Breandán, perhaps you should get some of your facts straight. I think you should come out and say that the only details you know are those that are being fed to you by your paymasters. You have so many inaccuracies that I could not correct them line by line and still give a sense of what actually happened.

Your posting of 25 Mar 08 - 12:36 PM
You say there were cost overruns of 2 million euro. UNTRUE. It was known that there would be a shortfall of approx. 1.8 million euro. Labhrás was aware that a bank loan for this amount would be required and a loan was negotiated with the bank for this amount with Labhrás' approval and encouragement- perhaps, he forgot to tell you.

I assume the reason the contractors were ringing head office is because it was a head office employee who was managing the project. Is this who you refer to when you speak about stonewalling?

At a branch EGM to which Labhrás and members of the Buanchoiste turned up, a motion was put forward by the branch calling on the Branch committee and Comhaltas to work together to resolve the difficulties. Only 2 people voted against this motion with no abstentions.

The successful EGM motion was sent to HO and it was hoped by the branch that we could move forward together.

At this stage, Comhaltas HQ started spinning their story. They sent a series of letters in which the truth was distorted (for instance claiming that the branch was divided at the EGM). In hindsite, I think the branch should have more fiercely rebutted the allegations made but we were still hoping that we could work with Head Office to resolve the problem. Although we stated our case to the Buanchoiste, they refused to pass our correspondence to the other Ardchomhairle members or to allow us to present our case.

On 5th Feb, a letter was sent by HO stating that they were taking control of Clasac.

Once HO took control of Clasac, it meant that the entity registered for VAT, had to deregister as, in effect, it had never and would never trade. The VAT refund then had to be returned to the Revenue Commissioners.

On 6th Feb, a letter was sent by HO stating that the branch had been suspended for failing to transfer a VAT refund to a HO account.

The branch was given seven days to 'regularise its position in relation to the VAT refund'. As far as the branch was concerned, the position was regularised by returning the VAT to the Revenue Commissioners. HO were informed of same and the branch received a letter from Revenue stating that we had done the right thing in the circumstances.

The branch was told at all times that the reason for suspension and threat of dissolution was because of the VAT. As far as we were concerned, we had taken the only course available to us because of the fact that the Ardchomhairle had taken control of the Clasac project.

Breandán, you say that 'some members of the branch who know what's going on have formed a new committee'. If they knew what was going on, why did they not enlighten any of the other members of the branch at the number of full branch meetings which have been held since the New Year? Also, you failed to state that the committee was formed when a new Cluain Tarbh branch was created before the existing committee or branch had even been notified that they had been dissolved. This new branch was formed at a secret meeting to which the majority of the existing members were not invited and when some members found out about it they were informed that they could not attend as it was a 'private meeting'. Now, there's democracy in action! On the Liveline Radio program, the newly elected chairperson claimed that they had a quorum. I take it, by that, there were five people there which is the number required to set up a new branch.

A letter was then circulated by a member of the Ardchomhairle basically stating that they would give membership to our kids if they entered competitions on behalf of the new branch. The rest of the membership would not be entitled to branch membership, presumably because that would also entitle them to a vote.

Breandán. You say that the VAT refund is a side issue. Why then was the branch dissolved over this? I realise that we were not allowed to present any defense in the matter, also that we were not allowed to appeal any of the decisions made against us, but now you say that it didn't matter whether or not we complied with the Trustee's directive on VAT because we were going to be dissolved anyway.

You say that you believe that the 'Clontarf membership' would have no objections to continuing the project more or less as originally envisaged.

Are you referring to the disenfranchised members of the dissolved Clontarf branch. If so, I tell you again that what we asked of the Ardchomhairle in our EGM motion was that they work with us to ensure the project be completed successfully and the board of Clasac be put in place as per the original agreement.

Their response was to dissolve the branch.

In your posting of 25 Mar 08 - 03:21 PM, you do actually have some statements which are true. Once again though, you're not telling the full truth and in many cases there is no truth in what you say.. You state that a loan could not be borrowed against the land. You fail to state that the loan which had been negotiated by the branch was to be borrowed against the building itself and was ringfenced so that no other assets of Comhaltas would be at risk. Therefore, because the building is vested in the Trustees of Comhaltas, they were the only people who could sign for the loan. Labhrás/the Trustees refused to do this and instead wanted individuals in the branch to put their homes up as collateral.

With regard to the letter of dissolution, you say that it was sent out in the usual way in plenty of time.
The letters of 5th and 6th Feb regarding seizure of control of Clasac and suspension/possible dissolution of the branch were sent by registered post to both the secretary and chairman of the branch. In most other cases, letters were copied to both the chairman and secretary and in many cases were also emailed.

On this occasion, the letter dissolving the branch was not considered important enough to send by registered post. Nor was it deemed necessary to copy it to the chairman. Despite us being told initially that a copy would be emailed, we were later informed that this was not considered appropriate. Instead, the letter was sent out by standard post. Oh, did I mention that they sent it to the wrong address? But, of course, you'd know that Breandán because you have the inside track.

To the best of my knowledge, apart from Labhrás threatening to sue, there was no correspondence between HO and Joe Duffy's show other than to send the letter of dissolution to them. The letter, by the way, stated that the branch was dissolved with effect from the date of the letter (14th March) despite numerous assurances to us that the branch would not be dissolved until the letter had been received.

This conveniently allowed HO people to set up the new branch with their own committee on the 15th before we had been notified of our dissolution.

You refer to the moratorium. HO's letter of 6th Feb states clearly that the moratorium was to allow us the opportunity to sort out the VAT refund. Are you telling us that what they said in their letter was untrue?

When you talk about the new committee, you say that once the branch is in place, others will be free and encouraged to join it.
Why then have they only offered membership to our kids?
Why would they wait until October to offer membership to others?

I believe the reason to be that they are in cahoots with head office to get their members on the board of Clasac so that Labhrás can say he has abided by the agreement on that. The members who set up the new branch are basically those members who voted in favour of the Ardchomhairle motion that Cluain Tarbh hand control of Clasac to HO. When they didn't get their way, their friends in HO helped them out by dissolving the branch and allowing them to set up a new branch with themselves as the self-appointed committee. Isn't democracy wonderful!

You say that the decision to dissolve the Clontarf Branch was made by two elected boards: Dublin County Board and the Ardchomhairle of Comhaltas.
Clontarf Branch was dissolved by the Ardchomhairle. I doubt the County Board had any hand in it other than being informed that we were being dissolved.
Any decision made by the Ardchomhairle was not an informed decision as we were not allowed to present our case to them and the Buanchoiste refused to pass our correspondence to them.
Dublin County Board were instructed not to hear our case or accept our correspondence and were also instructed not to allow our reps to attend the County Board meeting.

You continually assert that you are not trying to muddy the waters but you make vague sweeping statements implying things that are not so. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to pretend you do. If you do know what you're talking about, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

For anyone interested in the truth, I would urge you to check out the branch website www.cluaintarbh.net

We are trying to put as much info as possible on the website including copies of documents. However, as we don't work at this full time, you may have to bear with us.