Declan, I don't mind at all answering the questions that you raise:

1. "Who was actually running the project?"

Clasaċ is a Comhaltas project, but one initiated and run by the branch. The branch took responsibility for the running of the construction project, initial marketing of the centre, getting a management board in place, etc. They accomplished this through the working of a sub-committee. One member of this committee also worked in Comhaltas head office, mostly on unrelated projects, and in fact he also worked extremely hard on Clasaċ day-to-day. (Full disclosure: he's a friend of mine.) However, he was not in any of the committee executive positions (chairman, secretary or treasurer). Bills were paid through Comhaltas because the government grant was subvented through Comhaltas' grant-aid. Comhaltas would pay the bill (including VAT), get appropriate certifications and submit the invoice to Government, who provided reimbursement.

2. "Why did HQ become so exercised about the VAT refund being returned to Revenue instead of to them?"

Because VAT was already being reimbursed by one Government department (Arts/Tourism), it was completely inappropriate for the branch to independently apply for reimbursement of the same money through another department (Revenue). When the branch made this application using a newly-registered non-Comhaltas VAT number, the Revenue returned the money (we're not sure why - there's a Revenue investigation under way.) Once this was learned, the Department of Sport/Tourism directed Comhaltas to recover this money from the branch and forward it back to the department to avoid double-funding. Comhaltas complied with the government directive by requesting the money back from the branch, which refused. This refusal to recognise the authority of the Ardchomhairle was deemed a serious matter. The money was eventually returned to Revenue directly, but this decision was made independently by the branch, again not respecting the directive of Arts/Tourism.

3. Why did the trustees have a problem with guaranteeing the loan negotiated by the Classac committee?

The loan was presented in Dec 2007, at least 10 months after the need became obvious. The branch should have known that there was no way to "ring-fence" a loan around the Clasaċ building itself; the terms of the original grant-aid required that if the centre failed the Department of Arts/Tourism would be the first to be paid back. The bank would not have allowed itself to be the "second in line" in a default scenario, and the bank would insist on other Comhaltas assets being in play. The Comhaltas trustees couldn't have signed such an agreement without having direct control over how the money was being spent and still meet their responsibilities. If the branch had done their research (and had talked to the trustees at one of the many opportunities over the year), they would have known that such a loan request, brought by the branch at the 11th hour, would be rejected.

(5.) "We are now bing told that it is good for democracy that the committee chosen by the Branch (I presume) is being replaced by a "better" committee, chosen by HQ."

The new committee was not "chosen by HQ". When the original committee was dissolved as a last-resort measure, some more experienced hands within the branch organised themselves into a committee and applied for membership to the Dublin County Board as a branch of Comhaltas. This new committee has committed to holding a number of open meetings with the full membership in the coming months. The former committee was the one acting in a non-democratic way by not allowing the membership of Clontarf to meet and discuss these issues in a public way, at least not until the very last minute when things were already in crisis. One reason that the committee was dissolved, in fact, is that they failed to hold meetings in a timely manner involving the full membership of the branch. Non-payment of vendors, besides being an example of extremely poor management, was also deemed to put Comhaltas in disrepute.