobber & weaver masquerading as a shaker & mover
Top 5 consulting firms on speed dial
New expensive car
Went to a particular school

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.6966 0.0028 0.40%
AUD 0.8922 0.0033 0.37%
EUR 0.5929 0.0025 0.42%
GBP 0.5275 0.0014 0.27%
HKD 5.4338 0.0208 0.38%
JPY 78.9240 -0.2450 -0.31%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1278.6 -9.430 2017-10-20T00:
Oil Brent 57.8 0.550 2017-10-20T00:
Oil Nymex 51.9 0.580 2017-10-20T00:
Silver Index 17.0 -0.177 2017-10-20T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 8124.1 8142.3 8124.1 0.07%
NASDAQ 6633.4 6640.0 6605.1 0.36%
DAX 13014.6 13069.4 12991.3 0.09%
DJI 23205.2 23328.8 23163.0 0.71%
FTSE 7523.2 7542.0 7523.2 0.02%
HKSE 28557.8 28557.8 28487.2 -0.64%
NI225 21457.6 21696.7 21457.6 1.11%
ASX 5907.0 5925.3 5907.0 -0.22%